Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco? [Archive] - Page 3

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Jul 2008, 05:42

Actually, this the fight between BlueRay and VHS. We are now in the digital age, Mr Puff. And, technologically speaking, that is about the comparison of the standards of the two systems. An analog return from SSR or the digital information stream from ADS-B.

What you must question is whether multi-lateration, which must interogate from the ground as per SSR or UAT, which must interact with the ground on a separate system to the airline 1090ES, is the real BLUERAY? I say neither!

1090ES is classified as the world standard for use from the flight levels, oceanic and domestic world wide. The US are intending on running a dual system 1090ES for upper airspace and IFR traffic and UAT for GA traffic. Neither is compatable with the other unless within range of a ground station. UAT cannot talk to 1090ES and vis a vis. The argument is based upon these facts on system availability. 1090ES is available right now here in Australia. just add an approved system and you're live with TAAATS. FACT!

The same receiver unit is to be used for all airspace in the GAFA. FACT! It is the cheapest option on the table. FACT! ADS-B returns accurate positional information regardless of distance from receiver station, unlike radar. FACT!

Either way, subsidy or not. This is the system that will be installed, 1090ES ADS-B. Regardless of any contrary arguments about keeping legacy equipment. I put it to you, Mr Puff. AirServices will be constrained by regulation on how the changeover occurs from en-route ssr surveillance to sole ADS-B surveillance. It will not be carried out in an unsafe manor.

Unlike what the industry had to endure with the roll-out of a poorly designed airspace system with little education and even less time from instigation to implimentation.

This is not a choice of "Your with us or your terrorists" Just study the facts and make an informed decision. The aim of this argument is to facilitate and ensure the subsidy. Otherwise, we will be forced to pay for it ourselves. Either through hip pocket or higher hire rates.

Ever since ADS-B was first mooted, there has been a contrary view that we should wait for the Americans to see what they install. UAT is not transferable to this country. Good idea, lots of options but just too damn expensive. In our regime of user pays, GA could not afford to pay for the system devoted solely for GA. (methinks the FAA will come to the same conclusion) VDL4 is a basic argument of what type of carrier to use (GSM or GPRS as compared to mobile phones) Multilateration good idea but requires heaps of stations to triangulate each transponder interogation to resolve a position, extensive rollout equals extensive cost to AirServices which may well bite GA with user charges in the airspace MLAT operates to recoup costs. Airlines do not need MLAT to access ADS-B so I am very sure will enjoy paying for "extras" NOT!

Every argument against ADS-B fails on cost alone. Delay rollout incurs cost for refurb of SSR that WILL be charged to airlines from the start. ADS-B fitment then must be payed for by all participants. MLAT after trial basis must incur a charge for every aircraft that flies within it's coverage. Airlines and GA. Nav Charges for VFR, that will go down well with the toweling hat brigade. On a cost basis alone, the only effective system that is scaleable AND economical in doing so, is ADS-B 1090ES.

The fear is and always has been the CASA mandate.

Governments pay a subsidy all the time. My business receives a return on diesel excise of some $0.19 per litre and has done so for the life of GST. LPG fitment is but another. How many examples are needed? Incentive is a better option than taxation.

Creampuff, study all the data and make your own mind up.

james michael

14th Jul 2008, 05:45

Creamie

I bow to your legal argument; nevertheless I disagree that a challenge would fail.

If you wish me to define which is the VHS and which the Beta you have already frustrated our contract because there are three ADS-B systems.

However, the simple answer again is that 1090ES is the international high level standard and is unlikely to yield to the lower level preferences of individual states.

To answer your other concern - I don't want a subsidy to fit what may turn out to be an expensive orphan system

If you get a subsidy to so fit, what is your nett financial position if it turns out orphan?

Bob Murphie

14th Jul 2008, 05:55

james michael;

Six minutes from my post to your response, good even by your standards.

My name has been in Hansard more times than yours mate, sometimes it doesn't serve any purpose to duplicate what others more qualified than I can offer.

And I am open to an education even from a braggard. First I ever heard of a Lord coming up through the Ranks. But you would know obviously.

Edited for a time check.

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Jul 2008, 06:05

[Thread drift/]
Mr Smith WAAS will work in Australia. The Japanese MTSAT WAAS signal footprint is squarely over the Aussie continent. What stops WAAS in AUS is the inability of the powers that be to charge users for something that becomes freely available. It will take an equal expenditure to set up reference stations and ground uplinks and transmitters for the propriatory GRAS system as it would to provide for an augmentation signal for WAAS.
The fear is "control" of the GNSS signal, the reality is the ability to charge EACH and EVERY user a fee.

All this is history repeating, did I hear someone say INTERSCAN was a dinosaur technology.

[Thread drift/off]

Flying Binghi

14th Jul 2008, 06:37

...Hmmm, apt that Light Brigade analogy :hmm:

Got me thinking of the US rescue mission to Iraaan a few years ago - all the high tech stuff imobilized by the simplist of things... sort of what could happen to ADS-B if some GPS Buzz Bombs turn up :(

... any-way, I'm back to reading A Line in the Sand, all about 40 Issrally tanks taking on 500 enemy tanks back in 73 - great stuff :cool:

james michael

14th Jul 2008, 06:37

Bob Murphie

I do not jump to your beat or time clock.

Welcome to your first time - Raglan was commissioned as a Cornet in the 4th Light Dragoons on 9 June 1804.

Have you served, Bob Murphie? If so to what rank, and if to officer status did you BUY a commission or earn it, you that speaks with authority on Lord Raglan?

Reduce your Dickmite intake and it will reduce the thread drift. Oh, I forgot did I not, the idea is to mangle the thread for a strategic advance to the rear.

OZ

The other thing stopping MSAT is sovereignty - the Japanese I believe will not guarantee the signal. Creampuff could comment on what that means to Airservices.

Scurvy.D.Dog

14th Jul 2008, 06:46

OZBUS :D
.
Thankyou sir, you have saved me a deal of typing! :ok:

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Jul 2008, 06:54

Without drifting too far, JM. The signal is available. However, Australia would still have to provide a network of ref staions and a couple of uplinks to the satellite to transmit an augmented signal as a WAAS. The satellite is already visible to GPS receivers. There is already a ref station transmitting from CB as well as one from Hawaii. Nothing to do with state to state guarantees just the stations to guarantee signal quality. Got a link here somewhere.

As you can guess, this argument was done to death a while back. WAAS would be the single biggest improvment in aviation safety for IFR ops all round Australia. Every single aerodrome could have access to a CATI "ILS like" approach with glideslope information. This is what would have saved the likes of YHOT YLHR and YBLA more than anything else. A GLIDESLOPE!

There are a lot of pilots who would wish for this more than ADS-B!

Creampuff

14th Jul 2008, 06:55

Thanks Oz and SDD: I will digest Oz's 0542 and respond when practicable. Please bear with me if I appear to be missing an obvious point.

JM: What about the costs of maintenance and upgrades?

Orphan systems become increasingly and, eventually, prohibitively expensive to maintain and upgrade, because the costs are spread across a relatively small and decreasing market.

If DME-A had become the world standard for DME, DME-A equipment would have become increasingly cheaper, smaller, more reliable and efficient. However, someone came up with different systems that performed the same function as DME-A at a cheaper price, because the costs of the design, manufacture, upgrade and support of those systems were spread over a market orders of magnitude greater than that for DME-A. DME-A was then doomed.

DME-A was a great system in its time, but so was Beta video.

I'd rather spend money on the box that's fitted to 100,000 GA aircraft than the one that's fitted to 10,000, because chances are that one's going to get better and cheaper as time goes by, and the other, not.

That's my concern.

bushy

14th Jul 2008, 07:12

1.Why is multilat being installed in Tassie? Will it be installed elsewhere?
2 James-No I do not get paid for posting here. I want to see all aviators get a fair deal. Not ADS(A)
I think the future will be ADS-B for all who wish to fly in any sort of controlled airspace, including CTAF(R). It will be mandated, whether there is a subsidy or not. Airservices will be providing a separation service in CTAF(R), and of course they will charge for it.
There will be less air traffic controllers not more, because the en-route section will be automated, and crews will have to lookout for traffic themselves using ADS-B in.
GA aircraft will get realtime weather, navigation and traffic from ad ons to the ADS-B in or by mobile phone or similar device.
At the present time the display of realtime weather in the cockpit is more useful for GA pilots than ADS-B The proposed system does not provide it.

Quokka

14th Jul 2008, 07:12

I didn't think AFL had a ruck?

Ruck-Rover...? :}

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Jul 2008, 07:13

Creampuff, that is always the fear of any technology. Redundancy about thirty seconds after purchase:}

james michael

14th Jul 2008, 07:26

Creampuff

Let me give you an answer that is fact as I understand it.

Question me on the logic if you will.

DME A was exactly that. Unique Australian. The possible next candidate is GBAS / GRAS, although that depends on Keith's work with the USA on the working party into WAAS/GBAS/GRAS.

1090ES is NOT uniquely Australian. It is the ICAO flight level standard for airlines. But, we are talking expensive boxes for airliners.

Nonetheless, IT IS THE SAME GROUND STATIONS FOR 1090ES NO MATTER WHAT LEVELS AIRCRAFT OCCUPY - FROM ON THE AIRFIELD TO FL410 AND BEYOND.

Therefore, 1090ES is going to occur and remain in Australia.

In Europe there will be a mix of 1090ES and I believe VDL4 at lower levels depending on individual state decisions - BUT, they still MUST provide 1090ES stations for ICAO aircraft in the ultimate. So they are entering a duality of systems.

Ditto USA. UAT offers information provision that 1090ES does not. But, it requires translators between 1090ES aircraft and UAT equipped aircraft for the trade-off. Let us not argue the information which is in a state of flux anyway as satellite providers fight back, and Australia does NOT have the economies of scale to attract paid service providers.

So USA will have two systems - but again must have 1090ES for ICAO aircraft.

Let us examine the UK. You have until March 2012 to change your mode approach control (Mode A/C) transponder TO A MODE S UNIT.

BUT, you have to register for a CAA exemption to allow continued use of your Mode A/C FROM 31 March 2008.

The theme throughout all the above is that Mode S and its partner ADS-B are achieving ICAO and international recognition, whereas VDL4 and UAT have more chance of being orphans.

If you are Dick Smith and flying to flight levels in the USA what is your decision:
Fit one only 1090ES unit that covers all your flight, or fit BOTH as you MUST have the 1090ES at flight levels. Not to contemplate interworking two ADS-B systems with the remainder of your avionics, and,
Fit TCAS that will obviously be developed for ADS-B to match your system. And, 1090ES ADS-B IN is available aircraft to aircraft whereas if you are in a UAT equipped aircraft you are dependent on being in translator ground station range.

There may be considerable UAT equipment designed for the USA but it is interesting that the Garmin 1090ES unit we discussed earlier is due this quarter while we await a sniff of UAT equipment.

The other argument - becomes emotive with assumptions made about costs - is whether Australia can afford the complex UAT/1090ES translator stations as that is another cost that would be passed on to users.

At around (I believe) $130,000 to roll in an ADS-B ground station, if you look to the stars you might even contemplate mining companies to which that is pocket money being offered the option to drop in an ADS-B ground station if their airport decides to fly in international workers in Jet PTO.

OK, a bit long winded but I can see yours is a fair dinkum question. Have I made sense?

Edited to add
Bushy
Yours came while I was typing. Thank you.
I think the above covers much of your concern also.
Best hope for XM satellite wx, nothing I have seen or researched to date indicates Australia will get what the USA can by its size - third party wx etc.
Fair to argue that we (Tas and monsoon excepted) also make use of AWIS, AERIS, etc enroute, plus wx from ATC in any case.

Quokka

14th Jul 2008, 07:45

Because Airservices is planning a different system, on a different frequency, that they can sell all around the world to make profits from!

Sell?

I thought Era, Thales, Garmin, Micro et al were selling the "system".

Wouldn't that make Airservices the purchaser?

james michael

14th Jul 2008, 08:04

Quokka

I think he is half right.

Airservices are certainly designing the concept of GBAS / GRAS and undoubtedly stand to make money.

What gets forgotten in such arguments is that several other nations are already using 'sort of' equivalents by different names.

And that GBAS is more precise for approaches than WAAS.

But, for GA, the argument is that there is no cheap receiver for GBAS - yet - until Airservices can get enough momentum to get the economy of scale receiver production.

I will argue strongly for 1090ES ADS-B, but I reserve my decision in the WAAS versus GBAS/GRAS debate because neither is an international flight level standard as is 1090ES.

Back to ADS-B - For those wanting to see ADS-B in operation, google something like OPEN ATC and you will get some idea of 1090ES penetration - INTERNATIONALLY.

Flying Binghi

14th Jul 2008, 08:13

Have you served, Bob Murphie? If so to what rank, and if to officer status did you BUY a commission or earn it, you that speaks with authority on Lord Raglan?

Reduce your Dickmite intake and it will reduce the thread drift. Oh, I forgot did I not, the idea is to mangle the thread for a strategic advance to the rear.

Hmmm, yet more arrogant bluster james michael, you would have been right at home in the old British army :hmm:

Back to the thread,

james michael, you bought up the use of UAVs for civvy purposes here in Oz. If I understood your post correctly, ADS-B would be of major importance for civvy UAVs being able to be used around Oz, for example, mining and forestry purposes.

I'm wondering how many UAVs you invisage being used - 1,000; 5,000 ?
I,m thinking the UAV manufacturers would be pushing very hard for ADS-B... the sooner to make those profits.

Thinking a little further about civy UAVs - They will need to be insured.
I wonder how much it will cost to insure a UAV ? I'm thinking that the insurers will be pushing hard for immediate implimentation of ADS-B ... the sooner to make those profits :hmm:

Bob Murphie

14th Jul 2008, 08:22

OZBUSDRIVER; why are you, and your "hanratty's" pushing for something that may be redundant in the next 30 seconds?

Please don't let that other idiot answer on your behalf. I think he is "half left right out". But I'm sure he will answer first as is his custom.

Time check now.

james michael

14th Jul 2008, 08:26

Bing

I love your ability to take things out of context.

Bob Murphie told me I was muddergoose - viz - And I am open to an education even from a braggard. First I ever heard of a Lord coming up through the Ranks. But you would know obviously.

My response met his statement. Lord Raglan came through the ranks. Bob Murphie also claimed the COTLB involved officers who paid for their commission. The above quote was his 'arrogant bluster' in response to the facts.

As far as thread closure attempts is concerned, go review the weekends posts just gone if you need any assitance.

You seem to be very selective in whom you nominate for arrogant bluster my friend Bing - the Dickmite crew ran riot on the weekend yet I missed any criticism of them from your end of the ground ;) Could we cut out that sort of point scoring as I prefer to be nice to you.

Bing, the number of UAV is a great unknown. Who would have forecast 300,000 Apple Iphones on release out here a decade ago?

They are already being trialled for coastal surveillance and have been launched in various States. Kingfisher, I think it is, is being trialled to flight levels.

UAV manufacturers would hardly be pushing for ADS-B. That's extra non-payload weight and extra cost.

Insurers will hardly be pushing an unknown either.

I admire your ability to look beyond the narrow limits constraining many in thinking of the future but I think you may be too pessimistic in your considerations. What would the insurer rather insure - a cropduster with a pilot life insured or a large lump of pilotless metal?

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Jul 2008, 09:15

Bob, you really are a Ludite!

I'll leave it at that:ugh:

ferris

14th Jul 2008, 09:55

I especially liked Creampuff's analogy about VHS vs Beta. Why? - because neither is the standard now.

So yes, Creampuff, we could delay and wait to see who will win out of VHS or Beta (ADS-B vs whatever else is on the table). Only to find that ten years from now DVD is the go, and we missed out on years of having ADS-B available, with it's obvious, current improvements- and any add-ons that haven't arrived yet. Would it have been better to not have received a FREE video recorder, of whatever flavour, waited for the winner, and after years and years of no video only to have your purchased video superseded by dvd?

I have an analogy of my own. It's raining. You are wondering how you are going to get home without getting wet. You are thinking of purchasing either a coat or an umbrella. A man walks up you and offers you a free coat. Do you turn him down because in 3 months time you might decide an umbrella would've been a more useful item?

Biggles_in_Oz

14th Jul 2008, 10:00

Mr Smith I believe that if we go to the standard system which will eventually be harmonised around the world, newly purchased aviation equipment will come fitted with the ADS-B ‘out’ (and possibly ‘in’) at no charge.
Uhhmm, and who pays to outfit the (large) existing fleet that doesn't currently have such gear ?

Why won’t the same thing happen with ADS-B? To fit a Mode S transponder (which are now pretty standard everywhere in the world) with a GPS engine, and squit the required code, could have no more of a hardware cost than about $80. The huge cost is getting the unit to be reliable and having it certified. This can be tens of millions of dollars.

True.., except that I don't currently have a TSO'd GPS panel/engine or a mode-S transponder fitted., meaning that it would cost me a lot of $$$$ to install such gear.
So, I want a large subsidy or a total reimbursment.

Bob Murphie

14th Jul 2008, 11:07

OZBUSDRIVER;

I assume you mean Luddite, Collins English Dictonary,~ any of the textile workers opposed to mechanisation who rioted and organised machine breaking between 1811 and 1816; any opponent of industrial change or innovation.

I'm not sure if this is a compliment or an insult?

I'll take it as a compliment. Thanks.

I am very pissed at the contemptuous efforts put to denigrate my Military Career as the peons stated previously on different forums, and with evil intent, to attempt to disgrace me, and I say again I am proud of my Commission, my leadership, and awards and decorations. I came up through the ranks. I am no hero, so don't go there again. I fail to see what COTLB? and Lord Raglan have to do with ADSB, CASA, or Mrs McCredy's pet poodle or indeed mr michael's pet dog.

I take notice of some recruit with a bend toward ham wireless who has achieved nothing and now, hit the bottom of the trench, continues to dig hoping he will disgrace Dick Smith, or anybody who dares to put their hand up to say, WHY?

Hanratty's mob at the crease.

Time check now to await john/ james brown, (or whoever he is moulding in the grave), a witty and mastabatortial response.

Scurvy.D.Dog

14th Jul 2008, 11:22

You have had the WHY answered that many times it really is not funny anymore Bob, how about telling us all (in technical evidence based facts) the WHY NOT!
.
Without the 'bitters' if you would be so kind!
.
Hanrahan's (we'll all be rooned) mob to the crease :E
.
P.S. Whats with all this 'time check' stuff??

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Jul 2008, 11:24

Thanks for the spelling correction. That's what you are, Bob. Give not a rats about your service, it has nought to do with technology at hand. I have a good idea what is at stake. Do you remember what Mr Hamilton said to me at Temora? That is why you do not want it. You are scared you can get roped back in to "The System" oooooooooohh dear me:eek: Everything Mr Dunstone said and you guys are worried about "Big Brother"

You had a small win last time around, Bob. This time the end game is going to lock you out of even your own town field if it is a CTAF(R). I really hope you guys know what you are doing. If you lot win, we all have to pay for it, one way or another!

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Jul 2008, 11:26

SDD, I replied to Creampuff in true techie fashion regarding the life expectancy of technology. And Bob has taken me quite literally.

Scurvy.D.Dog

14th Jul 2008, 11:34

:rolleyes: ... I know, Creamie will take it in the context intended!
.
..... as for the other bloke, tis clearly 'deliberate dumb waiter' stuff, either that, or we are conversing with the clinically brain dead :ugh:

james michael

14th Jul 2008, 21:40

Mr Dog

I think you are spot on.

Bob Murphie

Perhaps, albeit accidentally, you have just kicked another goal for ADS-B.

Earlier I noted The deaths in the Charge of the Light Brigade were due to lack of information due to a communication problem.

To which you noted just above here I fail to see what COTLB? and Lord Raglan have to do with ADSB

There are many instances of deaths in aviation due to lack of INFORMATION due to a COMMUNICATION PROBLEM. The provision of subsidised ADS-B and GPS - when one considers the extra information then available to the pilot and ATC - is most meritorious.

Ferris

I love analogies; that's a ripper.

Creampuff

I should have spelled it out that the proposed subsidy is $10K VFR and $15K IFR and we are still researching the availability of the backup navaids as to where NVFR fits.

But, my understanding of the probable mechanism is that the trigger for the subsidy is not turning up with an itemised equipment list to be audited, rather it may be as simple as a certified copy of the aircraft MR to verify VFR (txpdr), NVFR, or IFR category.

My reason for noting this is that this obviously gives the VFR owner the ability to add the extra $5K and go for a TSO146 navigator rather than just the VFR pack (that does not get you one with radios/VORs though).

Therefore, providing the subsidy goes ahead, the opportunity exists to upgrade most of the GA fleet avionics.

Ignoring the purist legal arguments, I really have difficulty believing the Government could re-issue the JCP, signed by the 4 heads and agreed by all parties, then expect to pull the subsidy and get away with it.

Do we go now or not? The UK and USA experiences will be no subsidy - do we punt on a subsidy now or enter a guaranteed 'no subsidy' later.

Marketing tells us that equipment may reduce in cost (that's why the subsidy reduces to 90% later, so the early adopters have that 10% buffer) but labour will increase.

What we need to see is Airservices, as I have earlier suggested, publicly outfit say 10 GA aircraft of varying avionics types, and show us the bill.

You also asked about maintenance and that is topical. Fitting new IC based equipment and RS232 encoders alt should reduce unscheduled maintenance. If the current RAD process is continued - you know, the one where everything works OK until the RAD is conducted - there will be slight extra expense due to the ADS-B component. My argument is that the RAD process reflects valves and crystals and should be extended to say 5 years.

For my research, I will value your thoughts on the above plus yesterday's response to you.

Jabawocky

14th Jul 2008, 21:51

Hey Scurvy.... just excuse me for a moment, turn a blind eye....:ok:

This thread is like a dog chasing its tail

J:suspect:

Scurvy.D.Dog

14th Jul 2008, 22:10

:} ... :p ... :E
.
:ok: ... woof

PlankBlender

14th Jul 2008, 22:56

The development of this thread reflects that of the ADS-B process as a whole: Lots of very specialised interests discussing the to** out of an issue that at heart is quite simple: Agree the proposal is a good one in principle (even if it has a few rough edges), go ahead and let the market sort out the rest, like avionics development, pricing, and availability.

You can debate any issue to death, and the way it's going here that seems to be exactly where this proposal is headed, sadly. :{

Australia has a minor percentage of the global aviation market. The only way we will get affordable avionics here is to adopt the solution of the largest player in the market.

In the words of the King: "A little less conversation, a little more action please!" :}

Flying Binghi

14th Jul 2008, 23:48

...a little more action please!

PlankBlender, thats probably a good system to use at the casino, though not the best way to approch possible changes to the Australian ATC system.

BEACH KING

15th Jul 2008, 01:07

I have been following this thread with great interest.

All points of view have been well presented.

Unfortunately the thread has now denegrated into an into-wind urinating distance contest between some very intelligent and entertaining people who appear to dislike each other with intense malice!

My suggestion is to encourage ASA to survey all owners of GA Aircraft to see what they want to do. I would bet most would accept the subsidy, if it was offered. I sure would.

The question I have is this. Would ADSB give a location to start looking if a VFR aircraft went down outside OCTA in the bush? ( Like a recordable radar trace). If so, this feature alone would be worth my while installing the equipment, subsidy or not.

Oh... Bhingi... tell me about those buzz bombs again. I reckon they'd be really handy to try and get those mongrel dingos that keep biting the tails and ears off my cows :(

Dick Smith

15th Jul 2008, 01:47

Biggles in Oz, you ask:

who pays to outfit the (large) existing fleet that doesn't currently have such gear ?

I don’t see any need for this because there is no urgency in bringing in ADS-B, and if we introduce it in parallel with the existing SSRs and perhaps multilateration, there is no hurry.

For example, in the USA they were not planning to mandate ADS-B until 2020, and even then it is not for below 10,000 feet in Class E and G airspace. That means that 80% of aircraft in the USA would not require ADS-B at all.

Regarding your question about a Mode S transponder, in 20 years time Mode S transponders with ADS-B will be about the same price as a Mode C transponder today in my view. Are you going to be flying the same aeroplane with the same equipment in 20 years? I doubt it.

Also, as stated before, if we followed the US FAA line, you would not need ADS-B below 10,000 feet in Class E or G airspace.

Remember, no measurable safety issue is being addressed in mandating ADS-B for VFR aircraft.

Creampuff

15th Jul 2008, 01:54

The flaw I perceive in your analogy, ferris, is that in it I have the problem (getting rained on), and someone else is magnanimously offering to fix my problem for me, free (giving me a coat).

In the context of the ADSB debate, someone else has the problem, and they propose to fix it by giving me a problem.

A 'subsidy' is not a guarantee to meet $ for $ fitment costs. Even if it were, it will not cover ongoing maintenance and upgrade costs. For reasons I have explained, if the chosen subsidised system ends up being an orphan, ongoing maintenance and upgrade costs will become increasingly expensive.

I may get an up front bill for fitment, and I will definitely get ongoing bills, for something I may not want or need.

The more accurate analogy in my view is this:

A bunch of farmers haven't got enough water.

Solution: Mandate mains water restrictions and subsidise the fitment of water tanks and electric pumps in the cities, so that more water can be released from city dams for use downstream by farmers.

A person in the city might say: Hang on a sec, me and a bunch of other people in this city have paid, and continue to pay, a lot of money in rates to build and maintain dams. I don't want or need a water tank and pump, subsidised or not. I'm not the cause of the profligate waste of gigalitres of water on marginal and inefficient farms that would have been broke long ago, if they'd had to pay even a fraction of what I have to pay for water. And by the way, I've just found out that the electric pump was designed and built by a company that's gone out of business and the spare parts are difficult to find and getting more expensive. Remind me again why this should be my problem?

Now as it turns out, I'm personally happy to make sacrifices to help efficient farmers. However, if I'm going to get a subsidised electric pump (ASDB black boxes), I want one that isn't going to become an expensive orphan. I agree entirely with plankbender:Australia has a minor percentage of the global aviation market. The only way we will get affordable avionics here is to adopt the solution of the largest player in the market.Which ASDB box is that?

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 04:26

...Insurers will hardly be pushing an unknown either.

james michael, I would of thought that all civvy UAVs will require insurance - e.g. theres no pilot on board to navigate between the houses after an engine failure (I understand there have been civvy UAV crashs already in the U.S.)

IMHO, UAV insurence will be a big market for the aviation insurers.

As I said, I'm thinking ADS-B will be required for any expansion in UAV operations so I would expect the insurers will be pushing to get ADS-B in ASAP - the sooner to be profiting from it all :hmm:

... of course, when the terrorist GPS guided Buzz Bombs turn up - no ADS-B.

james michael

15th Jul 2008, 04:26

Beach King

I would never suggest ADS-B as a first line tool for rescue (unless you intend to crash within repeater range :))

A PLB with embedded GPS for around $600 will get you an instant alert, 20 minute updates of position, identification if registered, and does not go down in the water or up in the fire.

Certainly if in ADS-B range the last track info would be of value, but the PLB strikes me as more bang for the buck.

OZBUSDRIVER

15th Jul 2008, 04:58

Can we just take a step back a bit?

I think we are trying to portray ADS-B as rocket science. In it's simplest form, we all understand how GPS works, we also understand how we can use the NMEA signal from that GPS to drive moving maps and information for engine monitors. It is quite versatile. Once you can derive your position accurately you can calculate your actual performance, fuel economy as derived as distance left in the tanks and the like.

As for availability? Any manufacturer that produces a modeS transponder already has the equipment needed to install ADS-B. It isn't complicated.

Mode S transponders are only different from ModeAC transponders is the ability to transmit a stream of data in very small packets. ADS-B is the joining of this ability for a transponder to transmit data and the GPS to provide position data to other equipment. In this case the modeS transponder. The band used is 1090MHz and the transmission is an extended squitter comprising information including 24bit individual registration, position height speed and direction, transmitted at least every second, hence 1090ES......it isn't rocket science.

