Dick Smith to ASA: "See you in Court!"

[Air Ace]

It seems Dick intends to commence legal action against ASA tomorrow if the aviation industry is not granted exemption to the mandatory requirement to install ADS-B by 12 December.

It is not the money: Apparently the aircraft manufacturers of 38 pressurised business and commercial aircraft in Australia do not yet have ADS-B available as an option on existing air frames.

Dick Smith lets fly at new air traffic regulation

STEVE CREEDY THE AUSTRALIAN NOVEMBER 26, 2013 12:00AM

AVIATOR and entrepreneur Dick Smith is threatening legal action against Airservices Australia over a new satellite navigation requirement he believes discriminates against business aircraft.

In a potential test case on behalf of business plane operators, lawyers for the former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman have written to Airservices asking for air traffic clearances for a proposed trip from
Sydney to Longreach next month.

The demand challenges new rules due to come into effect on December 12 that mean air traffic controllers will not clear planes to fly above 29,000ft unless they are fitted with satellite-based Automatic Dependent
Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) equipment.

Mr Smith's lawyers told Airservices that unless he received clearance for his trip by 5pm tomorrow they would seek a Federal Court injunction.

ADS-B is replacing radar as a more accurate surveillance method for controlling aircraft and promises a more flexible and efficient use of airspace.
While there are dispensations along the east coast "J curve" covered by radar and over some Oceanic airspace, the 29,000ft rule applies to many of the outback and regional areas popular with business jet users.

A problem for Mr Smith and operators of planes similar to his Cessna Citation jet is that ADS-B equipment will not be available from some aircraft manufacturers until the first or second quarter of next year

Mr Smith says this will seriously disadvantage operators, worrying it will drive some broke, while favouring big airlines.


Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/dick-smith-lets-fly-at-new-air-traffic-regulation/story-e6frg95x-1226768198275#)

[randa]

So ADSB is to allow airlines to "do direct tracking and it's not a safety problem".

Muppet!

[Kooka]

Once again Dick Smith stands up to an unthinking and uncaring bureaucracy. I wish we had a 100 of him.

[CaptainMidnight]

How many years ago was notification first given this was coming in?

5 years ago?

And this 2 years ago, note section 2:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a11-h09.pdf

My reading is that this is a CASA mandate, not Airservices, and exemptions must be granted by CASA -

[le Pingouin]

Given that CASA is the responsible body, not ASA, the hearing will be rather short.

[VH-XXX]

How many years ago was notification first given this was coming in?

Blame Cessna, not Dick. At least he's sticking up for the other operators and not being selfish.

I really so wonder if the industry will keep up with all new aircraft requiring ADSB kit of some form and it seems RAAUS aircraft are included under the new aircraft part. Perhaps we might be lucky and it is delayed like part 61.

[bankrunner]

Either CASA or AirServices can approve the flight.

Here's the relevant section from CAO 20.18 below, bolding is mine:


9B.8 On and after 12 December 2013, any aircraft that is operated at or above FL 290 must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.

[...]

9B.12 Paragraphs 9B.8 to 9B.11 do not apply to an aircraft if:
(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting equipment; or
(b) the equipment is unserviceable for a flight, and each of the following applies:
(i) the flight takes place within 3 days of the discovery of the unserviceability;
(ii) at least 1 of the following applies for the flight:
(A) flight with unserviceable equipment has been approved by CASA, in writing, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies;
(B) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 have been complied with;
(iii) ATC clears the flight before it commences despite the unserviceability.



EDIT: Actually, disregard. This is a CASA problem. Undecipherable regs... :E

[le Pingouin]

CASA only as the other bits involves an unserviceability not a total lack of equipment. The only part that applies is:

"(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting equipment"

Ah, I see you realised the error of your ways :ok:

[Hempy]

join the RAAF!!

[dubbleyew eight]

the real joke here is that after all these years there is still not an adsb transponder available that can be installed in light aircraft.

the trig transponder seems the closest but it requires a garmin glass cockpit for gps position and altitude information to give it full adsb capability.

answer the question CASA.
what unit would you like us to install in a Corby Starlet?????

[Cactusjack]

You gotta hand it to Dick, whether you like him or hate him he is pretty content to 'take it to the big boys'. Good work :ok:

[sunnySA]

(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting equipment; or

Based on a safety case, well Dick, what could you possibly include in a safety case?

To quote from the article Mr Smith says this will seriously disadvantage operators, worrying it will drive some broke, while favouring big airlines. "Seriously disadvantage" sounds like a financial rather than a safety based argument.

[Check_Thrust]

Unless Dick Smith intends to fly solely within the Australian FIR he may have to take his challenge to the authorities in Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia as well given that they are also implementing ADSB requirements (whether it be on some specific routes or the entire airspace varies for each) on the same date.

ADS-B Coming Soon To Asian Airspace | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2013-10-03/ads-b-coming-soon-asian-airspace)

I can believe that some manufacturers probably have been dragging their feet in regards to designing or implementing equipment for their aircraft given that for some reason the US are not mandating ADSB until 2020 (probably because they have good radar coverage across the entire country) so this has led them (the manufacturers) to be complacent on this issue. But this means the issue is with them, not ASA, CASA or any other aviation authority that is implementing ADSB requirements. If this affects you, in my opinion you should have been making as much noise as possible to the manufacture leading up to this event (I acknowledge Dick Smith and others may have been doing this) not crying foul at an administration that has given all plenty of notice.

IFR aircraft (not VFR to my knowledge) operating below FL290 are not required to have ADSB fitted until Jan 2017 so plenty of notice there to research, source and fit appropriate equipment to those aircraft. I have flown King Airs (not Pro-Line equipped) and Caravans that have ADSB fitted and the equipment used to do this in my opinion is not outside the realms of any light IFR aircraft (Garmin GNS430W and Garmin GTX 330 with ES).