MicroAir have the TL2000S that will be developed into an ADS-B transponder, they actually provided the tranponder that operated in the Bundaberg trials-
Microair is currently developing an ADS-B Transponder to suit the expected mandate to be issued by CASA and implemented by Air Services Australia in line with the installation of ADS-B ground stations that will give radar-like coverage to over 99% of Australian airspace.

After ADS-B the transponder will be re-configured to a Mode S Transponder to suit the new requirements in the European marketplace.

These guys are already setup to push for certification as soon as AirServices is ready to go. Our small market will lever a little Australian company into Europe. The Europeans even look at this little Bundaberg company as very serious competition.

Creampuff, even looking at photographs of the ground receiver taking up two standard equipment racks plus a UPS compared to an entire complex to drive a SSR unit. (Remember, this unit is not a radar as such. It transmits an interogation signal to a transponder that activates its own signal which is received. The SSR receives the signal and by process of knowing where the receiver was pointing at the time and the time taken to receiver a return signal after its own interogation signal it is able to deduce that there is a transponder a certain distance and direction from the aerial....very old world:}:}) So two boxes mounted alongside any telecom installation compared to an entire hilltop establishment, doesn't take much processing power to work out where AirServices get their very real savings from.

Hope this helps the process.

mjbow2

15th Jul 2008, 05:13

In light of the on going debate I thought it would be interesting to see what AOPA's view of ADS-B is.

The following excerpts are taken from The Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT) 15 March, 2007, AOPA Position on ADS-B Prepared by Brian Hannan, AOPA Document available at http://astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/ABIT-10_IP-015_AOPA_Position.pdf

We consider ASD-B is a logical emergent of technology advance and support ADS-B concepts for safety and flight economies - but believe benefits accrue primarily to RPT and ATC. Gains to GA are miniscule in comparison to cost and may represent overall negatives in installation and maintenance expense and, under a full mandate, the introduction of surveillance (not warranted by asafety case) to Class G airspace. The introduction of transponders for VFR operations in Class E airspace was unhelpful to our members. We will be seeking a cost-benefit or safety case justification in any ADS-B proposal.

We read ICAO desire for 1090ES at flight levels and support the simplicity of only one technology (1090ES) for Australia at all levels. However, we do not wish yet another unique Australian system - therefore we will also be guided by overseas experiences. The FAA proposal of dual technologies is attractive to GA at lower levels because of the potential equipment cost savings and choice through economies of scale for GA in volume
production and sale of UAT ADS-B, and probable early introduction of ADS-B In equipment. UAT uplink capability currently offers little benefit locally as economies of scale do not exist in Australia to attract service providers, nor is weather information by ADS-B important to those we canvassed. Nevertheless, anecdotal information from the USA suggests that demand for weather-in-the-cockpit could materialise if a solution for Australia was
demonstrable.

Airservices could review the lack of any brief before, and limited communication after, withdrawal of the RFP as it hindered progress and caused negative perceptions. However, since the 2006 situation is now history, we conclude that GA’s interests will be best served by awaiting the emergence of suitable products from the evolutionary process and closely
observing overseas developments including consequences of the FAA requirement to equip aircraft for automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) by 2020 to enter selected airspace.

My bold and underlining.

james michael

15th Jul 2008, 05:51

MJBOW

Great to note AOPA making such a a strong statement for its members interests. Obviously he won't be getting a consultant's job with Airservices after kicking them in the intestines like that :)

On reflection, it must have been well received in the halls of power and perhaps was the catalyst for the August 2007 JCP with its offer of the subsidy that has changed the whole ball game. Actually, those whole three paragraphs just about become meaningless if the subsidy covers the GA fitment costs, don't they?

I am told AOPA has written to Airservices to request a review of GA charging and a commitment to no increased cover. That would remove the concern about extension of GA charging with ADS-B.

AOPA seems to be keeping well across the ADS-B matter, and the constant changes in the national and international situation. Like technology change itself, the ADS-B position must be something they need to review almost daily in such a volatile environment.

Thank you for bringing that piece of the history of ADS-B to attention - such a lot has changed in sixteen months, no?

bushy

15th Jul 2008, 05:55

I thought ADS-B was going to cover 99% of the country.
Why then would you need to "crash within repeater range"? Surely that would be 99% of the country?

james michael

15th Jul 2008, 06:18

Bushy

I'm not certain why you thought that - I don't think I did- but it's a fair point.

Drag out your battered PCA and you will note that VHF covers 99% of the country - if you are at FL400.

Ditto ADS-B, plus around the locations they put repeaters will get coverage to ground.

I suspect don't expect to fly AS to Kings Creek at 500' AGL and be in ADS-B cover when it comes in.

Same goes for radar. One thing to be on TAAATS on descent to SY thru 10,000', but there are other areas nearby where you won't be on radar at 500' AGL.

That's why I still recommend the 406PLB as the safety item. Something you can also carry when flying in your mate's Jabiru that may not get the subsidy, or when off on the weekend for a beer at Timber creek by 4WD.

OZBUSDRIVER

15th Jul 2008, 07:10

My submission was to voice an opinion against using ADS-B as a charging regime. This wasn't part of the JCP.

I am very aware of what AirServices think are the chances of blanketing the continent with uplinks to faciltate UAT operation as per the US. So, safe to say, it will not be under the Christmas tree any time soon.

My point then, and using XMWX services as the example. Even as big as the aviation industry is in the US, the guys who created the satellite weather service knew that aviation alone could not pay for the service and satellite. They created satellite subscription radio for the general population and used the funds created from this to cross-subsidise the aviation service. That view hasn't changed. There was a scientist from Charles darwin Uni that proposed using the mobile phone network for internet access to provide a similar facility as provided by XMWX. I have to say, the method does work. I have nav software with moving map and gps that uses the mobile network to download current radar images for the current position, provided there is mobile coverage and metrad coverage for the position.

JM, it is a fair bet that the low level rollout will be installation at busy regional aerodromes, especially those that USED to have a tower and especially around the mineral provinces in WA. Any aerodrome that has a Dash service or bigger and then any aerodrome that has a published approach.

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 07:23

your mate's Jabiru that may not get the subsidy

Aside from the AOPA aircraft james michael, I wonder how the Ultralighters will be impacted ?

At present ADS-B are still expected to cost north of $10,000 (and still no video game screen on the panel) and thats only for the ADS-B - might be some costly plumbing issues to overcome on many RAAus aircraft. And I wonder if new aircraft in future will get this 'subsidy' ??? :hmm:

My understanding is that the ultralight crew think similar to AOPA, ref via mjbow2. Apparently, the majoritie of ultralights dont fly at 20,000 + feet so dont really need the ADS-B.

Perhaps an Ultralighter would care to outline the RAAus position.

james michael, so far you have not been able to offer any serious rebuttle to the GPS guided Buzz Bomb scenario - thats the scenario you have tried on many occasions to rebut. Thats the scenario that could bring the ADS-B system to an end over-night :(

...and the scenario is only one of the reasons I believe we should keep our present robust ATC system :cool:

Biggles_in_Oz

15th Jul 2008, 07:29

bushy
The ADSB coverage is basically line-of-sight and about what you'd get with a VOR.,
Using a distance to the horizon formula, this means that if you're at 9500' then you'll need to be within 110nm or so from a base station to be 'visible' to ATC.
At 5000' that shrinks to around 80nm.
The JCP had a pretty picture that showed the proposed coverage at 10000' and it looked somewhat sparse, meaning that at 5000' the coverage would be very spotty.
Which is why I wanted some form of ADSB-IN to be able to manage my own seperation in class E & G when ATC can't 'see' me.

james michael

15th Jul 2008, 07:30

OZ

Agreed. WA a likely hot spot but CTAF R where PTO fly are all likely candidates.

If Airservices succeed with their Unicom trials, imagine the possible rollout of ADS-B supported Unicoms (provided CASA accept that a trained Unicom operator CAN do a few simple things).

But, we keep getting told about the ADS-B mandate no measurable safety issue is being addressed

So I guess you and I are just dreaming :rolleyes: - or perhaps in Jabba terms "barking" up the wrong tree (woof) :) (Just joking Jabba but I am having trouble cocking my leg)

Bing

Apology, I missed your second last last post, must have crossed over each other.

No, ADS-B is NOT needed for UAV. They can work quite OK with transponder. trials have already so done, Kingfisher is proposed to go to FL with RPT, and don't forget that big white mother that flew from (I think) the USA to (was it) RAAF Edinburgh.

Unlike my landings, software capability has allowed some UAV to gentle on to terra firma by themselves. They also have a 'loiter' mode if needed.

I think the insurers will concentrate on looking for Rating 1 drivers and homes away from flood, fire, and wind to make their money.

Edited to add, Bing you posted again while I was preparing this so I have altered above to second last post.

Re your most recent post, I am not even attempting to rebut your buzz bomb scenario because my calculator rolled up a statistical probability of infinity of zeros to the nth place. Possibly you should retrieve your 'terror line' fridge magnet from behind your compass and let ASIO know of the threat :)

OZBUSDRIVER

15th Jul 2008, 07:42

JM, have trawled around the ASTRA site and now see that Meekatharra, Newman, Telfer, Leonora and Caiguna will be up and running by DEC08. These sites were consider high priority. FIFO will get a whole lot safer in WA.

EDIT- and one for the greenies. ADS-B has been approved by world heritage to be installed at Lord Howe Island.

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 09:33

There was a scientist from Charles darwin Uni that proposed using the mobile phone network for internet access to provide a similar facility as provided by XMWX. I have to say, the method does work. I have nav software with moving map and gps that uses the mobile network to download current radar images for the current position, provided there is mobile coverage and metrad coverage for the position.

LOL, hope its not the Optu#s network OZBUSDRIVER. Aparently it fell over in QLD today, state wide, and according to Skie noooss, the back up system didnt work ...so much for fail-safe modern technoligy :hmm:

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 09:45

I am not even attempting to rebut your buzz bomb scenario because my calculator rolled up a statistical probability of infinity of zeros to the nth place.

Hmmm... statistical probability...... perhaps somebody should have told Hitler that ... you do recall that the scenario has already happened ???

james michael, you sound like you have taken a 'Maginot line' mentality towards known threats :hmm:

let ASIO know of the threat

Why - I'm sure ASIO has somebody who reads history books :)

............................................................ ........................................

Quokka

15th Jul 2008, 10:01

Remember, no measurable safety issue is being addressed in mandating ADS-B for VFR aircraft.

Mr Smith, some months ago I described to you a Close Proximity between an RFDS aircraft departing a country strip and a crop-duster in WA.

In response, your reply was to express a personal disbelief on your part that the RFDS would support the mandatory introduction of ADS-B due to the cost of installation. I am pleased to read earlier that you have contacted the RFDS in WA and have discovered that they support the installation of ADS-B in their entire fleet.

For the readers...

The Close Proximity was in Class G Airspace between an IFR RFDS aircraft and a VFR crop-duster. We know that it was a VFR crop-duster because the pilot of the RFDS aircraft saw the crop-duster as the two aircraft nearly collided.

I as the controller had no information on the crop-duster and at no stage had the crop-duster requested a service on VHF, nor had the pilot made any broadcasts on the Area frequency.

The RFDS aircraft called on departure and stated that he had "nearly collided with a crop-duster". He attempted to call the pilot of the crop-duster on VHF and received no response. I (the Air Traffic Controller monitoring the frequency and providing a Class G Airspace service) attempted to call the pilot of the crop-duster and received no response. The pilot of the RFDS aircraft stated that the crop-duster did not appear on his TCAS and asked me if I could see the aircraft on RADAR... I could not.

No transponder.

No VHF.

There was no avoiding action taken by either aircraft because they failed to get visual with each other.

See-And-Avoid failed.

Call-And-Respond failed.

Third Party surveillance and intervention failed.

If the crop-duster had been equipped with a 1090ES ADS-B Transponder as per a mandatory requirement for fitment by GA aircraft, the following would have occurred...

The crop-duster's 1090ES ADS-B Transponder would have powered up at start-up and would have broadcast the aircraft's position airborne.

I would have seen the crop-duster operating in close proximity to the airstrip and the RFDS aircraft would have received that information as Traffic Advice at Taxi stage.

The RFDS aircraft would have attempted to contact the crop-duster on VHF and after failing to gain two-way communications with the crop-duster, would, in all likelihood, have delayed departure until I had the advised the RFDS aircraft that the crop-duster was clear of the departure track of the airstrip.

Mr Smith, this is the perfect example of a "measurable safety issue" that would "be addressed by ADS-B".

Do you deny this?

james michael

15th Jul 2008, 10:13

Bing

It is great fun debating with you because I still miss Annette Funicello and the Mousketeers so enjoyable in my youth, and your Disneyland scenarios tug at my heart strings for those halcyon days before terrorism.

I have contacted the insurers re your whizz bomb scenario, hereafter known as "Bing's Whizzy", and they tell me their greater concern is all the motorists driving off the end of freeways and the fishermen vanishing slowly into the sunset from the Barrier Reef as they drift without navigation into the Sargasso Sea, when the GPS is turned off by the USA.

I was going to BBQ tonight but refused to go out there in case one of our Bin Liners had donned a towel and booby trapped the BBQ. I got over that, but then my beloved May suggested that a passing meteorite shower could imbed rocks in my scone to my detriment and probable passing, so I am now euchred trying to work out what's safe to eat with pesticide levels.

The Maginot line was an inadequate defence. Fortunately ADS-B is an adequate defence, although it can be easily penetrated by anecdotal dickmites using hyperbole (not hyperbola) trajectories.

If you think this is a leg pull - you opened the bidding. Goodnight mate :)

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 10:15

The pilot of the RFDS aircraft stated that the crop-duster did not appear on his TCAS and asked me if I could see the aircraft on RADAR... I could not.

Quokka, if the facts are as you say - all that was needed was a currently available (NON ADS-B) transponder fitted to the crop-duster and the currently fitted TCAS in the RFD aircraft would have seen the ag plane.

Creampuff

15th Jul 2008, 10:19

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 10:26

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 10:31

Q:

What if the crop-duster's 1090ES ADS-B Transponder had been unserviceable at start up?

What if the near miss had been with an ultralight?

Is every aircraft that could operate at any 'country strip' going to be paid to fit a 1090ES ADS-B transponder?

Creampuff, I'd probably add - what if the near-miss had been with a civvy UAV ? Apparently james michael believes that civvy UAVs will not have any ADS-B ?

Biggles_in_Oz

15th Jul 2008, 10:32

uhhhmm Flying Binghi, Hmmm... statistical probability...... perhaps somebody should have told Hitler that ... you do recall that the scenario has already happened ??? you do realise that those buzzbombs and V2s' travelled quite a distance without the benefit of any form of GPS.
Whilst your terror scenario is plausible, I refuse to live in a state of fear simply because it is plausible.
eg. thousands of Oz citizens die on our roads every year, but I don't see millions of people walking everywhere just because motor vehicles can be used to kill people.
Similarly with car-bombs., (a long-time favourite with zealots), have they banned cars and trucks in Baghdad ????

Life is not guaranteed to be happy or pleasant. (irrespective of what a lot of yanks think)
Build a bridge and get over it.

Quokka

15th Jul 2008, 10:37

james michael

15th Jul 2008, 10:41

Quokka

Of course he will deny it. Egos and agendas are superior matters to safety.

Several recent events of note.

"Line up" call at a major airport - try last night - only it came from a handheld not the tower, while an aircraft was on final. (Bing, take note, $700 Icom overrules buzz bomb).

False callsigns given by VCA aircraft.

Bring on ADS-B.

Quok, the mistake we are all making is trying to debate with a blancmange - every time you prod it, it bounces back ignoring the laws of reality. Hopefully the many readers of this thread are realising that Dickmite squared equals codswallop cubed :ugh::ugh:

Bing

But, in Class G, until the lockout GA rule occurs (shortly) the cropduster did not REQUIRE a transponder. That's $ off his bottom line. Are you suggesting one for him should be mandated?

Whoops, (OK it's provocative but fair payback) soon Bob Murphie will clock on here with his stopwatch - I'd best stop responding and let him have the last word and the last word and the last word while he claims that's the province of others. What time does the Manly Ferry dock?

In the meantime, OZBUS, as Indonesia et al move to 1090ES, one agrees entirely with your last post.

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 10:44

you do realise that those buzzbombs and V2s' travelled quite a distance without the benefit of any form of GPS.
Whilst your terror scenario is plausible, I refuse to live in a state of fear simply because it is plausible.

Yes, Biggles_in_Oz, the Buzz Bomb/V2s travelled across the English channel with-out any help from GPS and arrived, on average, within several miles of their targets. The terror efect was high all the same.
(hav'nt we covered this before? :hmm: )

james michael

15th Jul 2008, 10:49

Bing

Must be a queue to post, I think four of us at once.

Your post 561.

Buzz bombs have me flustered?

I rate your scenario on the credibility factor of 'Big Brother' - oh, that's it, that's about to be OVER! (and thank deity the great unwashed will have to watch their socks washing fortnightly for equivalent quality).

Now, you are a farmer - superphosphate and the big bang means we need to look at you next, eh? Nitric acid, super-phosphate, and a pinch of dickmite and we can blow away the CWA meeting at Goondiwindi?

Bing, you lighten our lives :)

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 10:55

Mr Bing,

With respect, what would the effect have been on the condition of the patient.... MED1 priority... of the G-forces pulled by an RFDS aircraft avoiding the crop-duster in response to a TCAS RA?

I already know the RFDS's opinion on this one.

Why do ambulances, lights and sirens blazing, slow down to an absolute crawl at an intersection before executing a 90 degree turn?

Ask an Accident & Emergency nurse or doctor and they will tell you why.

Quokka, I dont know the range of the RFD TCAS so I carnt coment directly on it.

The basic TAS in my aircraft can 'see' to seven plus miles - higher spec ones of my brand/type can 'see' to 24+ miles (if I recall correctly) I would imagine the RFD TCAS would have a fair range and thus, alert time - I see no reason for any steep turns.

Dick Smith has already commented on reliability of TCAS in Europe.

Biggles_in_Oz

15th Jul 2008, 10:57

creampuffIs every aircraft that could operate at any 'country strip' going to be paid to fit a 1090ES ADS-B transponder?
Well..., the JCP proposal was to subsidise approx 11000 GA aircraft below 5700kg MTOW, which is a very high percentage of the total aviation fleet in Oz.

So., yeah.., it'll improve safety..., perhaps not as much as was claimed in the JCP, but an improvement non the less.

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 11:06

If you think this is a leg pull - you opened the bidding. Goodnight mate

james michael, I got the impression you were leaving for the night ? :rolleyes:

I think I know who you are now ;) ... a sciolist :)

(read the warning written in red at the bottom of the thread)

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 11:17

Quokka, I'll add to my previous post to you, that my understanding of the ADS-B sytem proposed, is that it will not 'see' every bit of low level Oz airspace (low level Oz -thats where Ag planes live - below 1,000 feet)

The ADS-B system proposed will also not supply the Ag pilot any way to 'see' the RFD aircraft.

Biggles_in_Oz

15th Jul 2008, 11:30

Flying Binghi The ADS-B system proposed will also not supply the Ag pilot any way to 'see' the RFD aircraft. that's not absolutely true.
If, one, of the aircraft has ADSB-IN (most likely the RFDS in this case), then that aircraft could independantly manouver out of harms way., even when out of range of an ADSB base-station, and all without ATS even knowing what is happening.

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 11:31

Well..., the JCP proposal was to subsidise approx 11000 GA aircraft below 5700kg MTOW, which is a very high percentage of the total aviation fleet in Oz.

So., yeah.., it'll improve safety..., perhaps not as much as was claimed in the JCP, but an improvement non the less.

Biggles_in_Oz, the majority of the GA fleet already have transponders. My IFR aircraft also has a TAS fitted. Can you please explain to me how fitting yet another device to my aircraft will improve my safety in any way what-so-ever ? as Dick Smith wrote earlier, there is no quantifiable safety increase - just an extra system to maintain.

Remember we will still need the current transponders as a back up to the inevitable GPS failures - and if you doubt a terrorism event; think sunspots ... we are currently between major sun 'storms' so there is no current GPS interference from the sun (probably why the worlds cooling at the moment) though wait untill the sun turns on again :)

Quokka

15th Jul 2008, 11:35

it will not 'see' every bit of low level Oz airspace (low level Oz -thats where Ag planes live - below 1,000 feet)

True... had the crop-duster been Mode C transponder-equipped, I probably would not have seen it on RADAR at low-level... due to the RADAR shadow.

The ADS-B coverage at low-level will be much better than the RADAR coverage that currently exists overhead that airstrip for two reasons:

The RADAR beam points up and has a large shadow beneath the beam. Anyone who has called ATC and received the response... "not yet identified" would understand that they are in VHF coverage, but not in RADAR coverage. You can be in VHF coverage but not in RADAR coverage.

VHF coverage is a good example of the proposed ADS-B coverage. The VHF coverage at low level is superior to the RADAR coverage where the VHF site and RADAR site are co-located... or sited relatively close together. The additional sites planned for WA, not including Kalamunda, will provide good ADS-B coverage over the airstrip in question.

I could talk with the pilot of the RFDS aircraft on VHF, therefore, in all likelihood, both aircraft would have been in ADS-B coverage and displayed on my screen.

Therefore, ADS-B would have prevented this Close Proximity whereas SSR RADAR interrogating the Mode C equipped crop-duster would not have prevented it.

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2008, 11:45

Quokka, my understanding is that all the high end TCAS will 'ping' a transponder even outside radar coverage. As I said though, I'm not familiar with the RFD TCAS.

Biggles_in_Oz

15th Jul 2008, 12:03

Flying Binghi My IFR aircraft also has a TAS fitted. Can you please explain to me how fitting yet another device to my aircraft will improve my safety in any way what-so-ever ? as Dick Smith wrote earlier, there is no quantifiable safety increase - just an extra system to maintain.
You, for your own (safety) reasons, chose to install that TAS system.
I, am quite happy to utilize the JCP subsidy to replace, repeat, replace my ancient mode-C transponder with a more modern one.

Ok., I'll have to fit (as an absolute minimum) a small TSO'd GPS engine, but WTF can go wrong with that ?, it either feeds the ADSB transponder with valid data or it doesn't, and testing that functionality would not be excessively hard to do in the field.,
I mean, it'd be basically something along the lines of ;
(a) if the GPS antenna can 'see the sky', does the GPS report a lat/long/altitude that is consistant with the current location of that antenna and of another external (reference) GPS unit.
(b) if the GPS antenna is electrically shaded, does it then produce an indication that the lan/lon/altitude data is now invalid or suspect.

The extra testing/maintenance is not onerous., it is just different.

antzx6r

15th Jul 2008, 12:48

Another small point to ponder on... The ag plane in the example above was bombing around with no mode c and no radio. Obviously anti-establishment. what makes you think he's going to fit ADS-B when its force on us? If anything it will just give pilots a false sense of security (much like out our funky new asic cards, thanks again for that). This is just a money making exercise. You guys say hey its subsidised so whats the problem? The problem is it's payed for by tax payers. US! :ugh: Oh and makes no more need of Flightwatch staff. more money saved. You sell this like you're giving us all this extra safety for free.
Not Safe. Not Free!

Quokka

15th Jul 2008, 13:28

Not Safe.

antzx6r,

So, you're stating that mandatory installation of an ADS-B squitter in the crop-duster would not have prevented the Close Proximity?

max1

15th Jul 2008, 13:33

antsx6r,
Go back and read this WHOLE thread, the answers to what you have complained about are in here.

The ag plane is not required to have Mode C, not keeping a listening watch is bad airmanship. He can't be forced to fit ADS-B, but if he was getting it for nix, why wouldn't he. If it is fitted, it powers up with the aircraft. It gives a surveillance capability in areas where there is currently none.

It is NOT paid for by the taxpayers, it is paid for by the airlines (who yes Dick funnily enough get their money from the passengers. The airlines also spend this money on first class tickets and Grange for the Board and management, I'm sure if they had the choice of an increase in safety and Grange for the Board meeting , I know which one they'd choose.).

You also state that 'You sell this like you're giving us all this extra safety for free. ' You are getting it for free.

I also think the gutting of Flightwatch is wrong, however, the demise of Flightwatch has nothing to do with ADS-B. Where did you get THIS idea from.

The people who are involved in this project probably think ASIC cards are as big a fraud as you do. Whats THIS got to do with ADS-B.

If you want to vent, go to Jet Blast. Read this whole thread with an open mind and you might learn something.

P.S. I don't think you're helping your 'side'

james michael

15th Jul 2008, 21:22

Bing

I did go for the night as promised. Why did you think I had not?

Me a sciolist - freely admitted, that's why I keep researching to increase my meagre knowledge. The day I know it all, I'll petition to sit at Dick's feet, although realising that like all religions aviation can only have one true deity :)

But whoa there Remember we will still need the current transponders as a back up to the inevitable GPS failures - and if you doubt a terrorism event; think sunspots ... we are currently between major sun 'storms' so there is no current GPS interference from the sun (probably why the worlds cooling at the moment) though wait untill the sun turns on again

1. We do not need the current transponders, the new (replacement) ones do the job.
2. Sunspots - I'm impressed, you farm lads must study New Scientist of an evening as well as the Weekly Times? The cycle is from memory about 7 to 9 years and how long has GPS been going?

But, overnight I have reflected on your GPS 'Big Bang' theory and I think I am moving toward your thinking.

That case of the false radio call indicates we have become too reliant on radio (which as you know is affected by sunspots, aurora, etc) and can be JAMMED. Oh, oh, a GPS guided Bing Whizzy UAV bomb with all the aviation radios jammed.

We must stop the reliance on radio; this scenario could happen.

OK, an alternative? Got it, light signals. Darn, cannot use them because the laser lights needed for clarity and range, have already been used against aircraft.

Looks like our only safe move is out with the tin snips, back to the open cockpit, on with the helmet and goggles, and back to the good old days, no?

If this scenario seems another leg pull - you got me. But, I'm just thinking of where we would have been had the "anti" ADS-B lobby been debating the introduction of radio. "No defined safety benefit", "Terrorist twistable", "Being introduced by people who won't take their daily dickmite", and so on. And what will they want to introduce next - radar - no way, "it'll make us sterile", "they'll use it to charge VFR in E and G", "it will increase global warming and make the sky fall in".

Removes Troglodyte Tin Top and returns to JM sciolist mode.

Others have covered the RFDS scenario but to reinforce it once the ADS-B IN interface to TCAS is operational the RFDS would get full TA/RA options.

Ants
Flightwatch - totally different matter. If you examine the hourly traffic on the FW VHF frequencies, very difficult to justify dedicated staff and more radio spectrum. Plus - think safety - FW on the en route frequencies means you do not have to leave the en route frequency to communicate.

You can still keep your radio situational awareness and get your mayday out if the fan stops, without having the extra step during crisis of having to change back to the en route (that's if you could even get FW on thrie discrete VHF frequencies, my success rate was about half).

T28D

15th Jul 2008, 22:26

Extra gear in a croppies aircraft means more weight less revenue= it wont happen voluntarily

james michael

15th Jul 2008, 23:11

T28D

Excellent point.

Thinking it through, it would only happen involuntarily if they fly over 10,000' at present, and that's unlikely.

Or if ADS-B is mandated for CTAF R and they operate there - and such mandate will occur with or without the subsidy in time anyway, although at present it is the deferred stage 2 JCP2.

Let's also look at the weight.
Transponder swap for existing - nil nett.
TSO145 GPS engine, coax, aerial - say 3 kg?

3 kg equals what percentage of the average Ag payload?

Now, I have noted some hefty farm lads flying Ag aircraft. I guess if payload is critical the operators either need to convince their pilots to get off the Australian obesity wagon, or hire jockeys as pilots.

Either way, I think the ADS-B equipment effect on MAUW is comparable to a gnats gnob :) Thoughts?

Scurvy.D.Dog

16th Jul 2008, 00:14

http://www.offtopicz.com/images/smilies/popcorn2.gif
.
.
:E

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 00:26

Popcorn, thats a good idea Scurvy. Time to sit back and watch for a while.

... looks to me, like james michael stands to profit greatly from ADS-B :hmm:

OZBUSDRIVER

16th Jul 2008, 01:32

Mr Smith, why are you so very keen to have Approach Radar and Class C over class D? I see you are now trying to beat up the Minister for Transport as they attempt to recind the requirment for AirServices to provide approach radar for the ten regional aerodromes as stipulated in the study/commision or whateve Minister Anderson decreed back in 05.

Mr Smith, why are you so against the low level roll-out of ADS-B? This technology will provide for surveillance in the airspace surrounding these classD towers for way less than the $150,000,000.00 set for the task.

Why are you opposed to the very thing that can be implimented for the funds provided? You should be consilatory and explain to the Minister exactly what ADS-B can do in relation to this directive. The ALP could come out as heroes of the commonwealth and proclaim loud and long how they saved the country money by installing a surveillance system that cost way less than what the evil coallition wanted to do.

Your fluries of solicitors letters is going to backfire on you. ADS-B could well be the way you can have your cake and curry favour with the Minister.

antzx6r

16th Jul 2008, 01:53

So, you're stating that mandatory installation of an ADS-B squitter in the crop-duster would not have prevented the Close Proximity?
I'm saying they were flying without safety equipment then, why would they fit ADSB now. And RPT would be flying around heads in the cockpit eyes on the little blue(or whatever) screen. Unsafe.
Had the duster been fitted, sure. I don't doubt its a great gadget.

RE Flightwatch and who's paying, sorry it was late and I'm not right up on a whole lot of the argument. However you can't deny that the fitting of ADSB is part of lessening the load of other systems(manpower, not outdated technology). And as for the money... These things are expencive. If someone is covering the bill to have every aircraft fitted, that someone or an associate of there's must stand to make a whole lot more. Especially if as Dick has stated it can be done cheaper and better. (I think that's what he has stated) When have you ever seen business or gov do things the expencive way just for the good of society as a whole. Sorry I'm not convinced.

I have been with the topic from the start. I guess I must be missing something.:sad:

peuce

16th Jul 2008, 04:12

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 04:52

Mr Bing,

I'm afraid he's ahead on points, mate ... don't know if he has a piece of lead in his glove or not, but he's got some good moves ... crying foul to the ref won't save you ... you're going to have to do some more fancy footwork to evade the killer blow ...

I will assume you are refering to me peuce :hmm:

Heres me thinking this was a pilots 'game' and you think its a thugs boxing 'game' :D

- pionts ?
- glove ?
- ref ???
- footwork ?

........back to you now :)

james michael

16th Jul 2008, 06:14

Bing

A thugs boxing game says you as criticism of Peuce?

Only when someone says ... looks to me, like james michael stands to profit greatly from ADS-B

After I have several times been quite specific that I stand to gain not a cent and have no direct or indirect pecuniary interest.

That's thuggery, Bing. Cut down your dickmite intake. One puncher of fellow posters reputations is enough on here already.

Antz

However you can't deny that the fitting of ADSB is part of lessening the load of other systems(manpower ...

Adding an extra safety benefit is lessening what other systems and manpower? The ATC experts on here have already made it clear that there is no saving to them

And this slayed me Especially if as Dick has stated it can be done cheaper and better

Next you will believe politicians' promises. This is the Dick who gave us the Australian transponder mandate in Class E, 'cheaper and better :)' with user pays, Class G to Class C (thus clearances and transponders for Avalon) - and plenty of rhetoric about cheaper and better with ADS-B admitting not only does he not have the full facts but he does not even know who from industry is at the decision meetings.

If you are going to believe unsubstantiated rhetoric for deity's sake don't reply to emials from Nigeria - you'll need your money in the bank to pay for the next 'saving' from our saviour.

Kaptain_Kaos

16th Jul 2008, 06:55

Just popped my head in again.

Its been a long time since Dick has been here.
Maybe his attention span reached its limit.
Or maybe, as he said, he is finished with this thread and everyone on it.

Dick....Dick....don"t want to play anymore?????

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 07:45

Interesting Editorial in todays Courier Mail about yesterdays state wide (QLD) phone failure. Whilst its not about ADS-B, I think a couple of comments relate well to my concerns about the fragility of ADS-B.

I hope the Courier Mail does'nt mind me borrowing this paragraph -

...In the wake of this glitch - if you can call a small disaster that cost millions and inconvenienced countless thousands such a thing - it may be high time to reconsider our reliance on singular systems, without the option for substantive back-up.

Full Editorial at - Communcation crisis should not be so easy | The Courier-Mail (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24026746-13360,00.html)

(my bolding)

james michael

16th Jul 2008, 08:06

Bing

Anything in the article on thuggery to fellow posters not needing redundancy? :(

I think yours is a great call about redundancy.

Surprising the CM did not mention that there is backup in the telephone network - there is the terrestrial system and the mobile phone system working on entirely separate networks. But, why should a newspaper spoil a good story with facts?

For aviation, enroute separation is achievable by INS and DTI, in simple terms.

But, you are correct - the benefit of having BOTH MSSR and ADS-B in primary traffic areas would be invaluable should the tired old radar fall over - given radar is only based on a single revolving head that is a monty for destruction that would take it out of action for weeks by a Binghi Whizzer Line of Sight Terrorist UAV bomb (actually did someone say a 50 cal burst would suffice?).

ADS-B to the rescue in the high traffic terminal areas to keep the airline passengers and freight on the move. Redundancy to the Rescue.

Bing, I can see you have converted from ADS-B Atheist to Commonsense Convert. Hopefully the Airservices people reading this thread, lacking guidance from the Guru, will recognise the invaluable soundness of what you propose.

It's almost enough, but not quite, to have me absolve you from the deliberate slur on my motives for being here.

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 08:27

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 08:34

......... and james michael, I think I made a mistake calling you an arrogant jerk - I'm thinking now that your more of a Buffoon :)

james michael

16th Jul 2008, 08:36

Bing

If you could demonstrate the intimidation you claim?

Was that where I suggested you stood to make a bucket of money out of ADS-B?

I'm also intrigued at how someone intimidates via information posted hereon. Sharing facts and data and agreeing with your redundancy theory as something I had not even seen the value of in handling PTO in terminal areas is hardly intimidation.

I thought the first mention of thuggery came from you. Actually. reflecting on it, I think the red words above need to be reversed although it would obviously be intimidatory to suggest you withdraw the unwarranted slur on my character and motives.

Edited to add - and while I'm preparing my reply you are at it again with more invective, thus putting another bullet in your tootsie.

Better a buffoon than a spitoon, Bing.

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 08:41

................................:cool:

Bob Murphie

16th Jul 2008, 09:20

Flying Binghi;

I would advise you that you underestimate Mr michael.

He is not as stupid as he looks.

Indeed he looks like a photo I once saw in an AOPA magazine.

Seems that the AOPA forum is dead so they must start spruiking their propaganda on a sterile website as this. You should note, if I have his handle correctly, he, and his "puss filled" mate are banned here.

It must be bad for their members who only want them to represent them in the quest to "fly without unnecessary restrictions and costs". If he is who I believe he is.

If things go pear shaped, they will blame Dick Smith or myself.

Remember this is the same crew that wanted the ASIC mandated so they could make a quid out of their members. Same mob wanted the security locking devices introduced so they could claim saviour status by designing a mixture control lock. Same mob that accepted money from CASA for Roadshows, same mob who didn't fight the Part 47 registration mess, the same mob who made a deal with CASA AVMED branch so it only cost you half what CASA reckoned was a good thing, and embraced, albeit with reservations the ADSB concept.

I believe the spruiker here, Mr james, has an interest that does not abide what his fellow members expect of him as a member of a peak GA aviation body.

He has demonstrated he is an avid supporter of the concept and to hell with his responsibilities.

I believe his problem are just started.
I support your appreciation of his personality disorder, Buffoon.

Start the clock and wait his response, I'll give it 5 minutes.

Bets anyone?

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 09:22

NOW, to recap what I think seems to have the poster calling him/her self james michael in a fluster. (I seem to have to keep repeating myself)

I have a concern that an ADS-B based ATC system, by relying on the GPS signals presents a danger to the future of Oz aviation, in that the GPS signal can be lost for any number of reasons.

Remove the GPS signal and we have NO ADS-B.

One scenario I have presented, is a small Buzz Bomb type device, possibly hundreds, launched from 500 plus miles off-shore and turning up here in Oz with better then 30 metres accuracy. Will we still want those GPS targetting signals being provided ?

Sunspots - GPS can be greatly affected by sun 'storms' or sunspots. We are currently in a sunspot lull, with the sunspot season, which lasts many years, about to get underway again.

At present, Australia currently has a good robust ATC system that has NO reliance on any one component - I think the QLD telephone dramas demonstraite all to well what can happen.

With the present system of aircraft transponders (non ADS-B) and aircraft fitted traffic aviodance systems (TAS), if the entire ATC system vanished, individual aircraft fitted with TAS will still be able to see other aircraft fitted with transponders. Large passenger jets currently have TAS installed. Most GA aircraft already have non ADS-B transponders fitted.

... and thats all for now, my one typing finger is wearing out :)

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 09:32

I apreciate the advice Bob Murphie :)

I best repeat what I have posted before -

I have NO association with Dick Smith. I have never met the man, I have never talked to him, I have never corresponded with him.

My understanding is that Dick Smith is FOR ADS-B. I am against ADS-B

My views are entirely my own

Edit - My understanding is Dick Smith is for an improved ADS-B system, not the current proposal. And Dick Smith does not want ADS-B below 10,000 feet, He sees no valid safety reason for it.

james michael

16th Jul 2008, 09:47

Bob Murphie

I suggest in future you eat your dickmite; don't smoke it.

Your posts are a most amazing mishmash of conspiracy and convolution that leaves one uncertain and calling for position advisory.

I think is is increasingly obvious to all readers that you are not here to debate ADS-B, you are here to cover the strategic withdrawal of the Aviation Pope and try and drag the thread into invective so it is closed.

Your name rings a bell - are you not the disenchanted ex-AOPA director who has been around forums since your 'exit' trying to get even?

Sorry Bob Murphie, your drift will not succeed.

Bing

An apology to you, I thought you were on the dickmite trail but your current post returns to the topic. And, I'm in a fluster you say? Yeah, right, I might just hold off on the m'aidez for the moment :)

At present, Australia currently has a good robust ATC system that has NO reliance on any one component

Pardon? It is reliant on TAAATS (that is backed up ML / BN) and radar heads - that are not backed up but will be by ADS-B. The system has ABSOLUTE reliance on one component - each radar head - until ADS-B arrives.

GPS can be greatly affected by sun 'storms' or sunspots.

You trot out your RAIM data and I'll trot out mine.

if the entire ATC system vanished, individual aircraft fitted with TAS will still be able to see other aircraft fitted with transponders

Now I get it - it's you with the pecuniary interest - you have forked out $10K plus for a TCAS and it becomes obsolete with ADS-B. Ahhhhhhh.

Bing, you must be chewing a small plug of dickmite - like him you ignore responses and move on to the next wild card.

Your whole scenario is based on:
1. Terrorist attacks
2. GPS system total failure or blocking.

Ever studied probability and/or chaos theory?

Dick Smith is FOR ADS-B? On his terms. Who does he represent (apart from Dick)?

tail wheel

16th Jul 2008, 10:33

There are those posting in this thread whose access to PPRuNe has previously been removed, on a number of occasions, under various nom de plums.

They have a long history of contributing to the demise of various aviation bulletin boards but have never been given the same opportunity on PPRuNe. Because they destroyed other similar forums and have no where else to go, they are again back voicing their ill informed, bigoted opinions on PPRuNe.

They are back under a variety of pseudonyms and they and I know who they are. They are easy to detect: persistently aggressive, bigoted and biased "expert opinion" posts; inability to accept other’s perspectives; inability to debate an issue in a calm professional manner. They exhibit very little real knowledge or experience of the subjects they debate.

Their aviation life exists solely within the periphery of amateur aviation, at a knowledge and experience level commensurate with private flying.

It is to those I address my comments:

You are guests on PPRuNe and your access is at our pleasure, only if you desist from your repetitious aggressive posts and subtle and not so subtle threats to other users.

Otherwise, history will repeat itself and you will again be seeking another aviation forum to destroy.

Don’t say you have not been warned! :=

Tail Wheel

Bob Murphie

16th Jul 2008, 10:48

Hey, Binghi.

Dick is "FOR" ADSB above A010 and he has made it quiet clear that he is "OPPOSED" to low level ADSB. I could be wrong, but I'm sure james michael will correct me within the minute of my posting.

UAV's aside, a croppie generally gets nosebleed above 500ft, RFDS are within this arena for, what, 5 seconds? Most croppies have a very sophisticated GPS system, some are a bit lax with radio.

I have mentioned before that I had a near miss with a RFDS King Air in the Gulf, with many credible witnesses on the ground, and I was in a "BOAT". The boat had an ELT and a torch.

What was this ******** doing at this altitude, at night, which was below the sand cliff on approach? Would ADSB have prevented this pilot error?

I have the details stored.

ADSB is like security cameras, It will not prevent accidents or crime, and is not proactive.

It is reactive.

Unless of course some "controller" is watching their activities, which they don't do now, unless you are in the "system", which generally means you pay money.

Aerobatic Instructor in my log book, by the name of Endacott perished at Benalla in similar circumstances

Mode C and TCAS works OK, so how will ADSB correct this wothout cost?

Biggles_in_Oz

16th Jul 2008, 10:54

flying binghiI have a concern that an ADS-B based ATC system, by relying on the GPS signals presents a danger to the future of Oz aviation, in that the GPS signal can be lost for any number of reasons.

Remove the GPS signal and we have NO ADS-B.True.... improbable, (as borne out by past experience with GPS uptime availabilty) but true. There are very few absolutes in this universe., almost everything has some degree of uncertainty attached.

Please please please comprehend that the JCP did not propose to make ATC totally reliant on ADSB. Will you at least please read the JCP. I can email you a .PDF copy if you wish

Quokka

16th Jul 2008, 11:28

Mode C and TCAS works OK

In this particular situation, between the RFDS aircraft and the crop-duster... it didn't.

I see two options that would guarantee it won't happen again...

1. Mandating the installation and use of Mode C transponders in crop-dusters (if the pilot actually switches the thing on!)... RFDS issues with TCAS RA's aside. Note, there is no subsidy for installation.

2. Mandating the installation and use of a 1090ES ADS-B transponder which activates automatically at start-up and which would provide the RFDS aircraft with awareness of the fact that the aircraft is operating in the area before the RFDS aircraft departs. With a subsidy for installation.

As a friend suggested to me the other day... "it's a no-brainer".

Bob Murphie

16th Jul 2008, 12:03

The most inexpensive alternative to give the RFDS "security" would be to mandate Mode C txp. However given the time spent below 500ft agl for RFDS, where most croppies operate, I can accept they would think it an impost.

Of course the other option is if operating VFR below 500ft,

IS TO LOOK OUT THE WINDOW.

T28D

16th Jul 2008, 12:18

James Michael, 3kg a small amount, maybe but consider this a croppie doing say 20 loads a day =60Kg extra for the day say working 40 weeks a year =200 days thus the insignificant 3kg adds up to 12,000 kg a not insignificant sum.

so is 3kg material, I guess it depends where you come from, to the croppie I would say yes, to an avionics sales person, I would say no.

ADSB for croppies flying VFR, just a totally redundant concept methinks.

Numbers never lie.

Biggles_in_Oz

16th Jul 2008, 12:45

T28D
To save precious cumulative payload weight for your 'croppie' why not ;
(1) use a pilot who weighs less than the others,
(2) put the existing pilot on a diet,
(3) fly nude,
(4) remove the ELT,
(5) only fly with the absolute minimum of fuel required for a job,
(6) only fly when the air-density is favourable,
(7) make the pilot take a dump before flight. (there's at least a kilo saved)
(8) don't let the pilot drink a can of something before flight. (nearly 0.4kg there!)
(9) remove all the exterior paint,
(10) drill more holes in non-structural panels,

arggggghhh..... that has got to be the lamest excuse for not fitting ADSB to an aircraft that I have ever heard.
If the extra weight was to be 20 kg or more I would then actually start to have some concerns and/or sympathy., but for < 5kg ?
(with present-day electronics the replacement transponder could even turn out to be lighter in weight than the old mode-C unit)

Quokka

16th Jul 2008, 13:08

Love it... :E

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 14:05

Hmmm... looks like I have let myself be stirred up a bit when I would of been better off ignoreing it :O

..... any way, back to the thread.

====================================================

Dick is "FOR" ADSB above A010 and he has made it quiet clear that he is "OPPOSED" to low level ADSB

Bob Murphie, thanks for that, I have ammended my previous post.

=====================================================

Please please please comprehend that the JCP did not propose to make ATC totally reliant on ADSB. Will you at least please read the JCP.

Biggles_in_Oz, I have serious concerns that if we allow ADS-B to be 'the' ATC system, that we will not be able to easily go back to our current robust ATC system if the need arises - we may not have the back-up there when we need it, JCP not-withstanding.

I would argue that since ADS-B needs much off the current system as a back-up - why not just keep the current system - maintain it, employ more ATC, and pay them properly

=========================================================

In this particular situation, between the RFDS aircraft and the crop-duster... it didn't.

Quokka, I'm wondering what the RFD pilot was doing if He carnt see a large, slow moving Ag plane - was He looking out the window ? There are other things a pilot needs to be looking for when flying at the level of Ag aircraft - flocks of birds for example.

james michael

16th Jul 2008, 21:52

Bob Murphie

I have mentioned before that I had a near miss with a RFDS King Air in the Gulf, with many credible witnesses on the ground, and I was in a "BOAT". The boat had an ELT and a torch.

What was this ******** doing at this altitude, at night, which was below the sand cliff on approach? Would ADSB have prevented this pilot error?

As has been suggested by others to others on here, please have a read of the JCP with an open mind looking for cheese not holes and gain an understanding of the total project.

The JCP is also firmly based on TSO146 Navigators with approach capability for IFR aircraft. In fact, the proposed JCP savings are based as much around navaid maintenance as radar.

ADS-B would not have prevented the pilot error - but a highly accurate TSO146 Navigator (which as your research has no doubt told you provides FDE and SA), coupled with an increase in certified GPS approaches due to the fleet fitment, would have given him a 'railroad line' approach well clear of your boat and with he/her and his pax safe.

Dick can see no safety benefits for ADS-B below 10,000'? He is correct to divorce the benefits of ADS-B from those of GPS NAV, but the JCP is premised on both taking place.

From memory Dick mentioned talking to or being aware of the RFDS situation in WA. My understanding is that their greatest concern is below 10,000' as above that the big sky theory of randomness separation ensues.

The alternative is perhaps for CASA to declare the Gulf a "Sea TAF R" and to require all tinnies within the vicinity of the aerodrome (10 Nm a la CAR 166) to have radio and transponder, certified lifejackets, two yearly RADs ....... :D

Dick Smith

16th Jul 2008, 22:41

Ozbusdriver, I’m only pushing for approach radar if we have Class C airspace. That is because there is no way an air traffic controller knows where a VFR aircraft is in the Class C unless the air traffic controller has both primary and secondary radar. You don’t seem to understand this.

In relation to the ADS-B, you obviously haven’t read my posts – or you cannot understand what I’m actually writing. Can I suggest that you give me a phone call on 0408 640 221 or 02 9450 0600 so we can discuss it?

Seeing that James Michael won’t do this, you may. I will go through the details again.

By the way, you may have noticed that I have been reasonably astute in my lifetime in relation to business decisions. That astuteness is simply being reflected at the moment in relation to ADS-B. I have had lots of boffins working for me over the years who would have sent me into bankruptcy by going ahead with something like the low level ADS-B subsidy – although on a smaller scale.

Ozbusdriver, give me a ring and I think you will understand my position a lot better.

Dick Smith

16th Jul 2008, 23:34

By the way, I support ADS-B everywhere (both above and below 10,000 feet), as long as it meets proper cost benefit criteria so we are not misallocating our safety dollars. In my belief, it is wrong to spend $100 million of our industry’s money in reducing risk that is so minimal it is almost immeasurable.

Just as importantly, we should be very careful when we move to ADS-B that we do not move to an “orphan.” There is no hurry at the moment to mandate ADS-B. At the present time Airservices is installing ADS-B stations across Australia, and more and more aircraft are being fitted with ADS-B. That is what we should keep doing with a parallel system.

Airservices should not push us to make a decision within 2 months that could affect our industry, and if the decision was wrong it could basically destroy general aviation.

Airservices should enter into a contract to replace or refurbish their secondary surveillance radars, continue to encourage aircraft owners to fit ADS-B, and also tell us the cost and advantages of the multilateration system in Tasmania.

Only when we have all the facts can the industry make the correct decision.

CrazyMTOWDog

16th Jul 2008, 23:42

That is because there is no way an air traffic controller knows where a VFR aircraft is in the Class C unless the air traffic controller has both primary and secondary radar. You don’t seem to understand this.

That is absolute rubbish. I suggest you 're-word' your false and misleading statement or remove it.

james michael

16th Jul 2008, 23:48

Airservices should not push us to make a decision within 2 months that could affect our industry, and if the decision was wrong it could basically destroy general aviation.

I don't believe I am reading this. :ugh::ugh:

That is because there is no way an air traffic controller knows where a VFR aircraft is in the Class C unless the air traffic controller has both primary and secondary radar.

Or ADS-B.

Primary radar also mandated? Last I looked Class C was transponder airspace (MSSR). Didn't realise ATC were focussed on primary paints in C.

Any ATC able to advise re this dual procedure.

Still, until ADS-B arrives, a good reason for Avalon to be Class C not D.

Only when we have all the facts can the industry make the correct decision

Industry seems happy with the facts it has. Because the bridesmaid does not have the wedding night details is irrelevant, but since Dick is never going to get 'the full facts' - Dick will remain unable to make the 'correct decision' - but it won't stop the rhetoric. :hmm:

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2008, 23:51

All this talk about RFD ops in W.A. made me have a closer look at some of the problems that may be encounted in those remote areas.

Came across some comments about the difficultys of maintaining transponders via these minutes of the ASTRA ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT)

(Please note I have edited parts for brevity)

Certification of Large Aircraft for ADS-B operations

• Greg Dunstone presented IP002 and sought input from avionics experts.
Discussion
•
• Steve Lansell - ... pointed out that if the ADS-B equipment was made subject to a testing regime similar to that applied for transponders, it would become unworkable in WA, due to lack of avionic LAMEs outside the Perth area (there are no radio lames north of Jandakot in WA). This problem was so acute that many operators have already or were currently removing transponders due to the difficulties faced having them tested. Therefore, Stephen asked if we could we adopt a maintenance system based on condition as a part of the overall ADS-B implementation program.

• Brian Hannan – AOPA would support this RFDS view.

• Peter Flanagan felt this was an overly simplistic view and there is perhaps insufficient experience with the equipment

• Jason Burzacott advised in his experience, 20% of transponders which checked, require adjustments – in both newer solid state and older valve transponders. Adding an ADS-B check when carrying out the standard transponder check should keep the cost relatively low.
•
• Peter Flanagan – suggested that geostatic equipment is poorly maintained.
•
• Eugene Reid – noted that many sports aircraft are unable to get to LAME’s as they can’t fly into airports where LAME’s are located due to licensing and security clearances etc.

• Patrick O’Brien – said that since many aircraft operate outside of radar coverage, where there is no potential for an ATC “reality” check of their transponders, the industry needs to (ref) ...think very carefully about relaxing any current requirements.
•

My Bolding and the full view of this, is page five at -
http://www.astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/ABIT09-Meeting_minutes_9_Mar_06_V1.1.pdf

james michael

17th Jul 2008, 00:02

Bing

An excellent point and my congratulations on your move from the UAV Platform to such in depth research on ADS-B.

Another here posted recently about business decisions and safety decisions. How pertinent.

One notes two conclusions from your research.
1. Currently the RFDS must meet the transponder RAD requirements, therefore providing the RAD requirements are not changed the situation remains unchanged (in your research into the last ABIT you will undoubtedly note the availability of the test equipment already).

2. Obviously, for the RFDS to NOW be such an enthusiastic supporter / proponent of ADS-B, they are convinced that the RAD matter is a mere bagatelle in comparison to the safety benefits they are gaining from ADS-B.

I also note the organisation I joined has pushed the view of extending the RAD periodicity due to the more stable and reliable operation of the new full IC equipment and RS232 encoders.

Well done on flagging this, as an aside - given the speed of technology push and change - do you have a date for when those comments were made?

max1

17th Jul 2008, 00:23

Dick you state

"In my belief, it is wrong to spend $100 million of our industry’s money in reducing risk that is so minimal it is almost immeasurable."

That $100 million you talk about has not come from GA, that money has come from the airlines, GA navcharges are miniscule against airline charges.

The airlines would seek an immediate reduction in charges if this money did not go towards ADS-B. They are willing to see this $100 million go towards a subsidy of fitment of ADS-B into GA, for safety. The non-installation and associated running costs of SSR is the long term saving envisaged, and susequent reduction in charges in the future.

You need to stop making it sound as if this money is just sitting in a bank somewhere waiting to be spent on 'something'. The airlines are allowing this money to be cached for ADS-B. If ADS-B doesn't get up it will have to be spent on the installation and/or replacement of expensive to run and maintain SSRs.

The airlines will have to indirectly pay for the upkeep of SSRs. Do you seriously think that the airlines haven't researched this and are willing to blow a $100 million dollars of their money.

As for a 2 month decision. The planning and consultation go back years.
In six weeks time will you be complaining that they expect you to make a decision with two weeks notice?

Bob,
As for complaining about ADS-B below A100, it works and is accurate, why wouldn't you want it used where you could be seen. You guys complain that Launy tower can 'see' you on radar but can't use it for separation (due training) and on the other hand complain that if we can see you and are trained to use the equipment that you don't want it to apply.

What do you want? Or have you taken a stance, and thats it. I am not changing my mind. Your arguments and FBs are becoming more and more frivolous, buzz bombs, sunspots, and some guy in a digger cut the Optus line.

I'm not sure if you guys have had any exposure to safety risk management, here is the five dollar version.

When a safety case is done events such as these are given a value e.g. low ,medium, high impact and a likelihood of happening e.g. weekly , monthly , yearly, once in a hundred years etc.
Then risk mitigators are applied i.e a way of doing things to overcome the severity and timing of the occurence.

If something is high impact (e.g. buzzbombs) and will happen frequently e.g. yearly, and would see the GPS signal turned off and no back up separation available, this would kill a project stone dead.
If the buzzbombs are however seen as a once in a hundred years event and a form of separation available in a safe timeframe this would not kill the project.

Nothing in this world, besides death and taxes, is a given. All we can do is try and mitigate as much as we can.

Procedural separation (i.e. outside surveillance range) is based on mathematical probability. A 10 minute longitidunal standard (along track) is not because we want the aircraft 10 minutes apart for controller amusement, it is based on all the variable factors of aircraft navigation. The lead aircraft may lose 2 minutes and the following aircraft may gain 2 minutes (they are only required to update estimates if they change by MORE than 2 minutes.)
There maybe inaccuracies in the aircrafts nav equipment, it may have been hours since they were last over land for a definite fix etc, etc

All these factors are thrown into the mix, and the standard is increased until the mathematical probability of two aircraft sharing the same piece of airspace, if all the holes line up, is so outrageously large that it would be like winning Lotto two weeks running. This also keeps the insurers happy, they like numbers.

Please don't be thinking that $100 million dollars is being thrown at ADS-B on a " Geez that seems a good idea, we'll give that a whirl".

This thread has been linked to the SeaSprite unfairly, I am sure everyone is aware of the politicking that goes on when defence spending happens (not inferring anything with SeaSprite), build a piece in my electorate, cosy job afterwards with defence contractors, general stupidity, etc.

I really don't see the parallels here, you attack JMs argument by inferring he has a vested interest, he denies this, but you won't leave off. What of the others who have made good points?