[LeadSled]

Folks,

For you who are ever ready to criticise Dick, he did present a safety case to CASA, who agreed and approved.

It is Airservices that is being bloody minded.

In most modern aircraft with an integrated glass cockpit, adding ADS-B Out is a major re-certification exercise, with software as well as hardware involved. A number of operators, at very considerable expense, have what Airservices euphemistically call "third party solutions" --- third party STCs, but this is not applicable for all aircraft.

As Dick has pointed out, Airservices has the capability to provide alternative separation standards, (such as when your ADS-B goes on the fritz in flight) but chooses not to do so.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

I don't know that you won't get flight above F290 without ADSB, have ASA said that? Will it be like when RVSM came in, you get flight in that band but not priority? If RVSM aircraft want the level you're at, too bad, you move.

[Dick Smith]

That's the whole point. I was informed that concessions would be allowed in a similar way to the RVSM concessions.

That is what the CASA Director wanted but it appears that AsA have refused to " allow" such a concession. I am told they have no legislative basis for such a refusal..

Most importantly the military have refused to comply due to cost reasons and the airlines will be allowed to fly non ADSB for up to three days while the equipment is repaired.

So it is clear that the airspace can be safely operated with non ADSB equipped aircraft in a similar way to the RVSM concessions .

I am happy to take any delays from being provided with the full procedural separation that happens at the present time. No one has said the present system does not give adequate safety levels.

It is basically shear bastardry from a monopoly profit making business that wants to please the Airlines that provide 95% of its profits and to hell with the small charter operators that have to install temporary band aid expensive solutions

[sunnySA]

he did present a safety case to CASA, who agreed and approved.
OK, then publish the safety case presented to CASA and the approval. It will make interesting reading

[Dick Smith]

No way! It's top secret like the AsA tender for the new combined AsA/military radar system.

Safety will actually be reduced with the mandate as non ADSB aircraft will be forced to operate in the bad WX below 290

Experienced controllers will be presented in court and clearly
show that non ADSB aircraft can operate safely using the existing procedural standards

[601]

That is what the CASA Director wanted but it appears that AsA have refused to " allow" such a concession. I am told they have no legislative basis for such a refusal..

That would not surprise me. It is most likely a "policy" dreamed up by AsA. Over the last 50 years or so, I have found that no matter what the Regs say, "policy" dictates what actually happens.

[bankrunner]

So will military aircraft be issued clearances by AsA in civil airspace at >FL290 despite many platforms having no Mode 5/S IFF until 2018 at the earliest? (based on the IOC dates for JP90 and AIR5432 on DMO's website.)

Or is it safe for the ADF to operate without ADS-B, but somehow not safe for civil operators?

[le Pingouin]

CAO 20.18

Paragraphs 9B.8 to 9B.11 do not apply to an aircraft if:
(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based
on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting
equipment; or

Seems quite clear cut that CASA authorisation is all that's required.

[Flying Binghi]

mandatory requirement to install ADS-B

Interesting legal consideration. How is it that ASA/CASA can be mandating a device that needs a GPS system to work, when the GPS system itself is neither owned or operated by CASA/ASA and they have no written guarantee that the GPS will continue to be available for their 'use'..:hmm:

Where is the ASA/CASA written authority to use GPS from the US government ?
Where is the US governments written confirmation that they will compensate GPS users when the GPS signal is 'lost'...













.

[sunnySA]

No way! It's top secret like the AsA tender for the new combined AsA/military radar system.

C'mon Dick, stick to the topic, you seek transparency but when challenged do reveal the safety case you want to hold you cards close to your chest. Affordable safety, bah humbug.

[bankrunner]

Where is the ASA/CASA written authority to use GPS from the US government ?
Where is the US governments written confirmation that they will compensate GPS users when the GPS signal is 'lost'...

The regs all speak of GNSS (which is a generic term for satellite navigation systems), rather than specifying GPS. GPS is a GNSS system, as are BeiDou, Galileo and GLONASS.

In practice though, most if not all the TSO'd GNSS receivers on the market are GPS receivers, so the fact other systems exist doesn't really matter much!

Interestingly, while AsA and CASA are so confident that GPS will be around for ever that they're happy to put all their eggs into the ADS-B basket, they're not confident enough to get rid of all the ground based navaids. They're going to keep a "Backup Navigation Aid Network" around after most VORs and NDBs are decommissioned, specifically in case of a large scale GPS outage.

[Dick Smith]

It’s interesting to see how the military people in Airservices look after their own. Yes, you’ve got it – they are allowing all military aircraft to operate in all the airspace without ADS-B – no requirement at all. It appears the military pointed out that it would be quite expensive to fit their aircraft so, “no problems! You’ll be able to fly without ADS-B – you’re our mates!”.

Also interesting to note that airlines will be allowed to operate for up to three days with the ADS-B equipment not operating. That means Airservices is happy to procedurally separate their aircraft for up to three days but not procedurally separate a business aviation aircraft for ten minutes. The hypocrisy of these people in Airservices is amazing, isn’t it!

[Howard Hughes]

We had the same arguments about 406 ELT's a couple of years back, now it's just common place and ADSB will be too. Gotta say I love ADSB, departing from the back O'Bourke, no waiting for a clearance, makes life easy! :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

We had the same arguments about 406 ELT's a couple of years back...

"the same arguments"..:confused:












.

[Howard Hughes]

"the same arguments"..
"Where will we get all the units?"
"Who's gonna pay?"
"CASA don't care about the little guy, they only look after the airlines"

OK, so not exactly the same arguments, but similar and with the same general 'sky is falling' mentality...

[Dick Smith]

I hope we have the same success in getting commonsense to prevail.

With the elt issue CASA mandated all the new units must be hard installed in he aircraft. Cost would be about 5k an aircraft

Boyd Munro took them to task attempting to get portable units approved at about $500 a throw.