Capn Bloggs

17th Jul 2008, 00:56

Dick,
That is because there is no way an air traffic controller knows where a VFR aircraft is in the Class C unless the air traffic controller has both primary and secondary radar.
Yes he does. Procedural C works well at ASP and has done for years. ATC do need some sort of low-level surveillance there (ADSB is the obvious candidate) but until then, procedural C works OK. Your long-held view about the connection between C and radar is a furphy, as you have been told many times before. Just because your beloved Septic Tanks don't have procedural C, why can't we, especially given all the fluffing around going on about implementation of ADSB?

james michael

17th Jul 2008, 01:02

A little more research on top of Bing's.

That ABIT Meeting was March 2006 - over 2 years ago.

Interesting, even then, RFDS WA was concerned about safety and pushing for MORE sites for ADS-B. Extract below:

"Steve Lansell – RFDS list provided 8 WA sites – not sure why they weren’t assessed. Traffic provides a risk to RFDS (tourist flights etc.) and requested that Kununurra, Tarren Rock and Fitzroy Crossing be reconsidered. Albany could be swapped for Meriden (location of the China Southern Flying School)."

We have been told by others no safety benefit exists below 10,000' - one can only assume these tourist flights abovementioned are on oxygen :rolleyes:

Now to maintenance and the RAD 43/47 scenario.

RFDS WA operate 6 x PC12, 5 x B200 = 11 aircraft.

This from the RFDS WA website:

"All aircraft maintenance is managed from our maintenance facility at Jandakot Airport. The facility is able to carry out all airframe, engine, avionics, electrical and instrument maintenance activities in support of our fleet other than major engine overhauls and some specialist equipment repairs.

Our PC12 and B200 aircraft require scheduled maintenance inspections each 200 flying hours. The inspections typically take between one and three days depending on the aircraft type and spares availability. Based on our current flying activity, approximately 75 such inspections are carried out each year."

It would seem our concerns of 2006 are now unfounded as even if the RFDS did not equip to undertake ADS-B RAD, the location at Jandakot makes such work quite simple coincident with routine maintenance that - dividing 75 by 11 equals each aircraft in for maintenance at least every two months.

Another obstacle removed from the ADS-B path :)

Scurvy.D.Dog

17th Jul 2008, 04:25

An Orphan or not?

Creampuff has raised this issue for discussion, and although it has been raised and discussed previously, and in this thread, it is worthwhile summarising the points made

Delivery Frequency - 1090ES world standard

1. 1090ES has been selected as the worldwide standard for ADS-B in the flight levels (lets call it for arguments sake the Pressurised Aircraft standard)
2. High-Cap manufacturers have been and will continue to equip their aircraft with 1090ES TXPDR’s (Boeing, Airbus et al)
3. A large proportion of the High-Cap fleet are already fitted.
4. Universal (turbo prop type avionics) and others have 1090ES equipment ready to go
5. ACAS systems will be provided far more accurate and predictive data on which to display targets and calculate resolutions.
6. ANSP’s around the world are/will install 1090ES ground stations for the high level en-route, regional and Surface (airport) traffic surveillance requirements
7. Most every country with the exception of the US and Sweden will utilise this 1090ES infrastructure to accommodate their low level GA surveillance requirements (although their maybe a shift in thinking in the US and Sweden)
8. All countries will have 1090ES surveillance infrastructure to accommodate the ‘pressurised aircraft standard’ 1090ES equipped aircraft

Bottom line, 1090ES will be utilised worldwide in all countries for the Pressurised RPT fleet, from the enroute high all the way down to and including the future advanced surface surveillance and anti-collision/incursion protections that are required to address the identified, and ever growing risks apparent with manoeuvring area (runways, taxiways and vehicles) operations! In other words, 1090ES ADS-B will be around ‘globally’ for many many years to come!

…. No Orphan there!

The compatibility, safety and efficiencies grown from this global standard are recognised and are unprecedented, initiatives such as:-

a. ADS-B in-trail autonomous operations (where ATS surveillance does not exist)
b. Enabling ATC to utilise vastly improved surveillance to apply 5nm standards rather than far more restrictive time, distance or Mach no techniques where surveillance currently does not exist
c. Enabling reduced separation standards where ground based navigation systems are not available (Oceanic)
d. Enabling a quantum shift in pilot, ATC and vehicle operator situational hazard awareness on the surface, the list of advances in this area is almost limitless

Interfacing with the rest of the Aviation industry – GA 1090ES or other?

1. 1090ES ground infrastructure will be wide spread
2. 1090ES will be carried by the aircraft (Pressurised RPT) that the regulators will seek to protect through airspace classification and/or mandated carriage of collision mitigation equipment

Outside Capital City PRIM, SSR, WAMLAt ADS-B veils – Regional and Remote areas with ADS-B only surveillance, or no surveillance

a. Unless the (Pressurised) RPT can ‘see’ (ACAS) and/or hear ALL the target aircraft, then restriction/exclusion is possible/probable
b. If ADS-B ground infrastructure is not present, then all aircraft operating in the circling and climb and descent areas must logically be utilising the same ADS-B delivery frequency for aircraft to aircraft ACAS identification
c. If ADS-B ground infrastructure is not present and all aircraft operating in the circling and climb and descent areas are not utilising the same ADS-B delivery frequency RPT’s will not ‘see’ GA and vice versa
d. If ADS-B ground infrastructure is present, with all aircraft 1090ES equipped, the infrastructure is simple and single band passive
e. If ADS-B ground infrastructure is present, with RPT utilising 1090ES, and GA utilising another delivery frequency (UAT), the infrastructure will need to be complex dual transmit and receive, the 1090ES targets received will need to be re-broadcast on UAT, and the UAT targets received will need to be re-broadcast on 1090ES
f. The cost and complexity of dual band ADS-B ground stations (US UAT) V’s single band passive (1090ES) would logically be far greater
g. Dual band infrastructure could have the effect of ‘flooding’ the 1090ES and UAT bandwidth/s with the re-broadcast information (TBA)
h. The possibility for fail-unsafe is heightened with dual band ground stations. If a dual band ground station fails OCTA, the separate groups of pilots (1090ES RPT and UAT GA pilots) would be unaware of the missing target data on the other.
i. VHF radio provides no fail safe as VFR are not active in classifications such as ICAO E

Interoperability guaranteeing continued access during contingency – Fail Safe

Single Band 1090ES and Dual band ADS-B (UAT)

1. Single band ADS-B permits contingency planning with less restriction (access to CTA and Airport environs)
2. Dual band failure results in contingency restrictions i.e. UAT GA could likely be restricted from high volume airspace and airports resulting from a failure of the dual band infrastructure (UAT aircraft would be invisible to ATC and other Pilots and vehicles)
3. UAT Aircraft are totally reliant on UAT ADS-B interaction within the system, including within surveillance redundant airspace that retains SSR and WAMLat as neither of these systems will ‘see’ UAT aircraft

Capital City – PRIM, MSSR, WAMLat A,C,S, 1090ES ADS-B system redundancy

1. 1090ES GA aircraft will retain the ability during contingency operations of ADS-B failure to access capital city veils
2. UAT GA are reliant on functioning UAT ground infrastructure. Access to capital city becomes problematic during failure redundancies UAT GA would likely need to retain Mode A,C or S capability (two boxes)

GA ADS-B Avionics – What we know

1. 1090ES GA avionics is ready today
2. Many (read most) countries with a small to medium density of GA aircraft will adopt 1090ES for GA for all of the compatibility, safety, cost and interoperability reasons listed above
3. GA aircraft equipped with 1090ES avionics will be compatible in dual band countries. The same does not apply in the reverse
4. The true costs, functionality and reliability of Dual Band ADS-B are yet to be seen.
5. Dual band ground and airborne based equipment is more complex, less redundancy safe, and likely to be limited to one country of origin with possible pricing effects for international sales

It is the opinion of this writer that 1090ES for GA cannot become an ‘orphan’ based purely on the realities of 100% adoption and ratification of the 1090ES platform for the ‘pressurised’ commercial sector Worldwide.

Whilst 1090ES for GA remains fully compatible from a functional, safety, and redundancy/contingency point of view, it is inconceivable that it could become the ‘DME A’ of the 21st Century. The same cannot be said for GA ADS-B delivered on a different and GA unique incompatible platform

Australian Specifics

ATS System Contingencies in a GPS Nav, ADS-B equipped era

The ‘Big Bing’ scenario

The ATS system will retain critical redundancies in the event of a catastrophic failure of GPS and/or ADS-B (even though the risk is vanishingly small – I knew I would find an appropriate use for that term one day Bill and Bob)

1. Capital City operations retain:-

Surveillance

a. Primary Radar
b. MSSR Radar
c. WAMlat A/C/S (Precision approach monitor for PROPS etc)
d. All TXPDR’s will continue to operate in A/C/S mode

Navigation

a. ILS
b. VOR
c. DME (I)

Failure safe procedures and alerts

a. GPS system alerts (loss of data alerts)
b. Break-off procedures, separation standards unaffected (3nm and 5nm surveillance standards still apply)
c. Alternative approach and navigation options as above

2. Enroute, Regional and Remote area operations

Surveillance and ATS Services

a. CTA ADS-B Based ATC
b. OCTA ADS-B FISS (Flight Information Surveillance Service) – Flight Service with ‘eyes’ …. eh griffo :E
c. Enroute MSSR Radar (that would be replaced with ADS-B) has varied amounts of coverage full to limited to no reach into regional terminal area environs today
d. Most OCTA areas that will benefit greatly from ADS-B have no, or no useful (reliable) MSSR Radar coverage today
e. Areas not currently afforded MSSR, would likely never receive surveillance as MSSR is prohibitively expensive in a Regional sense

Navigation (the back-up network of ground based navaids)

a. ILS (where equipped)
b. VOR
c. DME (I) (where co-located with VOR, and equipped)

Failure safe procedures and alerts

a. GPS system alerts (loss of ADS-B data alerts)
b. Alternative approach and navigation options as above
c. In OCTA areas, the contingency is as it is now i.e. IFR procedural DTI
d. In CTA/R areas, the contingency is as it is now, procedural, visual separation.

In other words, the contingency (however ridiculously unlikely, and likely only ever for very short duration in a specific location/s) would return the ATS system to basically what we have today, not bad as a ‘contingency’ fallback only!

Why you would want the ATS system to stay as it is (and cost no less, arguably more)?? … particularly when the players involved clearly recognise the efficiency, safety and cost benefit to all, and are therefore happy to provide a subsidy to GA to realise these benefits for all? :ugh:
.
GA will receive Accurate Nav, No cost access to compatible airspace, anti-collision protection, future cost savings TO ALL USERS. There are no additional costs or restrictions to VFR in this, in fact quite the opposite!

In closing, I must comment on this erroneous view that ADS-B Below A100 does not address any ‘measurable safety issue’. The number of mid-air’s and Airprox’s here and abroad in OCTA G, CTAF and E, this year alone, the warning signs are clearly there, they have been for some time …. I ask this:-

Without any ‘real’ accurate data on which to assess ‘real’ collision pair opportunities, in many OCTA locations, do we need to wait for the big accident to occur? :suspect:

…particularly where there is an unprecedented opportunity NOW to provide no-cost mitgators BEFORE the FACT?

To do otherwise is just plain daft, short sighted, bloody minded and old school! :=

Cheers :ok:

P.S. Eh Bob ... your last post is a pearla :D ... an insight if ever there was one :hmm:

Flying Binghi

17th Jul 2008, 05:43

In other words, the contingency (however ridiculously unlikely, and likely only ever for very short duration in a specific location/s) would return the ATS system to basically what we have today, not bad as a ‘contingency’ fallback only!

Scurvy.D.Dog, perhaps you can enlighten us how you know that a 'contingency' would only be of short duration and at specific locations ?

I take note that the current ASIC cards and security fenceing are NOT of "short duration"

I also note that Airservices are not even maintaining our current primary ATC system properly. With that track record, how then can we expect Airservices to even maintain a back-up system ?

Biggles_in_Oz

17th Jul 2008, 07:50

Flying Binghi
expletive deleted... this is getting weary..
In other words, the contingency (however ridiculously unlikely, and likely only ever for very short duration in a specific location/s) would return the ATS system to basically what we have today, not bad as a ‘contingency’ fallback only!Scurvy.D.Dog, perhaps you can enlighten us how you know that a 'contingency' would only be of short duration and at specific locations ? Re-read what you quoted.., it doesn't claim that a outage would be of short duration., just that it would be likely to be so.

In this real world, there are 4 GNSS systems at various stages of operation.
(1) the USA 'GPS/Navstar', which has been working since the late 70's,
(2) the Ruskki 'GLONASS', upish since the early 80's,
(3) the EU 'Galileo', 1 bird up on test, expected to be operational in 2011,
(4) the Chinese 'Compass', 1 bird up on test.

The above systems are independantly controlled.
Most nav receivers only process signals from one system, so even though your 'GPS' receiver gets the 'GLONASS' signals, it can't use them. (usually for technical and cost reasons)

Last year, the EU and the USA agreed to have interoperability on the L1C frequency for civilian use, meaning that over the next few years as new satellites get put into orbit, there will be, in effect, a doubling of the existing constellation of satellites that we civvies can use.
Now tell me that that isn't going to be better and more reliable.
sometimes sovereign states do cooperate for the common good

max1

17th Jul 2008, 11:30

FB,
You are now onto security fencing and ASIC cards, give it away.

Bob,

I know its probably a typo, but I hope your beacon is a 406 Mhz and not a 400Mhz

'If I end up in the "boonies" my mandated 400Mhz ELT will save me.'

Also, Bob you don't have to be "in the system" with ADS-B to be seen, if you are in range of a ground station you will be an uncorrelated track i.e. a blip
The subsidy is there, it is budgeted for.
I wouldn't know, but are there really less GA aircraft now than 43 years ago? Or is this on a per capita basis.
Bob you seem like a genuine bloke, cranky, but genuine. I hope all this delivers as promised and in a few years time we chat about this and you tell us how you never realised what a bonus all this would be.
Lifes too short to get your blood pressure up on the internet.

Flying Binghi

17th Jul 2008, 11:43

Hmmm.............. so it would seem there is no real answer to the little GPS guided Buzz Bombs eh ? :(

... apart from removeing the availability of civvy GPS. Thus, No GPS = No ADS-B

Due to one terrorism event outside Oz, we pilots now have imposed apon us the silly ASICs and security fences for the last several years.

Imagine what would happen if dozens of GPS guided buzz bombs started flying in over the Oz coast line and hitting randomly selected targets - chaos :(

The civvy GPS signal will have to be stopped until the new terror threat could be neutralised - how long will it take ? ...could be many years. In the meantime, so much for the ADS-B system.

IMHO, I see no reason to change from our current robust ATC system. No random terrorism event can bring down our entire current ATC system - thats the current ATC system that is, in part, proposed to be retained as a back up to the ADS-B system.

It does seem piontless to me to change to a system that needs the current system as a back up :rolleyes:

Quokka

17th Jul 2008, 12:01

IMHO, I see no reason to change from our current robust ATC system.

...it's not as robust as you might think it is. Far from it.

Scurvy.D.Dog

17th Jul 2008, 13:18

In your UAV dreams Bung
.
... Lithium mate ... don't embarrass yourself unnecessarily …. like the gun tot’n ‘Dinosaur’s in Oz’ travelling internet show do!!
.
... for those 'really' interested in the realities of OZ ADS-B .. go back 1 page :ok:

Quokka

17th Jul 2008, 14:12

... deep breaths .... cobalt blue seas ... d1ckheads not worth the time ....beer .... GOOD BEER!

Yep, and funny you should mention "cobalt blue seas"... I just spent the last hour planning my next fortnight off work and booking a week-&-a-half at a Club Med resort.

Shutting down the laptop and heading off for a massage and a beer. It's a hard life... :E

Creampuff

17th Jul 2008, 21:20

You mount a very compelling and objective argument SDD (reinforced by Oz’s earlier).

I am almost convinced, and may be convinced.

I have a number of (genuine) residual questions. Please, again, bear with me if I’m missing something that is obvious.

The overarching question that I asked, out loud, at the end of your post was:

If the system you’re advocating is so good, why has the US implemented UAT for GA?

I stress that I’m not saying that what the US does is necessarily the best. Nor am I saying that if Australia imposes a system different from the US, the equipment will necessarily become an orphan. But why didn’t the US perceive what appear to be overwhelming arguments to implement a different system?

Secondly, I do have concerns about the implicit assumptions in this:Outside Capital City PRIM, SSR, WAMLAt ADS-B veils – Regional and Remote areas with ADS-B only surveillance, or no surveillance

a. Unless the (Pressurised) RPT can ‘see’ (ACAS) and/or hear ALL the target aircraft, then restriction/exclusion is possible/probable[Formatting removed]

You’ll understand that there’s a world of difference between the denotation of the word ‘restriction’ compared with the word ‘exclusion’, and ‘possible’ compared with ‘probable’. Your mixture of them is unfortunate, because it’s not clear whether your assumption is that non-ADSB GA will possibly be restricted or probably be excluded. One end of that spectrum is a temporary inconvenience, the other, ugly.

Perhaps more importantly, I don’t see the justification for any restriction or exclusion in G (a least to the extent of restrictions extending beyond the existing requirements for carriage and use of radio). I’m not aware of any accident involving fare paying passengers in Australia that would have been prevented if GA aircraft, without ADSB or equivalent functionality, had been restricted or excluded from the equivalent of the current CTAF(R).

If I had a buck for each time CASA and AA have reminded us of this:REG 163A Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft

When weather conditions permit, the flight crew of an aircraft must, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules or the Visual Flight Rules, maintain vigilance so as to see, and avoid, other aircraft.I’d be a richer man.

So my last questions are, in your scenario that I quoted above:

(1) Will non-ASDB equipped aircraft ‘possibly be restricted’ or ‘probably be excluded’?

(2) In either case, who says that restriction or exclusion will be imposed?

Biggles_in_Oz

17th Jul 2008, 21:28

Flying Binghi It does seem piontless to me to change to a system that needs the current system as a back upIt's a strange concept called redundancy.
Designers of safety-critical systems who sleep peacefully at night use the concept a lot.

james michael

17th Jul 2008, 22:03

Mr Dog

As a fellow researcher, again congrats on your M.opus.

It raises again this enlightened theory of Dick Smith about "Multilateration" and why don't we go down that path.

I am uncertain what your research has found, but mine notes (ICAO doc again Bob not wild rhetoric):

Multilateration is mainly used for airport surface and terminal area surveillance, although with careful design and deployment it may be used in segments of enroute airspace.

The number of sites and the geographical disposition of those sites (site selection) are the critical factors in achieved performance.

- Sometimes reports false targets (reflections, multipath)
o No error detection provided in downlinked 4 digit code and altitude from
Mode C transponders
o Systems can be moderately expensive to install and maintain because of the
costs associated with the provision and maintenance of multiple sites especially
if existing infrastructure is not available.
o Systems require multiple sites with unobstructed view to aircraft. This can be a
significant problem in some environments
o Requires a transmitter to trigger aircraft to transmit the data required for ATC
applications

There is a wide variability of the costs for multilateration since site costs typically dominate the total costs. In some environments multilat costs could approach those of radar

Not yet endorsed by ICAO

Mr Dog, perhaps you can comment on how the above fits your thinking.

Of extreme concern to me is that we have Dick Smith adamant that we must not proceed with alleged orphan technology - which our mutual research shows to be ICAO standard - yet Dick touting multilateration that is inferior to ADS-B AND NOT ICAO ENDORSED?

Creampuff
Afterthought re UAT - why is the USA considering it - economies of scale. How many aircraft, how many pilots, concentrated in what areas. That's why they have the satellite wx etc also. Find me a willing service provider for aviation in Australia for value added features - and I'll find you a business going broke faster than a family with three pet horses :)

Scurvy.D.Dog

17th Jul 2008, 22:08

…. much obliged Mr Michael
.
The only thing I would add to your first post above is an opinion based on what we all see and have seen in this industry and others with ‘shock and horror profiles’ … and that is …. If (god forbid) a big one does occur OCTA, unless there are safe guards in place or being put in place that the pollies can ‘lean on’, they will react the only way they can to the public outcry. We all know what that reaction would likely be i.e. ‘exclusion protection’ … particularly when O/S experiences are driving things like Annex 6 globally.
.
Another compelling reason IMHO for doing this now, to ensure continued utility of shared airspace!
.
Cheers :ok:

Scurvy.D.Dog

17th Jul 2008, 22:22

Re your second post above (WAMLat)

The bottom line here is that it is a great system .. there is no doubt about that …. But as suggested by ICAO

1. Infrastructure intensive (14 ground stations in Tasmania alone)
2. Site costs
3. Complexity
4. The system requires very very accurate time synchronicity (atomic clock type accuracy)

For what it does, in the places envisaged GREAT! …. Less cost than MSSR or PRM (precision approach monitor) …. A ****e load more than ADS-B .... does not deliver the GA NAV safety benefits of the ADS-B proposal ... nor any of the other derived benefits (as discussed in this thread) that fleetwide ADS-B brings

…. Why would our industry fund enroute WAMLat when the ADS-B option is there, now!

Dick Smith

17th Jul 2008, 23:14

CrazyMTOWDog, in relation to my comment about an air traffic controller not knowing the location of VFR aircraft in Class C unless there is primary and secondary radar, you state that it is “absolute rubbish”, and that I have made a “false and misleading statement.”

In fact, the evidence for this came from an air traffic controller on this website a number of years ago. I think the controller was referring to Alice Springs, where a VFR aircraft had reported 30 miles north of the airport at about 8,500 feet, and was duly being separated on that basis. However the aircraft happened to be 30 miles south of the airport – a simple error.

If you look at modern aviation countries such as the United States, where the air traffic controller is responsible for separating IFR and VFR (i.e. in Class C and B airspace), there is both primary and secondary radar to ensure that even if a mistake is made, the VFR aircraft is “visible” on the radar to verify its position.

In these countries, Class D airspace is small enough so the air traffic controller can visually confirm the position of the VFR aircraft.

For IFR aircraft, the situation is quite different. An IFR aircraft must file a flight plan, and if the pilot makes a mistake (i.e. calling at 30 miles in the wrong direction) the back up is the flight plan which clearly shows the pilot is not at that particular location.

The international system is basically designed to be fail safe.

I do realise that in the past, to save money (i.e. to put profits in front of safety) air traffic controllers have been forced to separate IFR and VFR aircraft in Australia without proper approach radar (i.e. both primary and secondary). In the past we have probably been able to get away with this in Australia because of the very low traffic densities. This will eventually change.

We are a wealthy country. I believe we can at least have the level of equipment and staffing (which Class C with radar requires) to at least match other leading aviation countries.

James Michael, I’m not “touting multilateration.” I’ve made it quite clear that I want more information on multilateration – i.e. why is Airservices installing a multilateration system over the whole of Tasmania when they are telling us that they want to go ahead with ADS-B? I also want to know the cost comparison of installing multilateration between Melbourne and Cairns in a similar way to the installation in Tasmania.

With multilateration there is no requirement for the $100 million subsidy, as aircraft that require Mode C transponders have already had them fitted.

You also state that multilateration is not ICAO endorsed, however there are no ICAO endorsed ADS-B ‘out’ or ‘in’ units that are affordable for GA aircraft.

I will say once again (for probably the 5th time) that I support ADS-B, and my support has always been towards the Mode S squitter system. However I do not believe that we should rush into this when there is no other purpose than maximising Airservices’ profits. We in Australia should be conservative as we have no immediate safety problem that would be addressed by the low level ADS-B proposal – and waiting will reduce costs dramatically.

Scurvy.D.Dog

18th Jul 2008, 00:04

Un-Be-Liev-Able
.
.... confirms it though .... incapable of comprehension :ugh:

Bob Murphie

18th Jul 2008, 00:09

Scurvy.D.dog;

Can you tell us what has changed at AsA since this:

MEDIA RELEASE : 07 February 2006 - ATSB Final Report into fatal accident near Benalla on 28 July 2004. (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2006/release/2006_10.aspx)

And what has been done to prevent it happenig again, and why I should believe you or AsA and how would ADSB prevent this particular accident if it had been around then?

Bob Murphie

18th Jul 2008, 00:39

max1:

I apologise for not answering your post. It's amazing jm hasn't answered on my behalf. Seems compelled to answer anybody's.

You are correct about the ELT. Why I wasn't more accurate was I simply forgot. You see I haven't got one. Still rely on the old 121.5 which is still good until 2009.

The reason I haven't gone out to buy one yet is that I am waiting until the last minute in the hope the price may come down. A bit like Dick's position on ADSB. Also the ones I have seen appear to be a bit larger than my GME MT310 which fits nicely in my top pocket where I can access it instead of at the bottom of my flight bag.

Dick Smith

18th Jul 2008, 01:14

Scurvy.D.Dog, you mention that there are 14 ground stations for the multilateration system in Tasmania. Do you have any idea of the cost per ground station, and for the total system?

You may remember that I was once the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, which at the time was responsible for air traffic control. We were totally open in every one of our capital equipment projects – publicising the costs and making sure we had an expert spokesman to answer every question as openly and as honestly as possible.

You are an air traffic controller in the Class D Launceston Tower, and I admire you for becoming the “spokesman” for Airservices Australia. Don’t you wonder why there is no one from Canberra explaining why they are installing a multilateration system in Tasmania, when they have a proposal to go to ADS-B (both high and low level) right across Australia?

There is no immediate safety problem to be addressed in Tasmania, so why spend the millions (if it is that much) on the multilateration system there?

To everyone else reading this thread with an open mind, I’m sure you endorse my sentiments. That is, why can’t Airservices Australia tell us the facts – both pros and cons – so we can support their proposal if it is correct, or we can recommend changes if there are flaws?

Quokka

18th Jul 2008, 01:16

We in Australia should be conservative as we have no immediate safety problem that would be addressed by the low level ADS-B proposal

Mr Smith,

I noticed that you left the room when the crop-duster vs. RFDS Close Proximity was presented... and stayed out of the room whilst it was being discussed. Now that you've joined us again... would you care to review Post 577.

Would ADS-B have prevented the Close Proximity between the crop-duster and the RFDS aircraft?

Dick Smith

18th Jul 2008, 02:01

Sorry Quokka, I thought you were pulling my leg. I’ve checked the post (by the way, it is post number 557, not 577) and I want to know if you really believe that the Royal Flying Doctor Service is supporting $100 million of expenditure because of that particular incident. Is this the same Royal Flying Doctor Service which correctly flies single engine aircraft IFR in cloud at night?

Before I can answer your questions, can you advise if an incident report was filed, what the particular airport was and approximately what was the date? Was any enquiry made by the RFDS as to which cropdusting aircraft was flying at the location, and was the pilot of that aircraft contacted?

I look forward to your advice, then I will go ahead and answer your questions in full.

Creampuff

18th Jul 2008, 03:40

Without stealing Mr Dog's thunder the answer to your two questions is
1. Yes, read Annex 6 as previously cited
2. ICAO, as represented here by the CASA OAR - read NAS DP V1.4 as previously cited.Errrrm, sorry JM, but….

'Yes' is not a helpful answer to my question about which of two stated alternatives were being asserted - but I now understand the confusion I caused. When it comes to different probabilities, higher probabilities necessarily include lower probabilities. I apologise if I did not make my question clear.

I want to know which of the following alternatives you say is a basis on which I should fit ASDB to a GA aircraft.

Is it because, without it, in future I will possibly be restricted from sharing the kinds of airspace with the kinds of aircraft described by SDD?

Or is it because, without it, in future I will probably be excluded from sharing the kinds of airspace with the kinds of aircraft described by SDD?

If neither, what is the probability and operational consequence?

I chose the words 'restriction', 'exclusion', 'possible' and 'probable', because those were the words SDD mixed and matched.

In response to your suggestion that I:read Annex 6, previously sitedI quickly reviewed what you've said about that. Your 0807112207 post says, among other things:ICAO Annex 6 - the part we need to consider - relates to airspace and access. The 2003 revision is worthy of our consideration for what it MIGHT likely do to GA and airspace sharing - if we don't do it better first.