CASA would not budge so Munro went to the opposition and got them to disallow the requirement. He succeeded and our industry has saved tens of millions since then!

[Cactusjack]

Aagh yes, Boyd Munro, back in a time when AOPA had testicles :ok:

Dicks argument is spot on. ASA are hypocrites and always bow to the whims of government or the big end of town. They are a cash cow for government, and are run as such. ASA's tender processes have often been described as unclear, far from transparent and 'interesting'. You only have to look at Russell's tenure to see that :=
As for Dick being questioned over his 'safety case' submission to Fort Fumble I have no reason to doubt his integrity. I wouldn't publish it either, some dodgy character may try to cut and paste it for their own purposes!

Let's hope some sensibility will prevail now Hoody is onboard. This could be a test case for him, to see if his logic, common sense and his sensible ideas will be listened to by ASA's top tier.

[4Greens]

It is quite correct for ASA to keep some ground aids. A possible issue is a stand off over Formosa between the US and China. Civil use GPS may well be downgraded in accuracy if not switched off altogether.

[Kieran17]

If I can I'd like to present an alternate view to the mandate of ADS-B.
I am an air traffic controller. My airspace in part, is a large section of Western Australia, and excluding a small (comparatively) area around Paraburdoo my airspace is procedural. My traffic is largely comprised of FIFO traffic servicing the multitude of mine sites around WA but also all the traffic from the Mid-East and some from South East Asia.
I procedurally control traffic every day, but traffic levels are growing, and quickly at that. Airspace utilisation is high.
Now, some separation standards: within surveillance coverage, I only need 5nm laterally/longitudinally. 4.9nm is a breakdown of separation, 5nm is golden.
Procedurally, best case is 20nm, that's with speeds locked, distance checks every 30 minutes. If there is a faster following aircraft same level, distance checks are done every 15 minutes. The maximum closing we may have is M0.06 or 35kts. If there is more closing speed than that, the separation standard is 10 minutes.

So here's the situation: front plane is a Phenom Jet cruising along at F380 doing M0.73 nil ADS-B. Following aircraft is an A380 from the mid-east, having been flying for the last 10 hours, also at F380 but cruising at M0.80 and with a bit of a tail wind is grounding at 600kts. The only separation standard is 10 minutes longitudinally. With the A380 doing 10nm/minute the breakdown of separation occurs when the A380 is 99nm behind the phenom.
Instead of being able to have 15 or so aircraft in that space we can have 2. That's it, 2.
Another one. Lets say that you're heading back into PH in the evening at F400 when you get your 15 minute delay, you want to do down to F300 to slow down, if there's a non-ADS-B jet below you at F380, you're stuck, expect holding within radar coverage.

Now I like Mr Smith, I like his house in Gunderoo with the mini train, I think he does a lot of good for Australian aviation, I buy his food, I shop at his stores from time to time and I was disappointed when his electronics stores stopped selling electronic components. I do however think that perhaps he ought be directing his frustration at the aircraft/avionics suppliers vs against something that has been on the notice boards for years.

Anyway, that's all just my insight/opinion.
Kieran

[Flying Binghi]

Kieran17, what happens when GPS goes off-line ?

[Up-into-the-air]

I would like to know as well Lockhart River Benalla and probably other's.

Thoughts??

[Awol57]

If the GPS goes down, then it goes back to a procedural standard. Is it better to stick with a procedural standard just in case or use what's available now and have contingency plans. If it's the former we should probably get rid of that pesky radar thing in case it fails as well. Then we can rely on pilot reports. Oh wait, as a procedural tower controller, I often see how far out a departure time is (even after a time check is given on taxi) or a pilot tell me they are established on a radial when I can very clearly see they aren't anywhere near it :=

From a controller perspective I think we should make the most of it. Definitely makes our sequences into Karratha a lot easier (even though we in the tower don't have a feed).

However, in my opinion, there should be some scope for non ADSB aircraft to still use the airspace, workload permitting. However I am a long way down the food chain :ok:

[gerry111]

Kieran 17, I don't think that Dick Smith has had any financial interest in the electronic stores bearing his name, for many years. But as Dick is active on this particular thread, I'll request that he clarify that.

[Jack Ranga]

Kieran, mate, your logic is wasted here. They will never understand the difference between procedural & surveillance. All they're worried about is the 20 minutes at the runway threshold

[dubbleyew eight]

jack ranga use of the great "They" is spurious.

the real problem that people like me (yes I'm a people) have with ADSB is the lack of suitable units.

when I fly into kalgoorlie or newman or port hedland, as I have done, I occupy 3 dimensional space with my metal bits so you cant just fly a Boeing 717 through me and pretend there wont be a problem.

to say that adsb units arent mandated for the light aircraft misses the point.

we have essentially the same problem as Dick.
what adsb unit can be used????? why isnt there a standalone unit that can be fitted simply into an avionics rack???
fer fckus sake all aircraft need an adsb unit for the system to work properly in terminal areas.

if the system (casa, air services etc ) can beat on our heads for fitment why can't they persuade the makers to put out units that can be used?

[Kieran17]

If the GPS signal goes down, then I use procedural standards and work a hell of a lot harder, a lot less aircraft get their request levels and a lot of people around the world have a very bad day. Just like the fact that your car may break down so you may as well walk, there's a risk, and you accept that.
Now, a lateral scenario, surveillance, 5nm. Easy. A box of 25 square miles around the aircraft.
Procedural, basic standard is 1nm between the possible positions of aircraft. The best case is GPSRNAV which has a CEP of 7nm. Therefore the best we can have is 15nm laterally between the nominal track of aircraft (7nm for aircraft 1 plus 7nm for aircraft 2 plus 1nm between).
We're coming into wet season out west and while so far there has only been a few WX days, it's coming... Our mate in his nil-ADSB Phenom (or insert any aircraft here) is cruising along at 7nm/minute and trying to get around a line of thunderstorms. The best we can have is 10 minutes ahead and 10 minutes behind longitudinally but I wouldn't run a bare standard then let the lead aircraft go wandering off, no standard anymore if I do that. So it'll be 15 minutes behind and 10 ahead.
To get around storms our mate is up to 100nm off track (if you think that's excessive, go fly out west). That means the lateral tolerance is 107nm (100 on one side plus 7 on the other side).
That box of airspace, 175nm by 107nm 1000ft deep belongs to our mate phenom, no one else goes in there, that's his airspace and his alone. That's 18725 square miles of space that one aircraft is occupying. That's 749 times more airspace than an identified aircraft is occupying.

For a non-ADSB aircraft on track, as mentioned earlier, best case is 20nm ahead, 20nm behind plus 7 either side of track. That's 560 square miles of airspace vs 25 miles if identified. W8, you're right, you do occupy an airspace, and no one else is allowed in that space that you occupy. If you don't have ADSB then best case is you're occupying 22 time more airspace than the next plane with ADSB.

There is still plenty of scope for non-ADSB aircraft to fly around, it's 28000ft deep. If you want to fly higher outside of the J-Curve go to CASA and present you're safety case as to why you should be there.

Gerry111, I am aware that Mr Smith sold his named stores to Woolworths long ago, in the early 80s I think, who have since sold again to some private equity mob. However, it was much easier to fix a power supply or TV in a pinch when bits were available just down the road...

Anyway, again just my insight. Take the fight to the avionics mobs that have dragged their feet for so many years, they're the ones who are unable to supply the required goods.

[Plazbot]

Forget all this technical talk. Dick is a very smart man. He knows full well who writes regs and grant exceptions. Any coincidence that internal issues at Airservices hit the papers the same time as this?

Everyone remembers NAS 2 right? I have moved ANSPs over the years and where my headset plugs in these says sees us playing C and A airspace with RNAV 5 minimum. Anyone with enough coin to buy a plane should just stfu and jump a business class flight to wherever they want to go and let the adults get on with the industry.

[alphacentauri]

Gents, another point of view.

Contrary to popular belief, ASA is not the custodian of airspace in Australia. It’s the CASA OAR that has custodianship of the airspace. So, whilst I think it is great that Dick has gone and got himself an exemption, the exemption has been granted to the wrong person.

Consider that CASA have declared airspace above FL290 to be ADS-B mandatory. That is now an airspace rule...just like "though shall not fly through a prohibited area...ever". What that means from AsA side of things is that if you are not equipped they cannot let you in....end of story. If AsA does issue a clearance to a non-ADSB aircraft in this airspace, then they will have to answer to CASA in the form of an NCN. Make no mistake, CASA love issuing NCN's for stuff like this. Ask the TWR and operators at Jandakot about issuing a SID that requires an NDB to aircraft that do not have an ADF.

If CASA have issued Dick an exemption then good on em...but if AsA don't have one, then don't expect a clearance. Also consider that if everyone else is equipped and the controller has them all spaced at 10nm apart...then along come Dick with his steam driven transponder and requests a clearance....how do you fit a 100nm separation standard within an already established 10nm separation.

Sorry Dick, but exemption or not....if others are ADS-B equipped and already occupying the airspace I reckon the chances of a clearance are slim anyway.

Alpha

[Dick Smith]

So how do air traffic controllers handle F18s on ferry from Willy to Tindal?

Why is the reg specifically written so CASA can give an exemption ?

[Dick Smith]

Kieran17 - Thanks for your really important input.

Of course, what you don’t actually state is whether you can handle an occasional non-ADS-B aircraft. I have been told by senior controllers that, “any controller worth his salt” would be able to handle a non-ADS-B aircraft without too much delay.

By the way, you blame the avionics people who you believe may have “dragged their feet for many years”. In fact, it’s not as simple as that. The major manufacturer of aircraft in the world is, of course, the United States and they have announced they are bringing in an ADS-B mandate from 2020. Of course, the big manufacturers are all designing equipment for that date. When Australia decided to go ahead and introduce the mandate about seven years ahead, the problems started to occur. For example, following is an email that was sent to the CEO of the Australian Business Aviation Association (ABAA) in relation to how $100,000 has had to be spent and that equipment will then be pulled out of the aircraft:

Thank you for this and please pass on my thanks to Dick, it is nice to see someone with his
influence standing up for our industry which unfortunately as Dick says is scared of retribution
from the bureaucracy in Canberra.

In our case we are just about to finish the installation of an ADSB system into our
Corporate aircraft at a cost of $100000.00 dollars. This system is a temporary upgrade to meet the
requirements being forced upon us on the 12th Dec by Air Service Australia as an integrated
system is not being produced by Universal Avionics until the second or third quarter of 2014 .
We have had to go down this route to remain compliant as our aircraft is utilised for charter
and private ops which are not confined to “the J curve” & take us all over Australia and NZ.
Without it the cost of operating at 29000ft is prohibitive to our operation and seriously limits
the range of our aircraft.

Should we decide to export the aircraft back into the USA, we will have to remove this system
as it will not be compliant with the US requirements when they are introduced. The stand
alone systems that CASA and ASA have approved to rush this requirement through will not
meet the FAA standards and should we even wish to take the aircraft into US airspace with this
system we will not be allowed to as the FAA system will require an integrated system. I might
add that CASA originally rejected the stand alone installation due to the fact that the blind GPS
is in no way reflective of the GPS being used to navigate the aircraft. Therefore the possibility
exists that the blind GPS could be inaccurately reporting the position of the aircraft without
the crew knowing. An integrated system utilises the GPS signal being used to navigate the
aircraft therefore any navigation error is accurately reported by the ADSB system. CASA
conveniently changed this requirement to allow a blind GPS & stand alone installation. The
FAA are currently saying they will not allow this and is the basis that the aircraft will not be
able to fly in US airspace until an integrated system is installed.