Think through the note to 6.13.2 (Recommendations):

The intent is also for aircraft not equipped with pressure-altitude reporting transponders to be operated so as not to share airspace used by aircraft equipped with airborne collision avoidance systems.Is that the basis of the restriction/limitation risk you and SDD have identified? If so, you've now asserted another probability ('MIGHT likely'), based on a 'note' about an 'intent'. And even if it were certain and an extant requirement, the requirement would only apply to aircraft that don't have 'pressure-altitude reporting transponders'.

In response to my question 2, your answer was 'CASA OAR', and you suggested that Iread NAS DP V1.4 as previously citedI've done that, noting in particular pages 9 and 13, as consequence of your 0807090710 post.

That document is just a draft, and is just a discussion paper. Page 9 is just some pictorial representations of 'possible' airspace architecture.

Page 13 says, among other things:Class E airspace may replace Class G with DTI, in some circumstances, to protect passenger transport aircraft. Using ADS-B, it may be possible to maintain VFR flexibility in the system and provide appropriate services to passenger transport operations. Increased surveillance using ADS-B could be a precursor to introducing Class E airspace at some existing non-radar locations. For example the risk-based analysis may determine that there may be a full surveillance requirement using ADS-B, with mandatory fitment of avionics, to specific Class G CTAF locations. To introduce Class E over Class D locations it may be a requirement that all aircraft broadcast their position (ADS-B Out) and for passenger transport aircraft to receive that information in the cockpit using CDTI. The progressive implementation of ADS-B, combined with any CASA ADS-B avionics mandate, may see the gradual introduction of low level Class E, where warranted to protect passenger transport operations. It will also facilitate the introduction of FUA innovations to lower levels.And your point is?

Those things may happen; then again, they may not. Any airspace architecture is 'possible'.

I'm the CEO of a business at a board meeting considering the commitment of $$$ to a project. The GM responsible for making the recommendation has made this submission to me: Boss, there's a note about an intent to do something that might likely, or possibly, or probably, restrict or exclude something, and a draft discussion paper says something may happen, and because of that risk you should commit those $$$.

I'm now pressing the red button under the board table, and the GM has just disappeared through a trapdoor and will shortly exit the building through a chute into a dumpster at the rear loading dock.

Fortunes are won and lost, businesses make fortunes or go broke, people go to jail or are set free, and life or death decisions are made, on the strength of the distinction between what words like 'might', 'possible', 'probable' and 'likely' mean.

Wake me up again when the OAR makes whatever decision happens to be dictated by the prevailing politics.

Scurvy.D.Dog

18th Jul 2008, 03:58

Creampuff
.
Fair enough ;)
.
It is for precisely those reasons I used 'restriction', 'exclusion', 'possible' and 'probable' .... either of those possibilities could be considered probabilities .. does anyone really know how it will end up? .... I am suprised you would 'snooze' on this and let fate take its course!
.
From where you sit, whats your take on this, how would you summarise the possible airspace outcomes with and without ADS-B?
.
Smith
.
I admire you for becoming the “spokesman” for Airservices Australia
.
I am no spokesman for AsA := ... My opinions are just that mine!
.
.. the information I provide (links etc) here is for the rumination of those in attendance to stimulate considered discussion .. in your case that does not occur very often I'm afraid :suspect: :mad:
.
So, if you want the cost information on WAMLat, ask AsA directly!
.
eh Bob,
.
That dummy must be mighty gritty by now :E :p

Creampuff

18th Jul 2008, 05:15

In your case as a GA owner, particularly if VFR, you are not considering financial commitment, it's done in the subsidy.I disagree JM. I've explained why I take the view that a subsidy for fitment is not a guarantee to meet $ for $ fitment costs, and won't cover ongoing maintenance or upgrade costs in any case. If I haven't convinced you, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

SDD asked:From where you sit, whats your take on this, how would you summarise the possible airspace outcomes with and without ADS-B?That's a tough question. This from JM settled the answer for me: Returning to OAR and its behaviours, examination of the cases of Moruya and Armidale demonstrates change to CTAF R without data or evidence. Moruya is a classic. Worse, without consultation. Therefore, I will not offer to be your alarm clock and wake you when they make further decisions as you must make your own probability judgement on outcomes.I'm kicking myself for having wasted my time learning, again, a lesson that I'd learned long ago: aviation and airspace regulation in Australia has got almost nothing to do with objective data and analysis, and everything to do with politics.

The system that implemented and sustains ASICs is simply not capable of implementing an aviation and airspace regulation system based on objective data and analysis.

The outcome will be determined by whatever random combination of political pressures happen to prevail from time to time.

I am planning on:

(1) having to fit another box to my aircraft

(2) waiting in a long line to have it fitted and certified (in the US, they simply don't believe me when I say there are no radio LAMEs in the capital city of Australia - nil, zip, nada, not a sausage - in the capital city of a country that presumes first-world aviation status)

(3) having to pay an amount in excess of the subsidy to have the system fitted and certified

(4) complex new operational procedures being rolled out with little or no notice or prior education, causing inconsistency and confusion

(5) unanticipated technical problems that mean the system does not work properly

(6) costly upgrades to deal with (5), after interminable delays as a consequence of (2), then

(7) throwing it all in the bin, because by the time it's been rolled out and all the bugs have been fixed, it will be obsolete.

Anything better than that will be a very pleasant surprise.

Scurvy.D.Dog

18th Jul 2008, 05:30

Creampuff

:ooh: .... 2 is a worry
.
If the rest comes to pass .... crikey :uhoh:
.
Would you agree that it is a sound idea to ensure a cross section of types and avionics is fitted as a 'proof of concept and costs' before a commitment is made?!
.
I'm kicking myself for having wasted my time learning, again, a lesson that I'd learned long ago: aviation and airspace regulation in Australia has got almost nothing to do with objective data and analysis, and everything to do with politics.
I would hope you know my thoughts on this issue .... the context in which I suggested the Known known's, and the Known Unknown's was what I was getting at .... in other words how do you obtain objective data when that data is not really collected and therefore not available for proper Analysis :(
.
A case in point was the traffic data assumptions for the 'Unicom' thingo .... they were gross under-estimates from what I heard from locals at one of the NSW locations out NW of the Big Smoke :ouch:

Flying Binghi

18th Jul 2008, 05:35

james michael wrote -

Interesting thread on D&G GA re 'Conflict at Bathurst'

Quote:
What happened this morning when the B1900 was landing on 17 and a Duchess was on 35 ??
I guess ADS-B (yes, I know - "IN", you have to pay for that, but Bing sets the lead with his TCAS) would not have helped? No safety gain with ADS-B for we open mindeds, eh?

I've just had a look at that thread. First question one asks here on pprun - Did it really happen ? ; Second question - Is somebody standing to gain from making such a claim ? ... and so-on.

Untill confirmed or otherwise it can only be used as a scenario.

More then happy to debate a scenario :)

Biggles_in_Oz

18th Jul 2008, 07:21

The topic is ADSB.
Please please please, lets all stick to it.

Or go and fight it out in private via PMs.

Biggles_in_Oz

18th Jul 2008, 12:01

binghi binghi binghiNow imagine what would happen if the entire Oz airspace was ADS-B controlled and the GPS signals were removed - ??? ... chaos. Your monotomic obsession with GPS participation in ADSB is, ..... well...., obsessive.

You do still have some functioning brain cells, because the keyword in your post was the word if.

For the n'th *#%&!^&* time, the JCP did not propose to have a total reliance on GPS-aided ADSB.
There will be non-GPS based terrestrial backups.
ADSB will augment the ATC infrastructure.

Only certified lunatics would make safety-critical systems such as ATC, totally reliant on systems controlled by foreign entities.

Will you please (*%&@#(*&% read the *%&@#)(*&@#% JCP.

Flying Binghi

18th Jul 2008, 12:27

Biggles_in_Oz, seems to me 'somebody' needs to be "obsessive" about this issue.

The current ATC staff shortage fiasco is proof positive to me that Airservices management have no idea - Do Airservices think this ADS-B is some 'magic bullet' that will make all their problems go away ? We may very well be solving (or maybe not) one problem, though creating a far, far bigger problem at a later date.

Quokka

18th Jul 2008, 16:08

I apologize for getting the Post number wrong... my typing skills deteriorate rapidly with each successive beer... :E

Not pulling your leg Dick, it was presented as a example of where ADS-B would have enhanced safety... and it was presented in the spirit of... spirited :E ... academic debate. I'm surprised that you haven't researched it already in an attempt to undermine the premise that ADS-B may actually, really, truly, enhance safety above and beyond the capability of the current RADAR surveillance in Australia.

You're side-stepping the question Dick. I'm not your secretary and I'll leave it to you to have a chat with the RFDS in respect of that particular Close Proximity and on the subject of fleet-wide fitment of ADS-B... oh, that's right, you've already discussed ADS-B and 1090ES fitment with the RFDS, haven't you?

... and their answer was?

peuce

18th Jul 2008, 22:47

Methinks we're getting too involved in the detail here. And it's the detail that seems to be the main catalyst for getting the blood boiling. I would consider returning to the basics ... to see where we're at ... if anywhere.

I tend to look at issues methodically .. starting at the the top. These are the boxes I would need to tick:

Would it be an improvement in safety and efficiency if we had a broader surveillance capability, backed up by existing infrastructure and procedures?

I think most aviators would agree that it is. Yes, there are some who don't agree and I accept that, but in fairness ... the majority would agree

If getting that extended surveillance capability meant having to install an extra black box in each aircraft ... would that be acceptable?

Now it starts geeting interesting. Most would say that it would mean extra cost to the aviators and that they would want to see what they're getting for their money. I further suggest that most would say that they wouldn't be getting enough extra goodies to warrant it.

What if the Company paid for the majority of the cost ... would that make it more palitable and would Aviators consider their part of the contribution to be an investment in safety and efficiency for all?

Many would say yes ... but I couldn't say there's a clear majority yet. Maybe some more "selling" to be done by the Company

Say all's sweet so far ... what kit do we install?

The current thininking is the ICAO wide high level ADS-B system ... for both our high and low level airspace. There seems to be broad agreement on that, but there are still detractors who argue that better kit may become available and become the default ... rendering ours obsolete.

And that last point seems to be the major sticking point. I would ask myself questions like:

How widespread is the use of the proposed system? Has it gone past a point of no return yet ... in other words, are enough States using it now that any new player would be ignored ... too costly to change, even if kit is better?

If we are not at that point, should we wait a bit?

What are the knock on effects if we did wait?

What is the worst that could happen if we proceeded and another piece of kit became the default? Are we able to mitigate the consequences to any degree?

I don't think I've solved anything, but it's clearer in my mind now anyway ...

Dick Smith

18th Jul 2008, 23:04

Quokka, I am now starting to doubt this incident,(ie the alleged near miss between a RFDS plane and a crop duster that ADSB would have prevented) happened at all.

Next week I will contact each RFDS branch and attempt to confirm the claim. It's interesting that you claim to be the controller involved (everyone check post 557) however you are not prepared to name the airport!

There may be people involved with the RFDS who do not understand risk management and therefore will allocate a large amount of finite resources to areas where the risk is small resulting in an under allocation of resources where the risks are higher!

In the meantime can anyone else shine some light on this particular incident?

Scurvy.D.Dog

18th Jul 2008, 23:48

... who do not understand risk management and therefore will allocate a large amount of finite resources to areas where the risk is small resulting in an under allocation of resources where the risks are higher!
What would you suggest for the 'YBNA', 'YHOT' and 'YLHR' (and any other regional location that an approach accident occurs in the future) areas then?

OZBUSDRIVER

19th Jul 2008, 06:09

Creampuff, found this buried in a MITRE site-
Developed under internal research and development funds at MITRE beginning in 1995, the UAT was originally conceived as a simple, multifunction broadcast data link alternative for small aircraft.

CAASD/MITRE (http://www.propgov.com/gps_atc/Cache/project_details.cfm.htm) go half way down the page to The Universal Access Transceiver Digital Data Link From there you will see how it got into the ADS-B race.

I think I originally read about in a US FLYING mag. If you are in the US, maybe you can discover the lineage a lot easier than me on GOOGLE. The bottom line is that UAT was in the soup before ADS-B.

This report in 2006 also gives a broadoutline of the history of the different systemsATW ONLINE (http://www.atwonline.com/channels/safetySecurity/article.html?articleID=1724)

And an earlier report AVTODAY 2004 (http://www.avtoday.com/av/categories/commercial/1023.html)

It would appear that 1090ES is the ICAO standard as of 2003. FAA had a barrow to push with UAT, The Swedes also had their VDL4 which thay had been working on since 1996.

However, Mode S has been with us since the seventies.
RFDesign.com (http://rfdesign.com/military_defense_electronics/radio_understanding_mode_technology/) good article explaining how mode S works and basics of operation. Go to the last page and read up on DF17 to give an idea where ADS-B fitted in with a ModeS transponder.

The original argument for the yanks to go UAT was because the US AOPA and others had this idea that ModeS was airline only and came in big expensive AIRINC boxes. Sounds familiar:cool:

NOW to really knock your socks off-VOLKSLOGGER (http://volkslogger.de/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=16&Itemid=59)

ADS-B ready durch Direct-GPS NMEA-Interface, kein weiterer Adapter erforderlich
which translates to-

ADS-B ready by Direct GPS NMEA interface, no further adapter necessarily

Prices as per page at about 2500EUR

Now the biggest argument is the availability of the product. SOOOOOO! (are you taking notice T28D) Creampuff ,if you have the TSO146a GPS in your panel and....dare I say it.... a $10.00 cable from Dick Smith to hook up from the transponder to the NEMA outlet of the GPS and apply to your friendly local AirServices and you really are live in the system.

VT02 slides into the same hole as the KT76 for $4307.16AU

Don't you just looooove GOOGLE on a day off:ok:

tail wheel

20th Jul 2008, 09:42

Thread back after a rather extensive clean out. My apologies if some posts or comments lost their context due to other posts being removed.

Tail Wheel

Creampuff

20th Jul 2008, 10:13

Before the ‘clean out’, OZ had sold me on the VOLKSLOGGER. If whoever’s running this show says: On X date, deliver your aircraft to Z location, and it will be available 2 working days later with a serviceable VOLKsLOGGER ADS-B system in accordance with 20.18, at a cost within the subsidy, I’m there.

But I’m guessing no one’s running this show, because this one requires someone to make, and take responsibility for making, some hard decisions. I think a lot of people are going to be very underwhelmed by the new government’s appetite for hard decisions in the aviation sector, among others.

Earlier SDD made some valid points about data and known, knowns and known unknowns.

I’d like to make one point that is independent of the ‘which system’ debate: I do also agree with some of the protagonists who ask what safety problem the wholesale fitment of ADS-B is meant to address.

I know that there’s the dilemma about whether to spend money replacing existing technology or instead spend that money on technology that delivers the same or even better functionality at (it is assumed) lower cost. But that’s a false dichotomy. It’s possible to do neither, and divert the resources to something else.

We do have some known, knowns: the number of people actually killed and injured in aircraft accidents and incidents in Australia. I’ve asked myself: which of those accidents would have been prevented if there had been wholesale fitment of ASD-B? None jump to mind, but I hasten to add that I may well stand corrected, and I am happy to stand corrected.

Lockhart River? Not from my perspective.
Mount Hotham? Not from my perspective.
Benalla? Not from my perspective.
Whyalla? Not from my perspective.
Uzu? Not from my perspective.
Aquatic? Not from my perspective.
Seaview? Not from my perspective.
Monarch? Not from my perspective.

I have probably missed some other tragedies, and for that I apologise. But in respect of the ones I recall, I don’t see how some, or an extra, technology broadcasting ‘this is where I am’ would have helped prevent the accident.

Dick Smith

20th Jul 2008, 11:09

Creampuff, I agree 100%. The low level ADSB subsidy is not directed at any objective safety issue. It's all about getting VFR aircraft back into ATS system as they were before Feb 91.

In those days IFR aircraft were given a directed traffic information service on all VFR aircraft that were flying over 50 nm. or within an AFIZ.

This system was unique in the world, cost a fortune, and not one life has been attributed to it's removal despite the 1.7 Billion dollars that has been saved by our industry since then.

I have spoken to Regional Airline pilots who have tried to convince me that not knowing were all VFR aircraft are all the time is a major safety issue!

Many want to use modern technology to go back to this old system while not really knowing what risk is being addressed.

Now if we spent the $100m or better training and more modern aircraft and equipment we could actually be doing something to improve safety in a cost effective way.

Scurvy.D.Dog

20th Jul 2008, 13:18

Creampuff
But I’m guessing no one’s running this show, because this one requires someone to make, and take responsibility for making, some hard decisions.
I’m guessing that the various people involved in this project would have the collective ability to drive the appropriate direction within the context of stewardship .. now, I agree with you (as I don’t know them directly) that this will take smart, determined folks to see it through properly … in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary, I am less pessimistic (maybe naively so) that the wheels will fall off!

I think a lot of people are going to be very underwhelmed by the new government’s appetite for hard decisions in the aviation sector, among others.
I hate being a pessimist, but in this regard, I‘m with you in the ‘keep an eye on this lot’ tent!

I’d like to make one point that is independent of the ‘which system’ debate: I do also agree with some of the protagonists who ask what safety problem the wholesale fitment of ADS-B is meant to address.
… I won’t revisit the ATS aspects as they have been done to death …. The big one from my perspective is Fleetwide, IFR 146 Navigators! .. granted, many IFR have TSO 129 GPS, and that is good gear, the number of GA IFR that will receive the benefit of modern 146 GNSS is in itself worth the investment.

That’s why I asked the other bloke

What would you suggest for the 'YBNA', 'YHOT' and 'YLHR' (and any other regional location that an approach accident occurs in the future) areas then?
Note the comprehensive answer he provided (NOT, NADA, NIL)!

I know that there’s the dilemma about whether to spend money replacing existing technology or instead spend that money on technology that delivers the same or even better functionality at (it is assumed) lower cost. But that’s a false dichotomy. It’s possible to do neither, and divert the resources to something else.
Hmmm, interesting hypothetical

- The cost and functionality comparison of ADS-B surveillance/collision mitigation systems V’s status quo are proved and published by ICAO (of all people …. I thought that odd to be honest)
- The Nav benefit IMHO is being overlooked separately

Not withstanding, what would you do instead with the doe?

At the very least:-
1. Refirb (intensive and life limited .. stand to be corrected) or replace 11+ enroute MSSR’s,
2. Retain (refirb or replace) the ground based navaids due to be decommissioned?

Give the rest (**** all that would be left) to bureaucrats to fight over for ‘worthwhile safety projects’ …. Please don’t tell me you think that will provide worthwhile outcomes of a greater safety value!

We do have some known, knowns: the number of people actually killed and injured in aircraft accidents and incidents in Australia. I’ve asked myself: which of those accidents would have been prevented if there had been wholesale fitment of ASD-B?

What about TSO146 Nav systems, most of which nowadays include moving maps of various capabilities ….. less chance of a woopsie than with the old ‘two line Lat Long’ GPS jobbie with a CDI if you are lucky?! …. How does the list look in that context?

The other bloke

…. 1.7 Billion dollars that has been saved by our industry since then.
…. Substantiation thanks!

and more modern aircraft and equipment we could actually be doing something to improve safety in a cost effective way.
What would you suggest as alternatives to the ADS-B/GA NAV proposal?

OZBUSDRIVER

20th Jul 2008, 15:58

First off. Tailwheel, apols for my last post.:sad:

Mr Smith-
It's all about getting VFR aircraft back into ATS system as they were before Feb 91.
and there, you show your true colours.

I suggest everyone sit down with a cuppa and read Mac Job's article in the current Flight Safety, "Air Traffic Services, a goodly heritage" Study the history.

The crash of the Stinson in 1937 and the ensuing Nation-wide adverse publicity and the promise of the Minister that "beacons would shortly be installed" resulted in numbers of 'Aeradio' stations being established as a matter of urgency. Pending the commisioning of the radio range beacons, they were equipped with Bellini-Tosi direction finding aerials to provide bearings to aircraft on request.

The proposed radio ranges would be German-designed Lorenz transmitters operating free of interference on 33mc, then regarded as ultra-high frequency. Yet, despite pressure by pilots, the airlines and the aviation press, citing the dangers of maintaining schedules in bad weather, they were not operational when the Kyeema crashed. The reason? Protracted government haggling over the price and availability of a suitable aircraft to test and calibrate them [my bolds]

VFR back in the system, how about VFR actually being seen by the system. Exactly the same way that PRIMARY radar does a hard paint and SSR receives a signal after interogation of a transponder. ADS-B is just another modeS transponder that doesn't need as much ground infrastructure. SDDs last post before cleanout said as much.

I have allways feared that the economic rationalists where operating a perverse study on aviation safety by cutting out systems until there actually was an accident that could be attributable to the system. Then, just add that level of safety required and then they would finally arrive at "Affordable Safety"

Safety despite of the system rather than because of it!

Mr Smith, you still do not know how much damage you did by championing NAS in Australia. HISTORY, the US devised a system that was suitable for the environment that evolved for their country. A country as vast as Australia yet is densly populated for much of it's landmass. A country of 10 times the taxable population to afford infrastructure to service that environment. We simply cannot afford the radar infrastructure to give that level of service. As desireable as it is to have that type of service, the cost is prohibitive! ADS-B gives AirServices that possibility to at least put a service in where it would be useful, like those ten regional aerodromes and a few more units over in WA to actually provide a service to those FIFO charters that are bordering on RPT like frequency in RPT standard jet aircraft for a start.

I tender the near miss at Olympic Dam a few years ago as an incident that would have been avoided by ADS-B. The numerous incidents of RPT going head to head with GA at regional aerodromes after a straight in approach. A near miss between two RPT near Mount Isa after a breakdown in procedural separation. granted that was a long time ago and the Upper Airspace rollout is directly aimed at providing for preventing that type of incident.

Mr Smith, you have regularly grumbled about procedural standards at Hamilton Island causing all sorts of problems for helicopters and other aircraft having to hold at the boundary. The only way to fix that problem is to install a terminal SSR and have an approach controller tasked to the zone. Or, you could put a cheap ADS-B receiver on top of the tower.

No one has been killed because of the reduction in service, maybe true. I can think of a story on Australian Story that could well refute that. maybe it was a SAR problem, maybe it was the relaxation of the rules on reporting procedures. Either way, a pilot died a long time after the crash. The ELT was damage in the crash. The panacia? PLBs. This hasn't much to do with ADS-B but more to do with the demise of FS units. You know them, they used to be called 'Aeradio' Already said my bit about them. We could have had the best system in the world if we still had FS.(like they still do in the US well looking like being privatised but still a FS just the same)

FS with ADS-B monitors to MONITOR traffic outside controlled airspace and ATC using ADS-B CONTROLLING airspace in the GAFA in Controlled Airspace. A two level model, how simple was that? I can guarantee that ADS-B receivers will appear at every aerodrome that has an RPT service bigger than a Dash and eventually, coverage at every aerodrome with a published approach. Now, if we ever get WAAS that could well mean a LOT of aerodromes.

Now, the resources required to monitor all this airspace. Remember what I posted about a FS in an ADS-B world. Now, the way TAAATS works these people do not have to be based in the regional units like they used to. A shame for the local communities, note the article by Mac Job. The system is there to re-create a service for IFR outside controlled airspace without requiring the CONTROL of an ATC. Better than CAGR, safer than a UNICOM or a CAGR. Only need 28 consoles Aus wide. Unique frequency in each one and an ADS-B monitor just to see the traffic. Not a separation service but definitely a better service than just a radio and a strip of paper.

This is all big picture stuff, all enabled by ADS-B. Dick, you managed to get rid of FS because of the limiting service units and a bit of arm tieing and reduction of service and well you know more about this than me. ADS-B could save AirServices money by actually going back to providing a service that doesn't need the level of training required for even an enroute controller. A service that is happy to deal with GA VFR, IFR and RPT out in the GAFA and could provide a traffic INFORMATION service. Not a CONTROL service. And the beauty of it? GA PVT VFR doesn't have to talk to them. Just as long as they have the ADS-B OUT on it does the same thing as reporting in every half an hour.

AirServices just want to see everyone in a specified parcel of airspace. They do not need to talk to everyone, or everyone talk to them. Although they woul like you to be listening on THE appropriate frequency. This is the very basic of premises that show there is no benefit for GA drivers and who has to pay for it to start it off. For future airframe purchases it matters not. Just right now to get it all started needs some understanding from both sides of the fence.

I am very disappointed there are still people that cling to the utopia they think they created for themselves in 1991. Poor Airmanship!

Anyway, that's my idea of the best use of resources. It's way past my bedtime...again!

peuce

20th Jul 2008, 22:16

Great post OZBUS ...

If you read some of my posts over the years, you'll see that I've always been a supporter of the " you're either in or you're out" airspace model ... if "you're in, he looks after you ... if you're "out" he looks after you. How simple was that ?

You bring up an interesting point too ... with all the added surveillance, what is the ATC manpower call on that? Maybe it's nil ... but I'd like to know ... especially as we can't manpower what we've got now!

Scurvy.D.Dog

20th Jul 2008, 22:55

:D .. the depth of understanding of how 'it should be' in the future is most heartening :ok:

Scurvy.D.Dog

21st Jul 2008, 00:05

OZBUS
.
I have asked TW where the post (think it was yours) that had the links including the VOLKSLOGGER.
.
Any chance you can re post it?
.
Ta

Post restored.

Tail Wheel

OZBUSDRIVER

21st Jul 2008, 00:47

VOLKSLOGGER.DE (http://volkslogger.de/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=16&Itemid=59)

Need to get bablefish happening to translate from German.

ADS-B ready durch Direct-GPS NMEA-Interface, kein weiterer Adapter erforderlich
to
ADS-B ready by Direct GPS NMEA interface, no further adapter necessarily

prices are all there in Euro.

Becker-Avionics.de (http://www.becker-avionics.de/)

These guys say that they support ADS-B but not as specific as the volkslogger. The site also has minor modification approvals for over 400types.

FunkWerk (http://www.funkwerk-avionic.com/cms/front_content.php?changeclient=3&changelang=3)

I think you already know these guys.

Creampuff

21st Jul 2008, 01:03

Now I'm confused (but confess that I'm easily confused).

E airspace to circuit height in RADAR range can't work apparently, because there aren't enough controllers to monitor traffic at the necessary screen resolution. We use some other technology to capture and provide RADAR-like information over a greater area than covered by RADAR, and someone's now going to be looking at it?

Is the concept that it won't be ATC/FIS looking at all those ASDB paints OCTA, but 'heavy/medium' metal in the area? For example, will the RPT tracking into / taxiing for departure from Upper Kumbukta West, or Hamilton Island, be assuming that ADSB is providing data on all aircraft in the area, and thereby further reducing the risk of a mid-air?

I comprehend the risks posed by 'head to head' and other potential collision situations. But mid-airs aren't what killed all the people in the tragedies I listed above.

Don’t get me wrong: as a passenger I don't want to die in a mid-air. But I don't want to die at all, and there are lots of ways to die in an aircraft accident. The data show that I'm far, far more likely to be killed by controlled flight into terrain OCTA, than in a mid-air collision. So, in the allocation of finite safety resources, it would be an odd outcome if more and more resources were focussed on collision avoidance, at the expense of reducing the risk of CFIT OCTA.

How does ADSB reduce the risk of my being killed by CFIT OCTA? If the benefit of ADSB is a 'TSO146 Nav system' that tells the pilot there is a rock in front of them, into which they are about to collide, then let's focus on subsidising TSO146 nav systems, or some other technology to prevent aircraft hitting rocks.

Walk me through what would have been different at, say, Lockhart River, Benalla and Mount Hotham, post-ADSB.

I would really, really like specifics on this, not generalities. For example, 'At 0852 and 32 seconds, when the aircraft went below the published approach profile, an alarm would have gone off in [insert location of alarm ] because the [insert system] would have detected that the broadcast ADSB position was below the published approach profile. The [insert position of the person who would have responded to the alarm] would then have [insert the action that the person would have taken], and all of this would have happened within [insert period].

OZBUSDRIVER

21st Jul 2008, 02:06

Creampuff, the operative word is incident, an almost, gee that was close, why doesn't the silly bugger look out/listen to radio/follow the rules type of incident.

I had wrote a fair bit on BLA. However, I do not have the experience to have an informed opinion on whether ADS-B to low levels around BLA combined with alerts within TAAATS that would have made a difference.

My belief is. Where the accident happened was well outside controlled airspace. However, a characteristic of the NAS is to eventually provide Class E down to the FAF. that implies a responsibility of ATC to monitor the progress of IFR aircraft. If class E and ADS-B to low level and the staff to monitor progress and no assumptions of pilot intention then ATC would have a responsibility to question the pilot and would have the tools to KNOW the pilot was tracking for a specific waypoint and was at the wrong height.

Dick Smith

21st Jul 2008, 03:22

Ozbusdriver, I’ve heard all this rubbish before – i.e. the claim that the US has more radar coverage and that means we can’t have the advantages of NAS. I refer to your statement:

We simply cannot afford the radar infrastructure to give that level of service.

I will ask again. Why can’t we at least give a proper service where we have good radar coverage between Launceston and Cairns? At the present time, if a pilot makes an error (say, at a place like Benalla or Proserpine) the aircraft simply spears into the mountain top because the air traffic controller has no responsibility.

If the airspace was Class E, there is an official “hand over” from the ATC to the pilot – that is when the pilot either cancels IFR or reports visual. Until that time, the alarm system in the Centre is enabled so that pilots do not fly below the legal minimum safe altitude. At least it is a back up for the pilot and enhanced ground proximity warning system.

You probably do not know that I support the North American system – not just the US system. Canada has vast amounts of airspace without radar, just like Australia, but gives a Class E service to low levels to improve safety.

What I laugh about here is people claiming that ADS-B will be the panacea to all problems, whilst we don’t even use the radar properly now!

There is no doubt in the minds of most people that the North American airspace system is one of the best in the world. This is because there is a vast amount of experience and it is a wealthy society – just as ours. The airspace is allocated objectively using a scientific basis (Creampuff would love this), not on “how it was done in the past.”

You are not commenting on the fact that Proserpine still has “upside down” airspace – i.e. Class C in the low risk airspace above, and dropping down into Class G “black hole” dirt road airspace where you actually need a service.

Dick Smith

21st Jul 2008, 03:25

Creampuff, you are absolutely spot on. The ADS-B proponents claim that we can’t possibly give a Class E service at low levels where we have good radar coverage because the controllers’ screens are set on too large a scale, or there are not enough controllers. However if we install ADS-B, it is all suddenly supposed to work.

Yes, it is all a giant con. If you can’t use the existing radar properly, how can you possibly use ADS-B?

Scurvy.D.Dog

21st Jul 2008, 06:27

... Who says ATC's have to use the OCTA surveillance (if the traffic density/complexity and other assessment criteria do not warrant an ATC service)?
.
Anyway, you've got it covered ... tis all a con you say :ugh:
.
.... if you say so! :hmm:

Dick Smith

21st Jul 2008, 06:29

Those interested in ADS-B should look at the Wikipedia site here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast) - especially the sections under “System design considerations of ADS-B” and “Public access to ADS-B.”

Note how Wikipedia mentions the situation that the system can be easily spoofed, and also how there will be no privacy for anyone flying with this system in the future.

I wonder if typical motorists would object if the Government insisted that they have a transponder in their Toyota so the position of everywhere they drive each weekend can be monitored exactly!

ferris

21st Jul 2008, 07:23

Question:
It was mentioned earlier (and I think, to borrow a phrase, "I'm sure you all agree") that glideslope information would be far more useful than traffic info- would've possibly prevented many of the prangs mentioned.

How hard would it be (if the ADS-B fitout goes ahead) to use the GPS component of ADS-B to provide glideslope? If the hardware is in the suite, isnt it just software?

max1

21st Jul 2008, 07:24

Dick,
We have less than 800 'working' controllers, and around 20 manned towers. Even if you believed ASA our numbers are under 900.
America has depending on who you believe, the FAA or NATCA, somewhere between 11-14 000 and pretty much nationwide surveillance coverage for a similar geographic size to Australia.
Their system is NOT user pays , though the move is towards this.
As I have discussed on this forum with Bob M. , there is nothing in it for controllers if we have more or less staff. The way most of us feel now, redundancy would be a blessing.
If you are willing to commit us to a non-user pays environment, nationwide radar coverage, and a 11-1400 % increase in controllers I don't see that we can't have what the US has.
The benefit of ADS-B is ,when in coverage, that we will able to alert the pilots that we can 'see' aircraft in their area of operations, and resolve conflictions in a quicker way than the current procedural way.
The airlines (user) are paying so, initially, they will get the greater benefit.

Flying Binghi

21st Jul 2008, 07:32

The way most of us feel now, redundancy would be a blessing

Thats a sad thing to hear max1 :(

Biggles_in_Oz

21st Jul 2008, 12:11

Mr SmithI wonder if typical motorists would object if the Government insisted that they have a transponder in their Toyota so the position of everywhere they drive each weekend can be monitored exactly!If you have an e-tag toll-payment card then you are monitored when you use a toll-road.
Whilst the intent is to speed-up traffic when paying tolls, that data can also be used for law-enforcement. me ludd, I could not have done that bank robbery in outer woop-woop because I was on the M4 in Sydney at that time., here are the relevant records.
Then there are the records of where and when credit/debit cards are used, so we are (and have been for quite some time) monitored.
At least with ADSB there actually would be an improvement in safety.
I usually fly VFR and I want to know where other traffic is. I'm a great believer in alerted see-and-avoid.

Biggles_in_Oz

21st Jul 2008, 12:28

ferris How hard would it be (if the ADS-B fitout goes ahead) to use the GPS component of ADS-B to provide glideslope? If the hardware is in the suite, isnt it just software?
A basic GPS data-stream is not very accurate or stable in the vertical axis. For maritime, hiking (and a lot of automobile) units, the raw data is substantially filtered and smoothed and massaged to produce less 'jerkiness' in direction and position., unfortunately, aviation needs accurate data right now, especially on a glide-slope.
So., some form of local augmentation and correction is required (ala WAAS et al) and this also improves the horizontal accuracy.

Flying Binghi

21st Jul 2008, 12:45

Looks like we are going to have to go over it all again...

At least with ADSB there actually would be an improvement in safety.

Biggles_in_Oz, where have you identified this improvement will be ?

ferris

21st Jul 2008, 19:00

Yes FB, it looks like you will have to read Scurvy's Opus all over again. Man, this is tiresome.

Biggles; so, we've seen that 1090ES is being adopted as a world standard, and all we would have to do to have precision GPS approaches with glideslope info is have the cheap box/unit at the airfield (insert whichever country location you choose- Benalla, Hotham etc.) which will be providing the ADS-B veil also provide the local correction (ala WAAS)?

Would that provide any safety benefit, FB?

Creampuff

21st Jul 2008, 21:11

I do think your word ‘con’ is a little strong, Dick.

And I’m not concerned if anyone knows where I’m flying.

However, I also think some of the stated benefits of ASDB are over-stated and, even if accurate, I’m not sure why those benefits are something to divert money to.

Nobody has yet taken up my request to:Walk me through what would have been different at, say, Lockhart River, Benalla and Mount Hotham, post-ADSB.

I would really, really like specifics on this, not generalities. For example, 'At 0852 and 32 seconds, when the aircraft went below the published approach profile, an alarm would have gone off in [insert location of alarm ] because the [insert system] would have detected that the broadcast ADSB position was below the published approach profile. The [insert position of the person who would have responded to the alarm] would then have [insert the action that the person would have taken], and all of this would have happened within [insert period].

May I be so bold as to suggest that, perhaps with the exception of Benalla, none of the tragedies I listed would have been avoided if the aircraft had had ASDB functionality? Whether Benalla would have been avoided depends on why the aircraft was where it was.

And the concept of our under-resourced and over-stretched ATC resources monitoring, or responding to alarms triggered by, more aircraft OCTA is, to me, fanciful. (Standby ABC, I’m just going to work out who’s triggered that alarm and work out what frequency they may be on and see if I can give them a call … ooops too late: they’ve just impacted.)

So it seems that the primary benefit is that ‘heavy/medium’ metal OCTA will be able to ‘see’ VFRs in the area.

And that’s only going to work if everyone’s excluded unless they have serviceable ADSB functionality.

Hmmmmmm

peuce

21st Jul 2008, 21:55

I feel this is going to be a wasted effort, but here goes again anyway ...

Forgetting about the kit for a moment ... that's another issue ...

If we could just knock the "there's no safety benefit idea" on the head first ..

Some Safety Benefits of Surveillance in areas previously un-surveilled:

"Melbourne, ABC ...I've gone into cloud, where am I"
"ABC, this is Melbourne .... heavy thunderstorms have been reported about 30 miles straight ahead of you"
"ABC, this is Melbourne, an aircraft has been reported missing in the area about 20 miles west of you, could you divert and provide search assistance"
"ABC, this is Melbourne, a Military P3 Orion is operating along the coast in your area"
"Bigshot 26, there appears to be an aircraft operating at low level close to your next turning point ... possibly a crop duster ... callsign is DEF"
"Melbourne, ABC .. it's getting dark and I think I'm still 50 miles east of Argadagada ... any suggestions?"

I'm sure i could go on ....

Kangaroo Court

21st Jul 2008, 23:35

Argadargada!! I got lost out there once in a 210! (1987) It appears others might have also?

Creampuff

22nd Jul 2008, 03:15

Peuce: I agree that all of those services in those circumstances would be fantastic. But you're not seriously suggesting that those services cannot be provided in the absence of ADSB functionality, and, in any case, that those services are promised to be provided, post ADSB?

If today someone VFR calls 'Melbourne Centre' and says 'there's a thunderstorm 30 miles ahead of me I request actual WX for Upper Kumbukta West and Argadagada', what do you think the response is? I gave up trying to contact Flightwatch years ago, and those other folks who provide services on a 'workload permitting' basis seem to have had an ever-increasing workload.

Are you seriously suggesting that, post ASDB, there will be a bunch of people in 'Centre' who will be monitoring and contacting VFRs who have a 'thunderstorm 30 miles ahead', or a 'P3 Orion operating along the coast in your area'?

T28D

22nd Jul 2008, 04:16

Now how will this work for an ultra light or sport aircraft ??:ugh:

So it seems that the primary benefit is that ‘heavy/medium’ metal OCTA will be able to ‘see’ VFRs in the area.

Will gliders and sport aircraft get ADSB out ???

CaptainMidnight

22nd Jul 2008, 07:08

Will gliders and sport aircraft get ADSB out ???

Joint Consultation Paper: Stakeholder Positions
7 Light Sports & Recreational Aviation Views (individuals)

• A considerable number of respondents had not read or had misunderstood the JCP, with objections including:

• Ultralight flyers shouldn’t be expected to fund their own avionics (they would have been eligible for cross industry funding).

• Recreational aviation has never been consulted on this (a number of groups
representing recreational aviation are active participants of ABIT).

• Hang gliders should be exempt (they would be). Oh, and: • One respondent expressed concern about reliance on the US GPS. I wonder who that lone voice might be.

OZBUSDRIVER

22nd Jul 2008, 08:29

T28, do you think they should?

Dick, OK, LL Class E around BLA is 8500. the NPA for BLA starts at 5000ft. How can class E be lowered to 5000ft or lower when radar coverage for that area is marginal at that height. Note-ATSB report and transponder recordings for the accident in question. If there was "perfect" coverage, there would have been a continuous transponder recording from when the Cheyanne left class C airspace right down to the point of impact. Everyone wants better coverage but you gotta give the guys and girls the tools to do the job.

Why are you so determined to make ATC responsible for IFR outside radar coverage? Surely, even you can see that ADS-B represents your best chance to get the same airspace utility for both IFR and VFR as is found in America.

How can I live in the past when I advocate for something that is the future of air traffic management? Am I not allowed to dream at what might have become? Motherhood statments aside, ADS-B is going to happen! Do not get caught up in differing technologies just because the single biggest market is doing it. The whole market is going with ADS-B 1090ES. Dick I can equip an aeroplane with a TRT800 a TSO146aGPS connected to a Funkwerk MFD capable for ADS-B IN and fly in Europe and the device will work, fly to Canada and the device will work, even the US, the device will work. Equip that aeroplane with UAT and try the same thing. The US and a training operation in China, lots of places there. UAT will not work in Canada or Mexico. It will not work in Russia or Sweden.

What you DO with your tools is the measure of your ability.

Back to YBLA for one bit. ADS-B facilitates the ability of AirServices to supply a surveillance service for IFR down to the ground from a remote facility, what ever that facility may be called! With proper fitment that facility is able to supply a separation service to ALL aircraft in that controlled airspace. With proper fitment that facility will be able to monitor movements and supply navigation advice as well as terrain awareness advisories to all aircraft as needed.

No amount of posturing is going to change this outcome. The only change will be a delay which will force AirServices to refurbish/replace it's SSR facilities. ADS-B will still go ahead with the equipment as currently supplied. It will still go ahead with regional aerodrome installations. However, no money will be available for GA fitment. The customer will still be charged full fees until the last SSR is turned off in the 2015-2027 period. No one gets a cost benefit and everyone pays. AirServices still get their safety benefit with state of the art equipment. I still get my ADS-B"IN" because I want it. I still get my GPS because I want it! you lot that want to still fly around in dirt road can stay there. Just stay right away from my airspace! Class E right down to 1200ft just like the US, sorry about that!

Flying Binghi

22nd Jul 2008, 08:49

No amount of posturing is going to change this outcome. The only change will be a delay which will force AirServices to refurbish/replace it's SSR facilities. ADS-B will still go ahead with the equipment as currently supplied. It will still go ahead with regional aerodrome installations. However, no money will be available for GA fitment. The customer will still be charged full fees until the last SSR is turned off in the 2015-2027 period. No one gets a cost benefit and everyone pays. AirServices still get their safety benefit with state of the art equipment. I still get my ADS-B"IN" because I want it. I still get my GPS because I want it! you lot that want to still fly around in dirt road can stay there. Just stay right away from my airspace! Class E right down to 1200ft just like the US, sorry about that!

OZBUSDRIVER, as I've said before, its all and good until the terrorist GPS guided Buzz bombs start flying in over the coast. Looking to me as though things will have to go to court if Airservices continue with the implementation of the fragile GPS based ADS-B system. :)

Flying Binghi

22nd Jul 2008, 12:54

Hmmm.... Thread subject - GPS/ADS-B a multi billion dollar industry. My scenario is how Terrorists can disable ADS-B, so ADS-B should'nt be used.

Poster james michael writes - I tried to get a feel for ******* by a quick search through past posts (post not related to me)

james michael writes - Bing Are you certain you are not related to Bob Mitty?

My reply - james michael, I've never heard of Bob - you'll have to tell me more.

In reply james michael writes - To answer your question Walter (Bob) Mitty was the creation of one on here, coupled with the writings of James Thurber. In brief, an urban super hero - over 300 years old to have done all the things claimed - a legend in his own lunchtime on the Manly Ferry, but very funny in the analysis. I'd could put up the next part of the tale - the "ADS-B Tour de Australie" - perhaps someday ...You and Bob are certainly trotting out good ADS-B supportive inforemation

I do a quick search of Google to find out more about this "Walter Mitty" ...What I find alarms me -

David Christopher Kelly CMG (May 17, 1944 – July 17, 2003) was an employee of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (MoD), an expert in biological warfare and a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Kelly's discussion with Today Programme journalist Andrew Gilligan about the British government's dossier on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq inadvertently caused a major political scandal. He was found dead days after appearing before the Parliamentary committee charged with investigating the scandal. David Kelly (weapons expert) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_%28weapons_expert%29)

The prime minister is facing calls to sack his spokesman for referring to government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly as a "Walter Mitty" character. Tom Kelly made the remarks during what Downing Street regarded as off-the-record conversations with journalists about the Hutton inquiry into the scientist's death. BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | Blair under pressure over Mitty remark (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3124677.stm)

Many posters to pprune would be aware of my many postings of my opinion of the Iraq invasion as being little better then idiotic. A simple search by any pprunne poster would of found this. Poster james michael has written about conducting a search on another poster.

Whilst I think poster james michael is little more than an idiot making idiotic postings, considering the thread subject, I also have to take into consideration the posibility that poster james michael could very well be making what I believe could possibly be veiled death threats.

As I do not know who poster james michael is, the consideration so far regarding self preservation is to believe the worst - I take final advice tommorrow. Probably best to let the Police work it out.

OZBUSDRIVER

22nd Jul 2008, 13:41

I had to look:eek: Think its time to clean out the posts again, TW.
Time to leave. this is just getting a bit silly.

Just hope that the minders keep the tin foil hat brigade at arms length from the minister.

max1

22nd Jul 2008, 23:36

FB,
Seeing you are so certain that these 'buzz-bombs' are locked and loaded to fly. Could you please furnish me with a list of possible targets, so I know where to keep away from. I hope both major ATC centres are not on the list.
"Sorry, can't come in today, FB says a buzzbomb going to hit"
I think you need to get this list out in the public domain, I'm sure ACA and Today Tonight will run with the story.

Flying Binghi

23rd Jul 2008, 00:28

hope both major ATC centres are not on the list.

max1, Can I assume you are with Airservices then ?

Is the scenario I presented plausible ? I am yet to see any rebutal demonstrating that it will not happen. Instead I get name calling and what I believe to be possible threats... Why ?

T28D

23rd Jul 2008, 00:47

Oz Bus Driver, of course they should, if a C152 needs ADSB then I am sure a Jabiru on the RAAA register also needs it for all the same reasons.

OZBUSDRIVER

23rd Jul 2008, 03:04

T28D, agree and thank-you.:ok:

max1

23rd Jul 2008, 03:46

FB,
I think my comments about the way controllers feel about ASA, that most of US would see redundancy as a blessing would have been obvious . Yes I have been a controller for over 20 years.

Is your theory plausible? Let me start by going back quite a few years, when the IRA tried to lob a few mortar rounds at the ATC centre in England.
Is it plausible that someone could try that here? Yes.

Could the 2 major centres in Australia be targeted? Yes.

Does it stop me going to work? No.

What fallback do we have if they hit both centres simultaneously? Should we build a Cheyenne Mountain centre out the back of Bourke?

If terrorists had the technology now, why haven't they used it? They have 'safe' havens to send them from. Why do they use suicide bombers in trucks, planes, or with explosives strapped to them?

Maybe they use an 'affordable terrorism' model. It is cheaper to convince some gullible person that they will be rewarded with seventy virgins and eternal life in paradise if they martyr themselves in a Jihad, than spending a lot of money on technology and hardware that would take time to develop and run the risk of betrayal.

If a State sponsors the 'safe' haven where they would develop this technology, I believe they would be only too aware of what the Taliban got from sponsoring Osama bin Laden.
Internal politics would probably see someone leaking it, to curry favour somewhere.

So is your scenario plausible? No
Is it possible? Yes
Likelihood? Minute.
Is it recoverable? Yes. Short-term backup systems and procedures.
Would the Yanks even switch it off? Almost definitely no.
Reason for stopping this project? None

Could you please now put this to bed.

Flying Binghi

23rd Jul 2008, 03:56

max1, I've never said that the terrorists will be bombing ATC central.

Creampuff

23rd Jul 2008, 04:01

Don't be in any rush, FB. :rolleyes:

Bob Murphie

23rd Jul 2008, 05:30

If the scenario of buzz bombs is too ridiculous to discuss, may I ask, why it is it not ridiculous to suggest the probable, postulating, possibility of two non- ADSB equipped GA aircraft having a mid air between Boulia and Alice Springs in mid week is?

Be aware that the majority GA fleet will only have ADSB “OUT” (if the enthusiasts get their way).

The GA fleet will be just as "dumb" as they are now.

Forget ADSB and the Jihadists, just why, do I have to suddenly be very afraid?

Or is the fare paying pax who should be very afraid?

But I guess they will pay anything for “absolute” safety.

The subject has been done to death, I said previously, I'll wait and see who has egg on their face. I'll apologise if it's me.

T28D

23rd Jul 2008, 07:13

Bob and all, now we have the RAAA aircraft in as well that means 18,000 aviation vehicles need subsidy at say $10,000 each = $180,000,000.00.

As I roll around here laughing at the prospect of the Federal Government spending that amount of tax payers money on largely recreational toys I can't help thinking this really has gone too far.

Bob Murphie

23rd Jul 2008, 07:42

Funny thing is that the only proved technology is a dumb missile.

OZBUSDRIVER

23rd Jul 2008, 07:47

T28D, you do agree that ADS-B does have benefits that would require fitment? Even by RAA? I do think the RAAA would not have to worry about fitment for their members unless it is for members ground vehicles on the member aerodromes:}

Transponder above 5000ft and access to CTAF(R) will be the qualifiers for RAA aircraft same as radio requirment. RAA is awaiting government legislation on part103 to allow certificate endorsment to allow RAA pilots into controlled airspace. So, those aircraft would also have to be a part of any subsidy agreement. But nowhere near the numbers you suggest. I still fly a non transponder equipped C152 out of TYA that meets the rules.

max1

23rd Jul 2008, 10:20

T28D,
It isn't taxpayers money.
T28D,
It isn't taxpayers money.
T28D,
It isn't taxpayers money.
T28D,
It isn't taxpayers money.
T28D,
It isn't taxpayers money.

Got that.

peuce

23rd Jul 2008, 12:10

CREAMPUFF,

I'm not suggesting anything. That's ASA's job. Folks asked for some potential safety benefits of increased surveillance. I listed a few. If ASA doesn't intend to use the increased surveillance for tasks like these ....but solely for traffic information/separation ... then perhaps we mightn't be getting the most bang for our bucks .... and the issue I alluded to previously about sufficient manpower might be relevant here.

Biggles_in_Oz

23rd Jul 2008, 22:06

T28D Bob and all, now we have the RAAA aircraft in as well that means 18,000 aviation vehicles need subsidy at say $10,000 each = $180,000,000.00. The CASA registry has about 13200 in total (12500 under 5700 MTOW), the RA-AUS registry has about 3000, so your total should be around 15500.

T28D

23rd Jul 2008, 23:22

Ok I amend the total to $155,000,000.00

T28D

23rd Jul 2008, 23:27

Actually the real thing that amuses me is that folk think the airlines are going to part with $100,000,000 + for subsidising General Aviation and the so called benefit is to monitor traffic and stop potential collisions primarily in CTAF which would occur below 5000 ft and our chorus of "experts" are saying it will be restricted to airborne vehicles that fly above 5000ft.

Am I hallucinating or is there a massive inconsistency here ???????

Creampuff

23rd Jul 2008, 23:45

Peuce - understood.

We're in agreement I think.

Although ASDB would indeed facilitate the provision of the services you described, they're not going to be provided as a matter of practicality, because AA doesn't have, and doesn't plan to get, the people to provide them.

max1

23rd Jul 2008, 23:59

T28D,
Have you any idea what ASAs net profit was for the last 3 years?
i.e. the extra money they charged their customers over and above the actual cost of delivering their services, and after paying associated taxes. I do.

60% of this goes to the only shareholder, the Federal Government, who put it into General Revenue.

Here is a link Annual Reports (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/corpdocuments/annualreports.asp)

If you can't be bothered looking it up. I will post the amounts tomorrow.

T28D

24th Jul 2008, 00:10

Max 1 so what, just because Air Services makes a notional profit and thus contributes to Consolidated Revenue this changes WHAT ????

The "plan" was to have the airlines contribute to the General Aviation Subsidy if that were a viable way to fund the ADSB "scheme".

But the airlines are not making money, fuel is expensive, pax won't pay anymore levies willingly, and ADSB in the U.S. has been put out 20 odd years.

So who will pay the $155,000,000 now we are all on the same page with the numbers.

PlankBlender

24th Jul 2008, 01:27

I thought it was "user pays", not "user pays plus 90 million additional tax" :ugh:

T28D

24th Jul 2008, 02:56

Plankbender, the amazing consensus on this thread is there will be a white knight come out and pay for ADSB in all the little airplanes.

I want whatever it is they group are smoking, it must be really good stuff.

Flying Binghi

24th Jul 2008, 03:25

Note, edited for brevity -

FB,
Is your theory plausible? Let me start by going back quite a few years, when the IRA tried to lob a few mortar rounds at the ATC centre in England.
Is it plausible that someone could try that here? Yes.

Could the 2 major centres in Australia be targeted? Yes.

If terrorists had the technology now, why haven't they used it? They have 'safe' havens to send them from. Why do they use suicide bombers in trucks, planes, or with explosives strapped to them?

Maybe they use an 'affordable terrorism' model. It is cheaper to convince some gullible person that they will be rewarded with seventy virgins and eternal life in paradise if they martyr themselves in a Jihad, than spending a lot of money on technology and hardware that would take time to develop and run the risk of betrayal.

If a State sponsors the 'safe' haven where they would develop this technology, I believe they would be only too aware of what the Taliban got from sponsoring Osama bin Laden.
Internal politics would probably see someone leaking it, to curry favour somewhere.

So is your scenario plausible? No
Is it possible? Yes
Likelihood? Minute.
Is it recoverable? Yes. Short-term backup systems and procedures.
Would the Yanks even switch it off? Almost definitely no.
Reason for stopping this project? None

max1, I don't think you understood the scenario I have presented in this thread (on several occasions)

So is your scenario plausible? No. - I think it is.

Likelihood? Minute. - What was the likelyhood of the 9II scenario happening ? Part of the visible reply to that minute possibility are ASICs and airport security fenceing.

Is it recoverable? Yes. Short-term backup systems and procedures. - The Buzz Bomb scenario will likely be random and from any direction ...short term ?

Would the Yanks even switch it off? Almost definitely no. - I seem to recall it was'nt that long ago that civvy GPS had a far less accurate signal - what was the reason for that ?

Reason for stopping this project? None - I have presented what IMHO, are very good reasons for NO ADS-B. I am yet to see any real challange to the scenario. The claims that ADS-B is the latest tecnoligy and should be adapted because it is better then our old ATC system dont stack up.

Take an analogy - It is generaly accepted that the high tech nuclear power plants are the be all and end all of power plants, and that we should get rid of the old tech coal fired power plants.
There are some who see nuclear power plants from the terrorism side of things. At least you car'nt level an entire city with a few grams of coal waste.

.

max1

24th Jul 2008, 03:52

T28D,

Have you read the discussion paper and who will front the money, and who pays that money to them?
I really don't think you have. I and others have stated in here before.
If it is too hard , get a grown-up to read it for you.
How much money has ASA squirreled away over the last 3 years?

Flying Binghi

24th Jul 2008, 04:45

Hmmm... max1, from your PM and open rebutle on this thread I thought you may have wanted to debate the scenario I have presented - obviously not :hmm:

Bob Murphie

24th Jul 2008, 05:45

max1;

It would be interesting to know how much money ASA has "squirreled away" and where does it go?

Consolidated revenue for the major shareholder perhaps?

Does this get back to the taxpayer circle of money laundering? And nobody yet has made any assertions that the airlines are "going" to pay for the GA fitment.

But I'll wait and see.

FB;

"significant flying experience" is the keyword. I don't profess to be the expert, my posts are as an private aircraft owner /operator. Some of these poster's hire aircraft on a Sunday and some have a vested interest, some even profess to be experts on everything, and some are enthusiasts, and some are just mates of mates who reckon it's a good thing, and some just don't like people who have a difference of opinion to their's. Some even have limited flying experience.

I'll give you a conspiracy theory: lasers at major airports are a worry, no?

I am an ex Artillery Officer and I can tell you we "registered" targets.

Think about it, But don't get carried away in case the "enthusiasts" put a damper on your concerns. They are real, and anybody who doesn't learn from history is bound to make the same mistake again.

I think that was written by some Arab engineer, but it could have been anyone.

Flying Binghi

24th Jul 2008, 05:54

"It is interesting that the persons quoted in the article are pilots with significant flying experience. But none of them depend on operating aircraft for a living.? They are prepared to speak out"

I borrowed the quote from elswhere, though I'm thinking it may explain some views and lack of input from others.