In my case, with my Citation CJ3, I have been told I can fit some equipment for about $40,000 – which will be a ‘Band-Aid’ attachment to the bottom of the panel and then will not be accepted if I sell my aircraft back to the USA. However, in the first or second quarter of 2014 the proper service bulletin will be released by Cessna to put the correct equipment in using the Collins Pro-Line 21 format. Naturally, I would wish to wait for that.

The key question is, “is it possible for controllers to safely cope with a very small number of non-ADS-B aircraft in the airspace after 12 December 2013?” The fact is that the mandate is only above flight level 290 where there is very low risk of collision yet below flight level 290 no ADS-B mandate exists and, in fact, in most cases pilots have to self-separate as they are not provided with an air traffic control separation service at all.

I have been informed by my friends at Airservices that the main driver for this premature ADS-B introduction is the fact that the airlines will be able to do optimum tracking, depending on the winds for the day, and save considerable amounts of money. That’s good, however no-one seems to have thought of the small and barely viable business aviation community – especially the charter operators who are, I consider, “salt of the earth” people we should be encouraging, not putting out of business.

The very fact that the military are going to be allowed to fly in the airspace above 290 without ADS-B and that the airlines can operate for up to three days with a faulty unit shows that controllers must still be able to use procedural separation and provide a very safe service on the few occasions it is required.

[Plazbot]

Dick. Long range fighter transits are rarely if ever above F270 especially with a tanker. Your favourite US example shuttle F15s a similar distance 240-250 block.

[Kieran17]

Dick, thanks for the reply. at the heart of it I don't disagree with what you're saying, and indeed everything always is much more complicated than it seems at the surface.
I can and do control non ADSB aircraft every day that I work, I'm doing it today and will continue to do it tomorrow. I wasn't trying to argue against your points, I was attempting to put forward an alternate point of view in which our airspace is becoming increasingly busy and non identified aircraft use a significantly increased volume of airspace vs their identified mate.
I'm an enroute controller, and what I and my coworkers do often, I guess, seems a bit like black arts to some (as tower control is to me...), I was hoping to provide a small, non-inflammatory insight into some of the standards we have available to do our job to keep the rest of you in one piece.

Simply an alternate view to the issue...

Kieran

[Dick Smith]

Plazbot- that probably explains the 290 mandate level- it won't upset the military but to hell with the business aviation community .

Oz. Cessna told me a week ago their Service Bulletin won't be out until next year

Any info you can provide will be helpful.

However I have more interest in assisting those smaller operators that have older aircraft than assisting my own position.. I can afford the extra fuel but I am not keen on being forced down into the weather.

Our ATCs were able to handle non RVSM aircraft. I bet they can safely handle a small number of non ADSB aircraft in the same way.

[Check_Thrust]

As I had mentioned earlier, yes the avionics manufactures have been dragging their feet in relation to this issue due to the US not mandating ADSB in their airspace until 2020. But what this in turn means is that US operators that take their aircraft outside of the US are going to run into the same issues as you are and this is not limited to the operations in the Australian FIR.

The US appears to be the last first world country (could stand corrected) that is mandating the need for ADSB. A lot of people seem to be thinking Australia is going it alone on this, it is not the case. Yes, Australia is one of the first, but others are joining us on the exact same date.

With this in mind, their should of been enough global pressure (even from inside the US from international operators) on avionics manufacturers to pull their finger out and it sounds like there had been some given that a lot of equipment is being released 1H 2014, it misses the December 2013 deadline but is still 6 years earlier than the US mandate.

[Dick Smith]

Is there anyone claiming that the present system does not meet required safety levels? Of course not.

It's all about the Airlines being able to make more money and AsA being able to reduce staff so bonuses are bigger!

I understand huge new sectors will be put in place with lower staffing.

Sounds ok as long as it is fairly done.

[Check_Thrust]

It's all about the Airlines being able to make more money and AsA being able to reduce staff so bonuses are bigger!

Oh my goodness, well it must be a worldwide conspiracy then.

The current system maybe safe, but what about future proofing it? Many are willing to jump on the bandwagon to bash ASA and CASA when they do something that "should of been done years ago" (and perhaps rightly so in some instances) but when they do something that is proactive they get bashed again. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Has anyone that is so against the roll out of ADSB thought about the future safety benefits it can provide in addition to the ATC seperation standards? Accurate TCAS systems that can be fitted to light aircraft that can give you greatly improved situational awareness when approaching a busy uncontrolled aerodrome. Improved "radar" coverage across our large, sparse country so that if an aircraft was to go down rescue authorities can be given a better idea of where to look (I know ADSB will not provide 100% coverage at low level and that 406MHz beacons also help reduce the search area, but if it was to happen every bit of information helps).

Apart from reducing seperation standards between aircraft so that more aircraft can use their optimum levels, I don't really see how mandating ADSB will "make the airlines more money", unless they own avionic manufacturers.

Some people have alluded that this is being implemented so that ADSB aircraft can simply get direct-to tracking, well to these people I can tell you ADSB aircraft still fly the published preferred routes the majority of the time, and even when given track shortening it doesn't really save a great deal of fuel and time. I doubt after the December deadline comes in that this will change, but if you hear an aircraft departing Perth for Sydney get given the instruction "track direct SY" or similar feel free to let me know.

[Mail-man]

$100000 for a fitout sounds like a conservative estimate for some types that are due in 2017.....

[Howabout]

Hi Dick, You just can't seem to help yourself when it comes to putting the boot into the military:

Plazbot- that probably explains the 290 mandate level- it won't upset the military but to hell with the business aviation community.

The F290 mandate had nothing to do with the military. F290 is the level above which the majority of RPT jet traffic operates. It's also the level above which RVSM now applies. Consequently, it made sense to mandate F290 as the level in respect of ADS-B. Once again, the military had nothing to do with that decision, other than not raise objections.