T28D

24th Jul 2008, 11:48

Ah Max 1 an absolutely predictable reply, I will wait to see all the true believers who insist there will be subsidy get egg on their faces.

OZBUSDRIVER

24th Jul 2008, 13:01

THIS IS GETTING STUPID!

1090ES ADS-B is just another transponder system. Who benefits from transponder systems? Who charges and who pays. It's not the airlines!
The ordinary punter on the street who buys a ticket and EXPECTS to get from point A to B without worrying or even knowing of the risks involved. They must be protected at all costs! They are the ones that pay for the service of safety.

This isn't going to go away. It may be delayed, but that is it! ADS-B 1090ES is going to happen. There is no alternative that will deliver the same infrastructure for the same amount of funds. Only one chance to ensure a subsidy stays a possibility. AirServices have put up funds for SSR until 2012 to keep the door open. Do not let it get locked out.

max1

24th Jul 2008, 14:19

FB,

I'm starting to feel this is all a wind-up, and you're sitting there with friends killing yourself laughing every time I reply, thinking 'How long will this idiot keep trying to reason with me'.Anyway here we go for the second last time.

So is your scenario plausible? No. - FB-I think it is.

A dictionary defines plausible as 'Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse'. This is why I considered your hypothesis was NOT plausible, but of course it is possible. Anything is possible.
What is the most hi-tech achievement terrorists have accomplished. By this I mean designed, built and tested and it has actually worked.Katusha rockets from Palestine is as far as I would go, good for a few miles, not precision guided.

Likelihood? Minute. - FB-What was the likelyhood of the 9II scenario happening ? Part of the visible reply to that minute possibility are ASICs and airport security fenceing.

In the investigations of 911, it seems someone WAS on the ball but was ignored. There were people who thought it was a likelihood.What is the likelihood of a fertiliser truck bomb under the runway extension at Sydney?Do we never let an airliner take-off? Can we please leave ASIC cards and fencing out of the ADS-B debate.

Is it recoverable? Yes. FB-Short-term backup systems and procedures. - The Buzz Bomb scenario will likely be random and from any direction ...short term ?

I thought your issue was that if your buzzbombs on a boat 500 miles off Sydney were launched, that the Americans would immediately shut down the GPS system that the world and the US military rely on and render GPS blind.
In this case there are short term provisions and procedures to get aircraft on the deck.
We would still have our Primary radars around capital cities and procedural control.Thats the procedural control we use if we lose our existing radars now,by the way.Just because they're spinning doesn't mean we are always getting the feed.
I assume we would go the way of the Yanks after 911 and get the aircraft on the ground and leave them there until it was sorted.The Yanks never turned GPS off after 911 by the way.

Would the Yanks even switch it off? Almost definitely no. FB-- I seem to recall it was'nt that long ago that civvy GPS had a far less accurate signal - what was the reason for that ?

I believe the Yanks degraded the civilian signal when they invaded Iraq, but I'm not sure and they didn't turn it off .A far less accurate signal? Mine was out by 200 ft laterally. I suggest you research RAIM, to do with degraded GPS signals.

Reason for stopping this project? None - FB-I have presented what IMHO, are very good reasons for NO ADS-B. I am yet to see any real challange to the scenario. The claims that ADS-B is the latest tecnoligy and should be adapted because it is better then our old ATC system dont stack up.

I work in our 'old' ATC system, what ADS-B coverage around Australia would mean is fantastic for surveillance over this huge, sparsely populated, continent we live in.
Could you please explain your understanding of our 'old' ATC system?

I'm not convinced that what you , in your honest opinion, are hypothisising is a VERY GOOD reason for stopping ADS-B is PLAUSIBLE(Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible). Is the hypothesis of a fertiliser truck bomb under the Sydney runway extension also a VERY GOOD reason for shutting the runway forever. Is the rest of the World wrong, under your hypothesis, for also heading down the ADS-B path.

FB-I am yet to see any real challange to the scenario. -You won't see any real challenge, because you're not looking.

max1

24th Jul 2008, 14:53

Bob,
Last three years clear profit of ASA from the annual reports
04/05 $56.778 m
05/06 $93.596 m
06/07 $106.754m

Rumour has it trending towards the $140m mark this year.

Around The $395m mark.60% to the Gov. Leaves just under $159m in the kitty, to be spent on ASA infrastructure, long term plans etc.

To be fair, (and I am not a fan of my employer at the moment as I consider we have put too much focus on profit, profit,profit and have ended up not being able to deliver what we are supposed to) ASA have delivered price cuts over their 5 year plans, but the sheer volume of traffic has increased the profits.
The plan, agreed with the airlines, is that ASA will continue with the pricing regime and put this money aside to pay for the ADS-B fitment of the GA fleet.

Bob, I've got no idea where they've stuffed the money, or if its already spent.
Maybe the downturn in Aviation will hurt us. When we needed money to put in TAAATS we went and borrowed it. 97/98 and 98/99 we reported a LOSS of -$32.987m and -$123.4m, and actually borrowed money to pay the Gov. a dividend. Its all been gravy since then.

T28D, you can sit there and indulge in the great Australian pastime of being a knocker, I enjoy it too I'm probably one of the biggest knockers at work myself, but there is a pretty good plan and I think with this one that GA won't get shafted----again.
The money will be there because the airlines want it. I know Virgin paid $110million to ASA last year , total revenue was $676.7m. Imagine what the Qantas group share was. ASA don't ignore those people.

Flying Binghi

24th Jul 2008, 21:17

FB,
I'm starting to feel this is all a wind-up, and you're sitting there with friends killing yourself laughing every time I reply, thinking 'How long will this idiot keep trying to reason with me'.Anyway here we go for the second last time.

max1, please note I hav'nt just turned up in the pprune forums for this thread (unlike some others) As I've written previously in this thread; I'm a pilot with some concerns.

It was'nt an easy decision to put my questions/scenarios forward here. The response I have received here has turned my mild concern to alarm - It has been suggested to me that Airservices probably hav'nt even thought of the scenario I have presented ?

What is the most hi-tech achievement terrorists have accomplished

I,ll answer that with the most well known - 9II ...after that, Buzz Bomb design will be a walk in the park.

buzzbombs on a boat 500 miles off Sydney

I mentioned that was one possibility.

the Americans would immediately shut down the GPS system that the world and the US military rely on and render GPS blind.

Thats not how I put it. The military being GPS blind seems to contradict your next coments -

I believe the Yanks degraded the civilian signal when they invaded Iraq

Err, max1, you may want to enquire further there. I seem to recall my first GPS (a pronav 100) was'nt very accurate (and I'm not refering to the number of sats it monitered)

what ADS-B coverage around Australia would mean is fantastic for surveillance over this huge, sparsely populated, continent we live in.

How-ever did we survive so far ? max1, ADS-B is only going to work as long as it has a civvy GPS signal to work with.

I suggest you research RAIM, to do with degraded GPS signals.

I have 2x IFR GPS units in my aircraft so have a slight understanding of RAIM. Speaking of RAIM, I note we are currently in a quite period with sunspots (23, going on 24) - going to be getting stormy in the next few years.

Is the hypothesis of a fertiliser truck bomb under the Sydney runway extension also a VERY GOOD reason for shutting the runway forever

max1, As I have written before, the truck bomb is an 'in-house' event, chances are high that a group will be caught before the event (the Footy bombers) If the event happens the security people have a good chance of backtracking to the group or individual - thus stopping further problems from that particular group. Effect on Oz airspace (thats the main issue to me) minimal.

On the other hand, GPS guided Buzz Bombs flying in over the coast can turn up unannounced, at any time or place with a delivery accuracy of better then 30 metres (Hitlers Buzz Bombs caused a lot of terror with a delivery accuracy of several miles) As these devices are launched outside of Oz it will be extreamly difficult to find or stop further attacks. When it is identified to the public the reason for the accuracy - I think there will be more then a few calls to remove the terrorist targetting system. Effect on a ADS-B based Oz airspace...

.

Bob Murphie

25th Jul 2008, 00:28

max1;

Thanks for that. It is interesting to note that profits rise in opposition to the GA fleet decrease. Not that GA pay that much into the system as you also show. It's also a wee bit alarming to think that somebody would borrow money to pay a dividend. Anyway that's for the beancounters.

It is obvious that if the trend is accurate, there is no way ASA could pay for the GA fitment of ADSB, so it gets back to the Airlines again who, as Tunes pointed out are not making money at the moment due to outside factors.

Anyway, I am prepared to sit back and watch, but in summary may I just say, (again).

I am not opposed to the introduction of a new technology "transponder" as I was not opposed to new generation ELT's, which, by the way I embrace. I just don't agree with two oxymoronic words being in the same sentence to shove anything new down my throat. They are "mandate" and "subsidy".

Most of the pitch is sellling the "subsidy" to me. Nobody subsidised the ELT upgrade, and everyone accepted it for it's benefits.

I don't know how long you have been around, but when NDB's were being built around the country, the doomsayers calculated that there would be piles of twisted aluminium under every NDB because these beacons would attract aeroplanes like moths to a light. It didn't happen and the GA fleet embraced the T12C for it's merits (and you could listen to the cricket if you wanted). Same with GPS, most people I know wouldn't know how to calculate a 1 in 60 after they have passed their thoery. Probably a good thing also because it lets you have more time looking out the window in VFR conditions.

I also remember the Van 5 DME well. It worked OK, but was an orphan in the end.

Now if this new fangled "transponder" were just phased in, I wouldn't have a worry because it (should) only be mandatory where mode C is now required.

One would assume as with all new technology, the prices come down as units are manufactured as does the quality go up.

There are another two words, "price" and "mandate". It appears nobody can give me a satisfactory answer that this new "transponder" is going to cost about the same plus perhaps a little bit to replace the mode C, I have now.

Read my para 2 again before you answer this, as I am of the opinion I am going to have to pay and from what I see it's a massive bill.

Then I ask myself, why is the push to have it compulsory in CTAF (r) or below A010? Another nail in the box to convince (no force), me I must have it but I don't have to pay for it.

Then there is the matter of TCAS. Unless, I am told, the other aircraft has ADSB IN, he can only see me on mode C so he has to have both ADSB IN and OUT and a TCAS mode C and I will need to retain my mode C (with it's annual calibrations), plus the new gadget.

Didn't I see an arguement about weight somewhere recently. While I am busy ripping stuff out of my PA-22 in the hope of getting it on the RA-Aus register, you want me to put more stuff in. (I have sold it before the aggro crew get up me, but I have two more in a shed).

All in all, I can't see this gadget doing anything for me that my set up now does. With time and when these issues have been addressed I would fit it as an evolutionary upgrade. In the meantime, my two hangar queens remain thus because I simply don't believe in rushing to get a free handout.

And some wonder what has happened to GA in Australia.:rolleyes:

max1

25th Jul 2008, 00:33

FB,
Can you please tell me what was hi-technology about 911. Audacious ,yes. Hi-tech? A group of people got delivered training, commandeer aircraft and crash them into buildings. Well planned? Yes. Hi-tech?
There was nothing hi-tech about 911, committed individuals could probably still pull something similar off. It still wouldn't be hi-tech.If I belt someone over the head with a start-of-the-art laptop, instead of a rock, does that make it a hi-tech killing.If the terrorists who parked a fertiliser truck bomb in the underground carpark of the World Trade Centre had brought it down, would that have been lo-tech as compared to flying planes into it.

You say chances are high that the truck bombers would be caught, they weren't in the event I mentioned, and nor were they with 911.

I thought your argument was, many posts ago, please correct me if I'm wrong, that what would happen to the GPS signal if terrorists used the signal to deliver a precision guided weapon. How would this affect ADS-B if GPS was switched off? I think I've answered that.

In regards to your GPS, how is the one you have now? How about your computer? Its called progress.

So what do you really want FB? It seems you want the GPS signal turned off, or not used as a primary means of navigation and/or surveillance. In the high traffic areas we will still have primary radar.
Lets have a good think about no GPS will affect besides ADS-B.
Precision approaches, shipping, farmers use GPS in automated farming, offshore fishing, air-navigation, truck-monitoring, the military.
GPS whether you like it or not has countless applications through all our lives, based on your premise we should not rely on it. How are pilots allowed to use GPS for precision approaches when it could be switched off with no notice? Better stop those. Should all ocean going vessels be required to take sun sights?
Once again, what is your understanding of our 'old' ATC system?

I think FB you should start a new thread about GPS guided buzzbombs, they are a possibility, an incredibly small possibility, and stop trying to muddy the waters about ADS-B. Jet Blast would probably be a good forum.I won't say they can't happen, because they could. Maybe Hitler and Elvis will come on to support you, because I notice you don't seem to be getting any back-up from anyone else on here.
But as a reason for stopping ADS-B. In the words of Darryl Kerrigan 'tell him he's dreamin'

Flying Binghi

25th Jul 2008, 01:06

Hmmm... max1, you might want to re-read my posts again for a better understanding ... or, is it you are just trying hard to miss-represent what I have written ? :hmm:

To address one thing you wrote, heres a repeat of one of my posts -

"It is interesting that the persons quoted in the article are pilots with significant flying experience. But none of them depend on operating aircraft for a living.? They are prepared to speak out"

I borrowed the quote from elswhere, though I'm thinking it may explain some views and lack of input from others.

max1 I'm sorta wondering what you think is so high tech about GPS guided Buzz Bombs ? remember, the high tech bit is the satelites and GPS units themselves. The satilites are up there in space, and the GPS units are available (anonymously) from practicaly anywhere.

The slightly dificult bit would be designing the first Buzz Bomb.... then all one need do is follow the 'how to' instructions for multipule copies - much like many aircraft home builders do

There would be no off the shelf aircraft parts required, in fact, it would be very hard to track any parts used in the Buzz Bomb consruction (the payload maybe) .... do you want me to expand further ?

Hmmm.... This will make a good movie plot I think :)

.

max1

25th Jul 2008, 01:16

Bob,
A couple of points to clarify,
You state that 'there is no way ASA could pay for the GA fitment of ADSB,' I don't see where you got this idea from.ASA have been making money hand over fist. ASA when they needed money to pay the hundreds of millions for TAAATS went out and borrowed what they didn't have. I don't think they have to come up with the whole $100 million in one foul swoop, as the airlines don't have to put $X billion dollars down when they put in an order for 40-100 new airliners. I don't see them sending out ten thousand cheques for $10 000 dollars the moment this gets over the line.Do you?

The point about the airlines not making money, so being unable to afford the cost of fitment is also incorrect. ASA will still collect navcharges from the airlines, navcharges are a cost of doing business, it is these navcharges that will go to the subsidy.
I'm sure the oil companies and the suppliers are not saying to the airlines, gee you're doing it tough we won't charge you for what we are supplying you.

No-one else paid for you ELT fitment because they didn't get anything out of it. The airlines and ASA want ADS-B, the subsidy is a way to get you on board. It is a bribe so you won't complain because you don't want to pay for it.
ASA do not want to pay out huge amounts of money to either replace and/or install, and then expensively maintain, what is in essence 1940s technology if there is a cheaper and better alternative. Airlines are aware, and happy, with ADS-B technology and can see the safety benefits of greater surveillance coverage and long term savings inherent in the ADS-B system.
The long term saving is in NOT installing SSR in areas of Australia that don't currently have it, and then having to maintain it. The money ASA save long term will be reflected in the lowering of air-nav charges.
The airliners will have ADS-B in, so they who paid for it can see you, also ATC will be able to see you when within range of a ground station, and can give traffic if required. From an ATC perspective, with our numbers, and the huge areas alot of sectors cover we do NOT want to 'drag' you into the system if you don't want to be there.

To sum up, ASA will pay the subsidy through airline navcharges, which the airlines have to pay whether they are making money or not. When installed , there is nothing different from an airmanship point of view that you have to do differently. If you are using see and avoid, continue to do so.

One last point, have you noticed how quiet the government has been on this. After getting their fingers burnt on NAS, the politicians don't want to play a lead role in this.Thank God for that. However, I'm sure they would come down like a ton of bricks if anyone tried to renege on the GA subsidy deal.

max1

25th Jul 2008, 01:28

FB,
If they are that easy and cheap to make, you quote under a $1000 dollars somewhere, why hasn't it been done.
Do you have the recipe?
Buzzbomb Birthday Cake
Take one GPS, add one large fin-guided rocket (on special til Sunday at Bunnings) .
Shake until blended.
Bake for 40 minutes in moderately hot oven (30 minutes for fan-forced)
Ice with large amounts of explosive. (Also on special at Bunnings)
Don't let anyone know because its a surprise.
Serves 10 000.

P.S. Do you still consider 911 hi-tech and, can you answer, what is your understanding of our 'old' ATC system.

Oops gotta go. The Feds are knocking on the door.

Bob Murphie

25th Jul 2008, 02:04

max1;

I refer broadly to your trend forecast profit, and understand your point.

I recall Compass Airlines prior to ASA being corporatised. They effectively went broke for non payment of Air Nav charges that then went straight into consolidated revenue. Given the amount of people they employed, and the possibility of saving these jobs plus continue to generate revenue from Compass, one would think subsidising them at Gov't level would have been a sensible idea. Didn't happen.

The oil companies are in league with the Devil. Nobody would expect anything from them.

I will now accept your term of "bribe" and use it in lieu of subsidy when ever I think of this topic. Proves that the only one to benefit is ASA, the Regionals etc having to pay their own way. Has anybody given any idea of the costs of ADSB IN and is my concern about TCAS valid?

I can now continue on my own merry way and if need land and take off from non CTAF (r) airports, which are in the main security restricted airports anyway and I refuse to have an ASIC.

I doubt Minister Albanese gives a rat's about anything but noise around Sydney Airport. He has enough Labor cunning not to get his or his Party's fingers burned over any of this, and he would dump the matter onto ASA if things went pear shaped. Remember it was the last mob who reckoned this was a great idea.

Then back to the cycle of who pays if it is mandated and no money came forth. I reckon it will be me, and as the title of this discussion says, another Seasprite fiasco that the the general public have already forgotten about.

Not many people can afford to fly GA any more and if this thing goes tits up it will possibly be the demise of private GA as I know it.

I agree with Dick. What's the rush?

Cheers, Bob (the pessamist).:cool:

T28D

25th Jul 2008, 02:05

Quiet politicions on a $100 million + subsidy, now that is a bizarre concept.

Max 1 surely you jest, Airservices is not a private company it is a Federal Government Agency, it cannot just dispense largesse at the sort of figures that will be required.

An enabling Bill will be needed which has a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding, $100 + million to fat cats having fun with airplanes ???????

max1

25th Jul 2008, 02:40

T28D,
It is run as a corporation that has the government as its only shareholder. It has a CEO, and a Board of Directors(appointed by the Government though).
In the last few years , ASA have taken over the running of some US towers, do you think the US government would allow any another government to take over a national piece of infrastructure.
To all intents and purposes ASA is a stand alone business, they can go out and borrow money, enter into international contracts, etc.
The ADS-B program is a business initiative, they keep the government informed of issues that may affect them, but are pretty much left to their own devices.
As I said to Bob, the subsidy is a bribe to get GA on board. By the way I don't see the GA community as 'fat cats having fun with airplanes'.
If $100 million dollars was going from GA to subsidise the airlines I could see a pretty good media stink there, but not this way.
I don't know anything about Enabling Bills, could you please explain why one would be required?

P.S. Bob,
Ansett went down owing 16 million in navcharges.

Bob Murphie

25th Jul 2008, 04:16

max1;

It is my belief that Ansett went down because of a difference of opinion between the then Director of Aviation Safety, and the Ansett Mgr of Ops (TJ). From memory. and from an engineer source at the time, perfectly good aeroplanes were grounded on paperwork issues to help boost the demise. But lets not go there.

ASA is a Qango.

Robert Magabe is a President.

Bob Murphie is a pessamist.

People opposed to spotlighting on a full moon subscribe to the notion that cars should drive around in the dark when it suits them.

The tooth Fairy gives free money.

These must be intertwined somehow?

Flying Binghi

25th Jul 2008, 04:41

FB,
If they are that easy and cheap to make, you quote under a $1000 dollars somewhere, why hasn't it been done.
Do you have the recipe?
Buzzbomb Birthday Cake
Take one GPS, add one large fin-guided rocket (on special til Sunday at Bunnings) .
Shake until blended.
Bake for 40 minutes in moderately hot oven (30 minutes for fan-forced)
Ice with large amounts of explosive. (Also on special at Bunnings)
Don't let anyone know because its a surprise.
Serves 10 000.
P.S. Do you still consider 911 hi-tech and, can you answer, what is your understanding of our 'old' ATC system.
Oops gotta go. The Feds are knocking on the door.

LOL, max1 ... you have no idea, do you :rolleyes:

...Well, it looks like theres no coherent attempt at a rebutal to be found :hmm:

T28D

25th Jul 2008, 05:04

Binghi, Right first time, Max 1 really has no idea about Government Agency accountability, $100 million + is a large lump of change by any standards.

max1

25th Jul 2008, 08:28

T28D,
ASA is a government owned corporation, have a look at who signs off the books. It aint the auditor general.
The management do not have to go to the government to get big ticket items signed off. The Board sign them off whilst being mindful that the shareholder (the Government ) appointed them.
The last time the Government of the day got really involved was NAS, and we saw what politics did in that situation. The Gov have learnt (I hope) to stay out of it. The government pretty much stay away and pick up their dividend, just like most shareholders.

Biggles_in_Oz

25th Jul 2008, 10:36

Mr. F. BinghiI have 2x IFR GPS units in my aircraft so have a slight understanding of RAIM If you are so implacably opposed to GPS being used for ADSB, why do you have 2x IFR GPSs in your aircraft ????

Is it because you believe that your units are much less reliable than the reliability and availability of the GPS signals ? if the gps signal are crappy then both of your units will give you crap.
or
is it because you really like the benefits (such as S.A., realtime GS, winds-aloft, etc) that a GNSS provides you ?

Is your opposition to ADSB simply because you don't want to be more 'visible' to ATC ? But you, do, want to know about other traffic because you have said you have a TA box

Would you accept ADSB if a non-GPS-based box was used to feed position data to an ADSB transponder ?

max1

25th Jul 2008, 10:45

Bob,
I wasn't saying that Ansett went down because of unpaid navcharges. When you mentioned Compass going under for unpaid navcharges, I thought you might be interested to know that Ansett were allowed to rattle up a $16 million dollar bill.

T28D

25th Jul 2008, 11:45

Max 1 absolute rubbish, no Government Appointed board can unilaterally authorise $100 million to be spent on unbudgetted funds, nil, nada.

max1

25th Jul 2008, 13:16

T28D,
Have a read of this thread, I have said it quite a few times, the money IS budgeted, for either SSR replacement and new installations, or for ADS-B.

The reason there is a time constraint is because there will have to be serious money spent soon on the SSRs which have moving parts and WEAR OUT, plus providing more. They are approaching the end of their useful life.The traffic levels seen in the West mandate that a form of surveillance is also required out there. The outback areas are very hard on equipment with moving parts.

ASA are at a crossroads, they will either have to go down the road of many SSRs, which are costly to maintain or go down the more cost effective road of ADS-B, which they have been testing and implementing already for years.

The money has been budgeted , now it is just deciding , in consultation with the industry and selling it to GA, hence the subsidy.

The government has set up ASA as a government owned corporation to run as a business. If the government is so hands on with ASA why have they not leapt in with all the TIBA airspace, sacked the managers and tried to clean up the mess? The answer is because it is not set up that way.They will leave the management alone to sort it out, because that is the way a business is run. Management are answerable to shareholders, but shareholders don't leap in every time they find something they're not happy with. They appoint a Board to deal with the management.

For better or worse, ASA no longer falls under Public Service regs, we have our own industry Super fund etc etc. You need to move on from the thinking that it is just a tarted up Dept of Aviation.

OZBUSDRIVER

25th Jul 2008, 13:23

T28D as mentioned before. AirServices CAN and do. AirServices can even borrow money to do it. The Minister can even direct and AirServices must do. There are many avenues that are available to facilitate fitment.

I have been having a fun evening reading up about the antics of 1990 and Airspace 2000 and class G trials and radio not required in VFR abv 5000ft and in class E the dreaded DTI and costing less than $15,000,000 more than $15,000,000, then three years later more than $20,000,000 a year to provide. national advisory frequencies, TAAATS and low airspace ssr and no need for flight services. What BASI thought of unalerted see and avoid, FISAD, Class G in parts of Arizona realy is the same as class G in the GAFA, How Proserpine had class C, then Class D, then nothing dirt road. I like bedtime stories:eek:

ADS-B is an enabling technology. If we had it in 1990 the world would have been a different place. The modern day FISAD? The device to ACTUALLY enable low airspace surveillance of IFR? Low level Class E ala US airspace??
DTI that actually refers to aircraft positions without the outragious costs? Who knows, if everyone had an idea where everyone was , there would be no radio congestion and pilot's could concentrate on navigation and enjoying their flight. Qualify this, I am not talking about some ragwing old so and so trying to get airbourne on a hot day out the back of Kickatinalong, however, if he left Kickatinalong to go to the big smoke? I am sure he would understand if I tell him that ModeC will soon be not enough.

The only reason, as you have pointed out Max1, the antagonists do not want to be seen by the system. BIG BROTHER? My fat:mad:

max1

25th Jul 2008, 13:28

LeadSled

26th Jul 2008, 02:46

Folks,
I still note much discussion about the value of ADS-B based low level surveillance available to ATC/ASA customers.

Are you all certain any significant degree of low level ADS-B coverage will be available ---- facts, please !!

Particulary in the areas where Primary/SSR radar will remain, what's the benefit, regardless of any remote SSR being decommissioned.

The present program will cover down to 30,000' nationwide, not exactly low level.

ASA has published an estimate to produce coverage to 10,000' almost nationwide, not exactly low level. From memory, this need an increase from some 30-40 plus ground stations, to some 150-160, look it up in the available ASA/AERU/JCP data.

Again, based on ASA published estimates, to get down to 5000', more or less nationwide, needs something in the order of 350-400. And this gets us to ONLY 5000 AGL, with lots of shadows on the east coast a reasonable forecast.

All this without regard to the availability of satellite transponder capacity to handle 350-400 ground stations, or terrestrial connections to the ATC centres.

Can anybody out there hold their hand on their heart, and say that ASA has planned/budgeted for some 350-300 stations, to provide a service to the relative handful of their IFR customers operating below 10,000'.

Also another gentle reminder, pulling out the navaids is NOT dependent on having ADS-B fitted. And a requirement for Mode C transponders will remain, with a probable widening of the requirement to carry TCAS 11.

In practical terms. navaids reduction/savings is dependent on ASA's customers having a widespread having fitment of C-145/146 GPS. Have a look at the IFR navaids requirements for a diversion to an alternate, if you don't already understand where C-145/146 comes in (why C-129 doesn't fit, but probably should --- but that is another discussion).

There is no doubt a form of ADS-"X" is an aid of the future, but ONLY where it provides a useful tool. No coverage is no coverage, regardless of the system, now and in the future.

Tootle pip!!

Tootle pip!!

Flying Binghi

26th Jul 2008, 04:50

Hmmm ... LeadSled, perhaps you need to provide some links to a previous thread on what you've just covered ;) I seem to recall the thread was fairly intense at the time. (I was in the audience then)

Flying Binghi

26th Jul 2008, 05:06

FB, You state

...Well, it looks like theres no coherent attempt at a rebutal to be found ,

I am not saying your GPS guided buzzbombs are impossible, I have in fact stated that nothing is impossible. Your buzzbombs are possible but so are many things. If you do a risk/benefit analysis, is the risk of a GPS guided buzzbomb worth the killing off of the benefits of GPS applications?

Also do you still consider 911 hi-tech and, can you answer, what is your understanding of our 'old' ATC system? Any chance of you answering these?

max1, I'll let you tell me all about the ATC system, you claim to be the expert. Me, as I've said before, well I'm just an aircraft owner and pilot with some concerns - and a scenario :cool:

.... from you max1, I got this reply to my last considered response to the questions you raised -

FB,
If they are that easy and cheap to make, you quote under a $1000 dollars somewhere, why hasn't it been done.
Do you have the recipe?
Buzzbomb Birthday Cake
Take one GPS, add one large fin-guided rocket (on special til Sunday at Bunnings) .
Shake until blended.
Bake for 40 minutes in moderately hot oven (30 minutes for fan-forced)
Ice with large amounts of explosive. (Also on special at Bunnings)
Don't let anyone know because its a surprise.
Serves 10 000.