The only, only exemption that the military requested was that the ADS-B mandate be deferred for military aircraft until 2018. Why? Taxpayer dollars (yours) associated with the prohibitive cost of retrofitting legacy aircraft that were due for retirement in the 2012-2018 time-frame. Other than that, and it's an economically sensible approach in respect of your tax-dollars, the military had zip to do with the decision.

Please stop putting the emotive boot in when you are not in possession of the facts. Or do you just ignore them for the sake of a good punch-line?

[Flying Binghi]

via Check_Thrust:
The current system maybe safe, but what about future proofing it?...

Hmmm... ADSB needs GPS to work. A single point of failure that our current 'system' dont have..:hmm:

Interesting that the Chinese GPS system has selective availability. What do the most astute government on the planet know that we dont ?











.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout. So the costs to the military were taken into consideration but not the costs to the business aviation community .

Doesn't sound that fair to me .

Why do the military get special consideration? I know. Because they have people in influential positions .

It's so very Australian! And so very Canberra!

Sounds as if I am totally in possession of the facts.

[Howabout]

No Dick, and you've got a tin-ear.

You'd be surprised, or maybe not, how little influence the military has unless the position is backed up with facts and is argued cogently.

The military gets 'no special consideration.' It must put its case to the regulator, just like everyone else.

Maybe the military is just better than you in crafting a legitimate argument that's free from emotion.

Dick; as a private individual, you have the luxury of having a spray that's sometimes devoid of fact and based more on emotion - that's your privilege. The military does not have recourse to 'opinion' to push any case.

Hard arguments and hard facts Dick. Sprays don't work in the big sand-pit.

[Check_Thrust]

I remembered reading previous posts from Dick about this topic quite some time ago so I thought I'd do a search just to refresh my memory on it.

Now I don't have time to go through all of them but here are some examples of what he has previously stated:
10th March 2008:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/317344-ads-b-terrorism-not-red-herring.html
Readers will no doubt remember a while ago I made statements in relation to ADS-B being used by terrorists and also others “spoofing” the system to stop it operating correctly. I made the point that these issues should be addressed before Airservices Australia goes ahead and leads the world on ADS-B.

I have recently seen the following comment on the internationally recognised aviation news resource AVweb, see the link here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/downloads/avweb1.pdf). Particularly note the comment:

Quote:
“The Department of Defence is concerned ADS-B might work a little too well. It doesn’t want to advertise all its flights and wants a way to fit in the system without letting everyone know its aircraft are there at times, which, of course is the exact opposite of the main selling point of ADS-B. DoD is also concerned that ADS-B can be hijacked by terrorists or enemies and wants to know what is going to be done to prevent “spoofing” the system.”
Isn’t it interesting how Airservices Australia seems to have gone very quiet on their ADS-B proposal? 14th May 2009:
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/373872-casa-premature-ads-b-mandate-will-result-even-more-pilots-losing-jobs.html
All corporate jet aircraft operating above FL290 in Australia will be required to have ADS-B by 2013 – seven years before the requirement is mandated in the USA. A number of industry people I have spoken to predict that up to 50% of our corporate fleet will be sold back to the USA, rather than spending the $20 million (estimated by CASA) to fit ADS-B. They state that this type of money is simply not available.

Remember, ADS-B is not required below FL290, so no improvement will be made in the so-called “necessary” problem area of the western minefields.

With up to 50% of the fleet being sold back to the USA, many professional pilots will lose their jobs. Some will say they deserve this because these pilots have done absolutely nothing in making it clear to CASA that Australia can’t possibly lead the world in expensive requirements when there is a major recession taking place.

Fortunately it won’t affect me at all. I can easily afford the ADS-B, and I presume the Packers can too.

I would love to know what genuine measurable safety issue is being addressed. I recently flew the CJ3 out to Birdsville, and above FL290 there is basically no one there. This must be so because Airservices regularly went to TIBA without any real objection from CASA. Of course Airservices have announced that they are going to replace the radars as required, so the ADS-B requirement cannot be designed to address the J-curve.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe ADS-B is fantastic. However I find it interesting that Australia is planning to lead other major aviation countries, such as the USA, with these mandatory requirements.

It can only be happening because the people at CASA making the decisions have no understanding of commercial reality at all. The cargo cult attitude that existed in the 60s is back, firm and strong.

It appears that Qantas agreed with this early mandate because they thought it would only affect the business aviation community and wouldn’t cost Qantas a cent – i.e. that they would have got rid of their 767s by then.

Now with the downturn, there is a chance that Qantas will still have the 767s and it will cost an absolute fortune to fit ADS-B – resulting in even fewer people being employed as their company profitability is affected even more. To me it seems Dick simply has a bee in his bonnet over this issue and nothing apart from a complete roll back of ADS-B will make him happy.

As for Flying Binghi, the sky has been falling over GPS in his mind for at least 5 years:
24th June 2008:
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/335894-airservices-australia-ads-b-program-another-seasprite-fiasco.html
What happens to ADS-B when the civy GPS gets turned off ?If an aggressor causes the US to turn off or damages the GPS system I think we will have other things on our mind apart from ADS-B not working.

Anyway, I am off to work in my ADS-B fitted aircraft to fly in complete surveillance coverage with procedural separation available as backup and with IRS and ground based navaids to backup my use of GNSS.

[Hempy]

The books are 'loose' when it comes to priorities on operating levels/route clearances, but my particular favourite is 'significant economic benefeit'..

p.s the argument that the military are worried about 'terrorists' seeing where they are off to seems a little silly...surely Due Regard covers tx off.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout

In post 51 you state,

The only, only exemption that the military requested was that the ADS-B mandate be deferred for military aircraft until 2018. Why? Taxpayer dollars (yours) associated with the prohibitive cost of retrofitting legacy aircraft that were due for retirement in the 2012-2018 time-frame. Other than that, and it's an economically sensible approach in respect of your tax-dollars, the military had zip to do with the decision.