P.S. Do you still consider 911 hi-tech and, can you answer, what is your understanding of our 'old' ATC system.

Oops gotta go. The Feds are knocking on the door.

max1, after that reply from you, why should I waste any more time with you ?

max1, to me, your coming across very much like another poster to this thread - Have you been useing different 'call signs' in this thread max1 ? :hmm:

.

Flying Binghi

26th Jul 2008, 05:50

I'm confused
Mr. F. Binghi
Quote:
I have 2x IFR GPS units in my aircraft so have a slight understanding of RAIM
If you are so implacably opposed to GPS being used for ADSB, why do you have 2x IFR GPSs in your aircraft ????

Is it because you believe that your units are much less reliable than the reliability and availability of the GPS signals ? if the gps signal are crappy then both of your units will give you crap.
or
is it because you really like the benefits (such as S.A., realtime GS, winds-aloft, etc) that a GNSS provides you ?

Is your opposition to ADSB simply because you don't want to be more 'visible' to ATC ? But you, do, want to know about other traffic because you have said you have a TA box

Would you accept ADSB if a non-GPS-based box was used to feed position data to an ADSB transponder ?

Some probing questions there Biggles_in_Oz :hmm:

If you are so implacably opposed to GPS being used for ADSB, why do you have 2x IFR GPSs in your aircraft ?

I had the IFR GPSs before I was aware of the possibility of the terrorist scenario I have presented. I also have 2x VOR/ILS, and 1x ADF and a strikfinder.

...because you really like the benefits (such as S.A., realtime GS, winds-aloft, etc) that a GNSS provides you ?

I'm an early adapter, e.g. my first mobile phone was the size of a large brief case, my car (getting old now) has a variable speed limiter and will automaticly aply the brakes if it senses an overspeed etc, I was one of the first around with a GPS in my little spam can, etc, etc, etc, I'm always fiddle-farting around with something new :) ...oh, and to answer the question, GPS is certainly usefull when it works.

Is your opposition to ADSB simply because you don't want to be more 'visible' to ATC ? But you, do, want to know about other traffic because you have said you have a TA box

I have a transponder in my aircraft, so I am visible to other TAS equiped traffic (some need the radar 'ping') and any ATC radars about. Also, when on a plan I am 'visible' from that piont of view.
The TAS is for IFR work, and in hindsight was'nt really needed - its just I like haveing lots of gadgets to play with :)

Would you accept ADSB if a non-GPS-based box was used to feed position data to an ADSB transponder ?

Even though I have poor writing skills, I would have thought I have been very very clear about the scenario relateing entirly to GPS and any system that requires some form of GPS input to work.

...................... now, lets hear some more from those who wish to profit from makeing Oz airspace less secure :hmm:

.

Scurvy.D.Dog

27th Jul 2008, 05:42

Are you all certain any significant degree of low level ADS-B coverage will be available ---- facts, please !!
.. where enroute SSR only coverage currently exists, WA coast, and that ol’ chestnut … The Anderson/Smith AusNAS Radar C directive (regional CTA/R’s)

… one presumes where Safety Case (CBA) area’s warrant in the future!
Particulary in the areas where Primary/SSR radar will remain, what's the benefit, regardless of any remote SSR being decommissioned.
- PRM replacement
- Multi-functional surface surveillance (capital city A/D’s initially)
- A secondary surevillance back up for SSR failure in high density environments such as Capital Cities

The present program will cover down to 30,000' nationwide, not exactly low level.
Yup, and where those ground stations are placed will provide line of sight coverage to ground level close to the receiver i.e. YBAS etc
ASA has published an estimate to produce coverage to 10,000' almost nationwide, not exactly low level. From memory, this need an increase from some 30-40 plus ground stations, to some 150-160, look it up in the available ASA/AERU/JCP data.
…. Why would they bother with A100 in the remote en-route areas between remote CTAF’s in the GAFA?! tis a furphy to throw that in Bill!
Again, based on ASA published estimates, to get down to 5000', more or less nationwide, needs something in the order of 350-400. And this gets us to ONLY 5000 AGL, with lots of shadows on the east coast a reasonable forecast.
…. Again why would they bother, unless a climb and descent/circling area was (through proper process) assessed to be needing surveillance third party FISS DTI or ATC CTA.
All this without regard to the availability of satellite transponder capacity to handle 350-400 ground stations, or terrestrial connections to the ATC centres.
…. Do you seriously think the barer links have not been considered!?
Can anybody out there hold their hand on their heart, and say that ASA has planned/budgeted for some 350-300 stations, to provide a service to the relative handful of their IFR customers operating below 10,000'. … no, why would they unless the traffic density, complexity or mix required it!?
Also another gentle reminder, pulling out the navaids is NOT dependent on having ADS-B fitted.
… no-one as far as I am aware said it was!
And a requirement for Mode C transponders will remain, with a probable widening of the requirement to carry TCAS 11.
…. Hmmm, so do tell, does the 1090ES output code include what is today the mode C altitude? …. In other words, what does the ‘ES’ stand for?
In practical terms. navaids reduction/savings is dependent on ASA's customers having a widespread having fitment of C-145/146 GPS. Have a look at the IFR navaids requirements for a diversion to an alternate, if you don't already understand where C-145/146 comes in (why C-129 doesn't fit, but probably should --- but that is another discussion).
… eerrmm, what’s your point there Bill regarding primary GNSS NAV
There is no doubt a form of ADS-"X" is an aid of the future, but ONLY where it provides a useful tool. No coverage is no coverage, regardless of the system, now and in the future.
… do you seriously believe most folks will not opt for ‘IN’ (in whatever form) in GA?
.
Are your mob gunna expect to make best use of the funding if the proposal gets up? ;)
.
:E

Biggles_in_Oz

27th Jul 2008, 07:12

S.D.D.… do you seriously believe most folks will not opt for ‘IN’ (in whatever form) in GA?Absolutely., I'd love to, if the proposed subsidy would pay for it (perhaps as a future upgrade)

I'm neutral on the whole ADSB issue.
I can see the increased safety benefits for RPT and lower-level IFR (even with the sparse coverage below A010), because ATC will get to 'see' much more of the currently 'invisible' VFR traffic.

But when I go VFR in G and E, by definition ATC aren't likely to give me traffic even if they could 'see' me, so there's little direct benefit for me in that case.

Yeah, ADSB is good, but for a lot of GA VFR it's not going to be real usefull until some standard form of -IN becomes widespread (and subsidised so that enough units fly to enable alerted see-and-avoid.)

Bob Murphie

27th Jul 2008, 10:30

ADSB "IN" is not on the subsidy gift list, or is it?

TCAS is still dependant on mode C as I read things.

Scurvy.D.Dog

27th Jul 2008, 10:46

Manual of Air Traffic Services

Relevant extracts reflect the CASA MoS, and ICAO parent documents. Reproduced here in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 (Commonwealth) Commonwealth copyright (http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_CommonwealthCopyrightAdministration_Commonwealthco pyright)

2-20-110 ATS objectives
.
The objectives of Air Traffic Services are to:
a. prevent collisions between aircraft
b. prevent collisions between aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area
c. expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic
d. provide advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights
e. notify appropriate organisations regarding aircraft in need of search and rescue aid, and assist such organisations as required.
.
2-20-210 Services provided
.
The air traffic services comprise three services:
.
a. The air traffic control service, to accomplish objectives a., b. and c. of Clause 2-20-110.
This service is divided into three parts:
1. Area control service: the provision of air traffic control service for controlled flights, except for those parts of such flights described in Clause 2-20-210 a. 2. and 3., in order to accomplish objectives a. and c. of Clause 2-20-110
2. Approach control service: the provision of air traffic control service for those parts of controlled flights associated with arrival or departure, in order to accomplish objectives a. and c. of Clause 2-20-110
3. Aerodrome control service: the provision of air traffic control service for aerodrome traffic, except for those parts of flights described in Clause 2-20-210 a. 2., in order to accomplish objectives a., b. and c. of Clause 2-20-110
b. The flight information service, to accomplish objective d. of Clause 2-20-110
c. The alerting service, to accomplish objective e. of Clause 2-20-110.
.
2-30-210 Airspace classes (table)
.
VFR in Class E (service provided) Flight Information Service
.
VFR in Class G (service provided) Flight Information Service
.
1-10-170 Terms and Definitions
.
Flight Information Service (FIS):
.
A service provided for the purpose of giving advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights.
.
9-10-200 Scope of FIS
.
9-10-210 Responsibility
.
Provide FIS to all aircraft which are:
a. provided with air traffic control service; or
b. otherwise known to the relevant air traffic services units.
.
9-10-220 Provision includes
.
FIS includes the provision of pertinent:
a. pre-flight information
b. operational information such as:
1. meteorological conditions and the existence of non-routine MET products (eg. amended TAF, amended ARFOR, SPECI, SIGMET, AIRMET)
2. changes to air routes
3. changes to the status of air routes, aerodromes, navigation facilities eg. RAIM, communication facilities and approach aids
4. changes to ATS procedures
5. changes to airspace status
6. information on unmanned free balloons (including Operation HIBAL activities)
7. release into the atmosphere of radioactive materials or toxic chemicals.
c. traffic information to aircraft operating in airspace Classes C, D, E and G when licenced to do so
d. ATS surveillance system derived information to aircraft operating in Classes E and G when licenced to do so; and
e. other information likely to affect safety.
.
9-10-340 Precedence
.
Where air traffic service units provide both flight information and air traffic control services, give precedence to the provision of air traffic control over flight information, unless doing so would compromise safety.
.
9-10-350 Pilot access to information
.
Advise pilots to access information on the FLIGHTWATCH frequency if your workload or frequency congestion makes it more practical. :( :{
.
9-10-800 Traffic Information in Class E or G
.
9-10-810 Class G
.
In Class G airspace, provide traffic information to IFR and MLJ aircraft on conflicting IFR and MLJ aircraft.
.
9-10-820 Class E
.
In Class E airspace, provide flights with mutual traffic information on each other and on IFR and MLJ flights when:
a. maintaining VFR-on-top; or
b. operating VFR climb/descent; or
c. using IFR pick-up.
.
9-10-830 – Traffic information
.
Provide these flights with traffic information on VFR flights as far as practicable.My bolding, cheeky smilies and underlining throughout
.
All that said, one assumes that by the time surveillance based OCTA services are more wide spread (where needed), the ATS resources will be there to provide the G, E or higher services (workload and higher priority services permitting).
.
Where ATS surveillance based FISS is not established .. you guessed it ..
.
- TCAS equipped RPT will see all ADS-B and other TXPDR targets
- VFR and IFR without TCAS (with ‘IN’) … will see other ADS equipped targets
.
… if ‘IN’ for GA cannot be captured within the subsidy amounts on offer (Microair for one), then I will walk backwards to Hobart with me undies on me head! :ooh: ... :O ... :}

Hope that clarifies what you were asking Biggles :ok:

OZBUSDRIVER

27th Jul 2008, 13:52

Interesting stuff, there SDD.

My reply to Leadsled's thought provoking post- ADS-B is the start of something very big. At first it will be the UAP to enable full coverage where there has never been before above FL300. As SDD has pointed and as a number of us on his previous thread advertising the JCP pointed out when Bourke and Longreach went active. It was the first time that en-route surveillance has been ever provided at ground level at those sites.

UAP at first, SSR sites, ten regionals and definitely WA fifo sites. Like building the Hume freeway ( A project that has taken my LIFTIME to complete) ADS-B will eventually be rolled out to a very extensive network. Leadsled, this is not going to be a full rollout on day one. However, AirServices needs those transponders in aircraft the same as the government needed modeC transponders in aircraft for the MSSR to see them in en-route airspace back in the 90's. Enough aircraft with 1090ES will enable the changeover from enroute MSSRs and all we need is time to see the network develop.

BASI made a case for alerted see and avoid. As SDD produced in his post. Traffic Information in Class E or G Enroute MSSR isn't perfect around the J-curve at 5000ft AGL. Sooo, it's not rocket science!

T28D

27th Jul 2008, 22:39

Ozbusdriver so if the network won't be there day one what of the mystical subsidy, also not there day one !!! or maybe not at all !!!!!!

OZBUSDRIVER

28th Jul 2008, 00:59

T28D , are you refering to the entire network as envisaged by your mate, some 400plus ground receivers or the 28 UAP's or the ten regionals or something else?

Go and have a read of the AirServices info on ADS-B.
The MSSR sites are already being piggybacked with ADS-B receivers. There is already UAP and extra sites in WA going ahead. For Airservices to start off surveillance using ADS-B there has to be a "critical mass" of aircraft fitted with the transponders. For AirServices to start changing over from MSSR to ADS-B in 2012 requires transponders to be already fitted. You run a business, do you wait for the network to be commisioned before you start stocking up on mobile phones that will work on it? If you do, how much market do you lose on day one of operations?

OZBUSDRIVER

28th Jul 2008, 02:01

T28D, it is very simple. Which method do you prefer? The Carrot, or the Stick?

Scurvy.D.Dog

28th Jul 2008, 14:06

.. a mystical sticky carrot ... apparently :rolleyes:

OZBUSDRIVER

29th Jul 2008, 01:28

SDD:}:}:}:} :ok:

T28D

29th Jul 2008, 01:45

Actually, the mystical sometime flexible, undefined subsidy.

Bob Murphie

29th Jul 2008, 03:43

And..... the mystical and flexible cost benefit analysis...... the safety case..... plus the undiscovered, enhanced TCASA..... traffic collision avoidance system Australia,.... (that's got a nice regulatory ring to it),.... and the slippery spindoctoring that turns the carrot into GA A010 air nav charges by stealth.

It's just a sticky brown thing with a nebulous bribe.

OZBUSDRIVER

29th Jul 2008, 05:14

ABIT12 IPO11
JCP Stakeholder Positions

AIRLINE VIEWS
Stakeholder viewpoints expressed in this section were made by the following organisations:
regional, domestic and international airlines; local and international airline representative
bodies; and professional pilots’ associations.

Without exception, these respondents supported the proposal, including the proposed
timing and cross-industry funding, as well as acknowledging the safety and operational
benefits that will be provided by satellite-based navigation and surveillance.

Additional input included:
• Airservices must guarantee that charges will not be increased to cover the proposed
funding.
• A number of airlines questioned the retention of radars to support Defence operations,
unless Defence pays to keep those radars operational.
• These same airlines requested the development of a Concept of Operations to ensure
that maximum benefit can be obtained from ADS-B and GNSS implementation without
requirements for additional air traffic controllers.
• Regional operators stated that ADS-B should be required at all CTAFs and below
5,000 ft for ALL powered aircraft – “anything less is inadequate”. Other groups
requested protection for all RPT operations with more than 30 seats.
• One respondent in this group stated that any further delay in implementation is
unacceptable.

All parties expressed support for the consultation carried out to date. Note that some other
respondents that had been afforded the same consultation expressed dissatisfaction.

So, I guess we can take that as firm approval from the Q/Jstar Virgin, REX et al! After all these companies are the ones that will have to "pay for the subsidy" Funny way of putting it. They are forgoing any discounts in charges until after full implimentation of ADS-B.

One respondent expressed concern about reliance on the US GPS.
wonder who that was?:ugh:

From the PVT community there was mixed response. There are people out there who do not want this in their aeroplanes. If the subsidy is there, then on what grounds do they oppose it?

2012 Transponder equipped aircraft.
2014 VHF equipped aircraft.

ABIT12-IP008
Significance of SA Aware GPS for ADS-B

Recognising the wide scale civilian application of GPS, the US President issued a directive
in the year 2000 turning SA off, thus making higher accuracy GPS available to the world. SA has
been turned off now for many years and the USA have committed to it remaining off to the extent that
new generation GPS satellites do not have this feature.
my bolds

the importance of SA Aware is to enable the increased integrity of the ES signal to be 100% available.

These results show clearly that SA aware GPS receiver avionics are desirable because they provide
better availability and provide protection against “bad” constellation geometry periods such as that
experienced in September 2007.

the date mentioned had satellites that were NANUd as unavailable during that time.

FB. Unless you can show proof of your asertions on the fragility of the GNSS, your argument will continue to be ignored. NOTE FB, It is important to understand that for integrity of ADS-B signals for Aircraft Traffic Management to the desired 5nm separation only requires a signal integrity of 1300m (GPS is way inside this) for position. 1300m+1300m+1500m<5nm for ATC en-route separation(hope I got that right) Effectively double your position error add the VFR separation parameters and that gives a buffer if either aircraft changes course or slows down. Enough time for ATC to enact procedures to maintain separation.

WRT life without ADS-B?

ABIT12-IP010
File: GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 1 of 5
The Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group
ADS-B Implementation Team
(ABIT)
19 June, 2008
The next 15 years without ATLAS
Prepared and Presented by Greg Dunstone & Ed Williams, Airservices Australia
1 Introduction
1.1 In June 2006, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local
Government announced that air passenger numbers are expected to double to 228 million
within two decades. The Minister was releasing the report Air passenger movements
through capital city airports to 2025-26 at the Committee for Economic Development of
Australia's (CEDA) 2008 State of the Nation Conference.
1.2 The Minster said “The report's long term predictions pose a fundamental question for both
government and the aviation industry: will Australia be able to cope with the growing
number of people wanting to fly.”
1.3 Predicted traffic growth will continue to place strain on Australia’s Air Traffic Management
system. It should not be assumed that future traffic will be safely and efficiently managed
with existing infrastructure, current airspace classifications and today’s procedures. The
industry needs to be aware that changes will be made, whether or not ATLAS is
implemented.
1.4 If new radars and navaids are commissioned by end 2014 with a 15 year life, then an
opportunity for another subsidy for ADS-B will not occur until about 2029.
1.5 This paper briefly examines a number of issues that will arise during the lifetime of new
enroute radars and new navaids, in the event that ATLAS does not proceed.
SUMMARY
This paper attempts to set out possible implications for Air Traffic Management in
Australia, if ATLAS is not implemented from mid-2012 as proposed in the 2007
Joint Consultation Paper. The paper is based on known current and near term
constraints and requirements.

ABIT12-IP010
GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 2 of 5
2 Navigation
2.1 Airservices operates a network of ground navigation aids (NDB, VOR and DME – Nav Aids)
which provide guidance along fixed routes, support terminal area arrival procedures, nonprecision
approach procedures and guidance to intercept the ILS. The network is old, well
past its design life; reliability and maintainability are problematic; the Nav Aids are in need
of immediate replacement. The replacement value of the network is approximately $200M.
This cost is born by industry through air navigation charges.
2.2 Australia has accrued more than a decade of successful GPS experience. GPS was approved
for Oceanic and En-Route primary means navigation in 1995; Terminal and NPA
supplementary means in 1998 and Terminal and NPA Primary means in March 2006. There
are some 550 GPS Non Precision Approach Procedures published.
2.3 Jet and larger regional aircraft use a navigation suite comprising Flight Management
System (FMS) supported by GPS and/or Inertial to provide Area Navigation capability; not
just route navigation. Modern jet aircraft conduct all oceanic, en route, terminal and NPA
operations using guidance from the navigation suite. Nav Aids are used to cross check the
navigation.
2.4 Smaller regional, charter and GA aircraft use a mixture of GPS (primary means oceanic and
en route; supplementary means terminal and NPA) and Nav Aid navigation.
2.5 Without the ATLAS Proposal, there is no driver to cause these smaller aircraft to rapidly
transition to GPS as the primary means of navigation.
2.6 While there are significant numbers of aircraft NOT suitably equipped for primary means
GPS navigation, there will be a requirement to keep existing Nav Aid service available for
these aircraft. The costs of replacing and subsequently maintaining the Nav Aids is
recovered from industry through navigation charges.
2.7 ICAO has set direction for the rapid implementation of Area Navigation using the
Performance Based Navigation (PBN) concept and Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV).
PBN. The large geographic area and small aviation population makes GPS the only cost
viable technology to support PBN implementation in Australia.
2.8 Jet and larger Regional aircraft will continue their transition to PBN using GPS as the
primary means of navigation. They will require only a small set of Nav Aids as a
contingency backup. This will accelerate as increasing fuel price makes new fuel efficient
aircraft attractive compared to older fuel inefficient aircraft.
2.9 Legacy aircraft, smaller regional, charter and GA will slowly migrate to primary means GPS
as aircraft are renewed and as individual organisations recognise the benefits. This will be a
protracted transition during which both the old and new systems will operate in parallel
with the attendant dual costs.
2.10 There will be increasing pressure from operators who do not use Nav Aids to have the
costs associated with the non backup Nav Aids to be removed from navigation charges
levied from them. Without ATLAS, the small aircraft can expect to shoulder an increasing
proportion of the cost of the non backup Nav Aids. Thus the bulk of the cost of the Nav Aid
service will be recovered from the legacy and smaller aircraft.
2.11 Without ATLAS, fitment of avionics to comply with requirements of PBN will be borne by
the aircraft owner.
ABIT12-IP010
GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 3 of 5
2.12 Accommodating mixed navigation capability (GPS and Nav Aids) will preclude full utilisation
of the capabilities of modern aircraft. The greater the disparity between the most and least
capable aircraft, the greater the greater the limitations. This will have adverse effect on the
safety, environmental and economic performance of operations. It can be expected that
owners of the more capable aircraft will not accept this limitation and will press for priority
over less capable aircraft; alternatively, there may be pressure for the exclusion of less
capable aircraft.
3 Radars
3.1 To ensure service continuity, in the very near future, Airservices will need to place orders
for 11 replacement enroute radars. It must be remembered that the planning for the
number and location of the existing enroute radars was done almost 20 years ago, and was
based on traffic predictions made in the late 1980s. Since the existing enroute radars were
commissioned, Australia we have seen some dramatic increases in traffic density and
complexity in areas without radar surveillance. These areas also tend to be served largely
by older, smaller aircraft (that are not ADS-B equipped).
3.2 Therefore, it is almost certain that Airservices will need to commission surveillance systems
to maintain safety and efficiency in these areas.
3.3 Additionally, in 2005 the then Minister for Transport & Regional Services directed
Airservices to provide radar approach services at ten additional locations – none of which
support the increased traffic volume & complexity in Western Australia and Queensland.
This will bring Australia’s enroute radar count to well over 20.
3.4 As traffic density increases, the performance of the radar based surveillance system will be
stretched when dealing with Mode A/C transponders. In some airspace it may become
necessary for Mode S transponders1 to be required to operate with Airservices Mode S
radars with the objective of eliminating performance limitations imposed by Mode A/C
legacy technology2.
3.5 Similarly, in regions where it is simply uneconomical to introduce radar surveillance, the
regulator may need to change airspace classification or introduce other measures to
protect the safety of larger aircraft.
4 GA Fleet transponders
4.1 The GA fleet aircraft fleet includes a large number of aged ATC transponders approaching
end of life. If ATLAS does not proceed, it is likely that these transponders will need to be
replaced at the owners expense. Increased transponder performance monitoring is
expected to be deployed as traffic increases.
4.2 As traffic increases CASA may need to review our implementation of the international ICAO
Annex 6 recommendations that essentially requires all aircraft sharing airspace with TCAS
equipped aircraft to have ATC transponders, and these will need to be fitted at owners
expense (see Appendix A for ICAO 6 extract)
5 ASMGCS operations
1 All TCAS II capable aircraft have Mode S transponders
2 ADS-B can overcome these performance limitations
ABIT12-IP010
GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 4 of 5
5.1 As explained in ABIT11 WP3, modern ASMGCS systems work much more efficiently when
all aircraft operate with Mode S transponders.
5.2 As demonstrated in the UK, as traffic movements increase in some areas it may become
necessary to ensure that all aircraft operate with Mode S transponders and that mode A/C
transponders are phased out.
6 ADS-B
6.1 Increasing traffic will require efficiency improvements – or access restrictions – to maintain
safety. When fully commissioned, Airservices’ Upper Airspace Program (UAP) will go a long
way to improving safety for equipped aircraft, particularly those traversing the country at
higher levels, through enhanced surveillance and access to surveillance safety nets.
6.2 To further improve safety and to maximise efficiency benefits available through reduced
separation, ADS-B equipment may be required before an aircraft will be cleared to operate
in certain areas (for example, upper airspace across the continent).
6.3 If any future ADS-B requirements are introduced after Airservices has committed to radar
and navaid replacement, there will be no savings available to support aircraft affected by
these requirements, as proposed by ATLAS. It is most likely that more traditional
management of mandates would apply, namely funding by aircraft owners.
7 Environmental pressures
7.1 Compounding pressures on the Australian ATM system over the coming 20 years will be
increasing concerns about aviation’s impact on the environment and new emissions levies
burdening an airline industry already struggling with soaring fuel prices.
7.2 Unequipped aircraft will impose efficiency costs on equipped aircraft since reduced
separation standards will not be applicable to aircraft pairs when one aircraft is not
equipped. Non optimal flight levels and routes will result despite operational priority being
provided to equipped aircraft.
7.3 Many of the key applications that are being developed to address these concerns are
centred on ADS-B. ADS-B based Airborne Separation Assistance Systems (ASAS) are an
early step in enabling aircraft to fly closer to their most efficient trajectory. Unequipped
aircraft will reduce the effectiveness of ASAS, thereby putting added pressure on regulators
to increase airspace that can only be accessed by ADS-B equipped aircraft.
8 Recommendation
8.1 It is recommended that members of ABIT:
a) Note the contents of this paper, and
b) Consider some of the possible changes that may required to the ATM system.
==== END ====

ABIT12-IP010
GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 5 of 5
Appendix A
Extract from ICAO Annex 6
6.13 Aeroplanes required to be equipped with a
pressure-altitude reporting transponder
6.13.1 From 1 January 2003, unless exempted by the
appropriate authorities, all aeroplanes shall be equipped with a
pressure-altitude reporting transponder which operates in
accordance with the relevant provisions of Annex 10,
Volume IV.
6.13.2 Recommendation.— All aeroplanes should be
equipped with a pressure-altitude reporting transponder which
operates in accordance with the relevant provisions of
Annex 10, Volume IV.
Note.— The provisions in 6.13.1 and 6.13.2 are intended to
support the effectiveness of ACAS as well as to improve
effectiveness of air traffic services. Effective dates for carriage
requirements of ACAS are contained in Annex 6, Part I, 6.18.1
and 6.18.2. The intent is also for aircraft not equipped with
pressure-altitude reporting transponders to be operated so as
not to share airspace used by aircraft equipped with airborne
collision avoidance systems. To this end, exemptions from the
carriage requirement for pressure-altitude reporting transponders
could be given by designating airspace where such
carriage is not required.
Sorry about the long cut and paste.(This stuff isn't as yet available on the net) Not only NAVAIDS but extra SSR and still the requirment to conform with ICAO at user expense. note the bit about smaller aircraft users being burdened with the cost of maintaining the NAVAID network as the larger users transition to satellite based nav and demand cost benefits.

I hope there are some people in CB that are reading this. I say to them, for Gawd sake do not listen to Smith, keep him away from the Minister. He really doesn't know everything about this system. If you listen to him you will relegate Australia to 2027 before another opportunity arises to enable the changeover to ADS-B. Even though the UAP will allow Airline compatability with the ICAO requirments for 2015. Legacy will require the purchase of replacement SSR numbering in their twenties at an individual cost of some $120,000,000.00 and replacement of all ground based navaids at a cost on in excess of $200,000,000.00.

If Smith has his way there will be added expense of maintaining the current equipment whilst still requiring to upgrade to ADS-B. If the oportunity is not grasped now it will cost many millions of dollars of REAL money. Not accrued savings of accounts derived expenses carried forward from the previous financial year multiplied twentry times to come up with an imaginery saving.

It is going to cost the government in excess of $24,000,000,000.00 if you listen to Smith! Who is going to pay for that!