So, Howabout, how come an “economically sensible approach” was not allowed for the business aviation community?

Please answer this question promptly as it’s very important.

[TBM-Legend]

The only, only exemption that the military requested was that the ADS-B mandate be deferred for military aircraft until 2018. Why? Taxpayer dollars (yours) associated with the prohibitive cost of retrofitting legacy aircraft that were due for retirement in the 2012-2018 time-frame. Other than that, and it's an economically sensible approach in respect of your tax-dollars, the military had zip to do with the decision.


Since when does the military worry about spending tax payers money [see Sea Sprite debacle, massive cost over-runs on submarines/ships etc]

The biggest aviation country in the world is the USA. Most corporate aircraft are made there and operate there. Why should CASA/ASA mandate a piece of equipment that does not fit their model? This reminds me of the CVR introduction etc where the Oz installation was different to the FAA mandate = more costs and a re-mod when the aircraft went back there. By the way, how many jets do we make in Australia these days??

Dick is right when he asserts that those making these decisions do not really understand the financial and operational realities. This helps to keep aviation from growing in my opinion..

[Sarcs]

The Abbott government's mantra is to reduce cost to business by cutting redtape. This was again reiterated in Truss's announcement of the coalition's aviation policy prior to the election and again highlighted in the Minister's announcement of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review.

Three days ago the FF Phearless Leader had this to say in support of the ASRR: Another important area to be considered by the review is the burden and costs of regulation. Mr Truss told Parliament: “The Government has a clear policy of reducing the cost of regulation to business, and this goal will be part of the review. If there are ways to improve our safety outcomes and reduce the regulatory burden and the costs imposed on industry, then we can create a win-win outcome for the Australian economy overall.” But here is the clincher :ugh:...the DAS goes on to say: CASA already takes the costs of regulation into account when developing and implementing safety standards and we welcome this aspect of the review. While achieving the best possible safety outcomes must always come first, CASA understands regulation must not be an unnecessary drag on aviation activity. So there is your answer Dick the guru of all things that fly has considered the matter, done their CBA, worked a deal with the boys'n'gals in blue and bugger the rest of you!:E

And they're really, really pleased with their achievements:
Milestone in Australian aviation in December 2013

The twelfth of December 2013 is an important date in the advancement of Australian aviation. That’s the start of the requirement for aircraft operating above flight level 290 to carry approved and serviceable automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast equipment. Aircraft without approved automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast equipment will not be cleared by air traffic control for flight at or above flight level 290, subject to a special exemption. Any aircraft not able to operate at or above flight level 290 will miss out on the benefits of operating at optimum cruising levels, such as fuel efficiencies. Aircraft without automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast will also miss out on benefits such as improved safety, air traffic control priority in some situations, continuous rather than stepped climbs and descents, greater ability to obtain requested routes or levels and the easier location of aircraft during search and rescue. CASA has provided a limited exemption to the new automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast requirements due to the operators of some business jets having difficulty obtaining and installing the equipment. A two year exemption period is available on application for airspace covered by the so called east coast radar J curve – airspace from 200 nautical miles north of Cairns to 220 nautical miles west of Adelaide – as well as some oceanic areas of Australian airspace. Operators must apply for an exemption at least 14 days before a flight takes place.
Find out more about automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast requirements (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101452).
:ugh:

[T28D]

What about VAN 5 DME Australian ADSB fits neatly into this model !!!!!

[Dick Smith]

Howabout. Any idea why a "reasonable approach" was accepted from the military however when David Bell of the Australian Business Aviation Association had meeting after meeting explaining the difficulties some business aircraft would have in complying he was treated like s--t.

His approach was calm and moderate all to no avail.

What's happening now reminds me very much of the "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" days.

Complete un- accountability by those who should know better.

[Howabout]

Hi Dick,

Sorry for the delay, but in retirement the 72lb Border Collie demands much of my time.

Your first question:

So, Howabout, how come an “economically sensible approach” was not allowed for the business aviation community?

Please answer this question promptly as it’s very important.

An eminently fair question, Dick, but one that you must answer yourself. How come Defence can put forward an argument based on fact and you can't? It's not in the purview of Defence to push your barrow. You must do that yourself.

Your second question:


Howabout. Any idea why a "reasonable approach" was accepted from the military however when David Bell of the Australian Business Aviation Association had meeting after meeting explaining the difficulties some business aircraft would have in complying he was treated like s--t.

Dick, see the answer to question number one above.

[TBM-Legend]

Dick, this "military" argument is akin to the Mil Airspace requirements in this country. A piddling few aircraft taking heaps of airspace compared to Europe/USA/Japan etc etc...

On one hand Mr Howabout says the F18's transiting don't really need >FL290 because the tankering assets don't tow them around above that while on the other hand they want an exemption based on costs! Speaking out of both sides of the mouth I'd say.

What about cost to non-airline industry? David Bell is a very measured individual indeed with much experience by the way...

[Howabout]

Hi TBM,

Read the thread carefully. The F290 issue as regards transits was addressed by Plazbot, not me.

My comment on F290 went to ADS-B, RVSM, RPT cruise-levels and the logicality of CASA and AsA designating that level as the cut-off for mandatory ADS-B carriage.

As regards 'the exemption,' would you truly approve of your tax-dollars being spent on legacy airframes to retrofit ADS-B and then be retired 2-4 years later? I can imagine the outrage at 'Defence waste.'

Airspace? It's always going to be a bone of contention, TBM, but I suggest you look at what CASA's OAR has done with respect to rationalisation in the last few years. Rationalisation, by the way, that was initiated by Defence.

On your side of the territory, TBM, you'll never be satisfied. You'll keep chanting the mantra like the nodding-dog on the parcel-shelf. It's not worth my time arguing airspace -it's been done to death.

[TBM-Legend]

Hello H., I spent my time with Ronnie. I know how it works...

[dhavillandpilot]

Can anyone confirm exactly what the requirements for fitment of an ADSB transponder is

I have recently imported an aircraft that is going on to the Aussie register it is piston pressurised limited to 25000.

My reading of the regs is for the next few years I can continue with mode C style provided I don't go above 29000.

Yet I have been told all aircraft new to the Aussie register need to have the ADSB TX fitted as part of their C of A.

[Jabawocky]

Dec 2013: All operations at and above FL290
Feb 2014: Aircraft operated under the IFR first registered in Australia after 6 Feb 2014.
Feb 2016: In large parts of Western Australia (Airspace classes A, B, C and E).
(This is co-incident with the mandatory requirement to fit GNSS to all IFR aircraft for navigation in Australian airspace.)
Feb 2017: All IFR operations at all flight levels

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/FAQ-ADS-B-Final-1-0-01NOV12_AIRSERVICES.pdf

If you need a GTX330ES let me know. I might have one for a reasonable price in the new year after a substantial upgrade.

[Mail-man]

Howabout, plenty of civvy airframes nearing the scrapyard are still required to have a pricey fitout. What makes the military so special?

[Jack Ranga]

Jabba, G3X, GTN750?? :E

[Frank Arouet]

Xin Hua reports new airspace in international waters. No mention of ADSB at all, simply a requirement to report. Are they that far behind?

[Howabout]

Mail-man,

Please do not misconstrue my comments as being unsympathetic to GA. Far from it: despite wearing the blue, I attended more RAPACs, CASA and AsA meetings than I can remember and heard loud and clear the issues of concern. Most were/are legitimate IMHO.

To get back to your question - what makes the military so special? In the context of the current argument on ADS-B, nothing other than fleet size and the fact (without belaboring the point again) that spending tax-payer dollars on the legacy fleet could not be justified in respect of the Defence budget.

This is a compartmentalised argument, Mail-man. It's probably not the best term, but my job was to do the best in the interests of my employer (the tax-payer), within my 'compartment' and help ensure that funds were not unnecessarily wasted when sensible compromise was available.

My job was not to champion GA; regardless of my sympathies. That is an altogether separate 'compartment,' and GA had to/must pursue it's case from within its own resources on its own patch.

But that's all ancient history - I'm just glad to be out of it.

[bankrunner]

Adhering to the US mandate would've been better for everyone. It would've given Defence plenty of time to upgrade their aircraft, it would have ensured that the avionics industry was ready to supply slightly less ridiculously priced equipment for the small end of the GA market (I'm not looking forward to paying $10,000 to put a 1090ES transponder and TSO'd GPS into my $30,000 day VFR C152 so I can fly it to Canberra occasionally), and would have ensured that manufacturers of airframes with very tightly integrated avionics (such as Dick's CJ3) would have had upgrades available.

Yes, Australia is one of the first, but others are joining us on the exact same date.

Australia decided to go it alone before the rest of the world for little apparent reason other than to give CASA staff something to brag about to their mates in Montreal. A small handful of relatively minor regional players, such as Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam just happened to follow.

Europe and the USA are the two largest markets for aircraft, and in particular GA aircraft. Europe's mandate is 1 August 2013 for new aircraft, and and 12 July 2017 for retrofits, and only applies to aircraft >5700kg or max cruise >250kts TAS (aircraft not meeting those criteria only need basic Mode S capability.) The USA's mandate is of course 2020.

Given that the vast majority of bizjets would be flying in either of those two jurisdictions or other jurisdictions with no ADS-B mandate at all, most of Cessna's customers would undoubtedly be happy enough with Cessna's current upgrade availability for next year.

[Check_Thrust]

(I'm not looking forward to paying $10,000 to put a 1090ES transponder and TSO'd GPS into my $30,000 day VFR C152 so I can fly it to Canberra occasionally)

If you're flying VFR you do not require ADS-B.

[Flying Binghi]

via Check_Thrust #56:
As for Flying Binghi, the sky has been falling over GPS in his mind for at least 5 years...

Yes, been a while now. Many of the threads on the issue have now disappeared from pprune (though not the internet) The main prediction scenario i offered up were terrorists using GPS guided bomb drones that we had no real defence for at this time. Bingys buzz bombs some here called them.

Seems you've missed the news Check_Thrust. The prediction has near come true. Been a couple of terrorist GPS drone test missions done recently and they nearly got the bomb drones away. Better luck next time ah suppose...

"The Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah has flown intelligence-gathering drones into Israeli territory on two separate occasions in the past year: The Israeli Air Force shot down a drone it said was operated by Hezbollah in April; and in October 2012, another Hezbollah UAV was downed over southern Israel ...
... Palestinian security forces recently uncovered a terror cell in the West Bank plotting to launch unmanned aerial vehicles laden with explosives..."

PA forces thwart Hamas attack drone plot in West Bank | The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-forces-uncover-hamas-attack-drone-plot/)



via Check_Thrust #56:
...I think we will have other things on our mind apart from ADS-B not working."

You've obviously given the matter much thought and research, please do enlighten us Check_Thrust...










.

[Old Akro]

I understand the after Desert Storm the US military started using civil GPS units, which is why the turned off the "dither". I think that GNSS is here to stay as a robust system.

Furthermore, there are now 3 GPS systems. The US GNSS, The Russian GLONAS, European Gallileo as well as Indian & Asian networks under development.

I don't think there is a lot of concern about lack of availability. However, there is a well developed ability to jam GPS signals in local areas. I think this is what you can expect in areas of conflict.

[Check_Thrust]

Seems you've missed the news Check_Thrust. The prediction has near come true.Flying Binghi,
I never said that terrorist groups can't or wouldn't use GNSS to their own means, it is quite a logical conclusion that they would try, just as groups have utilised mobile phone technology to detonate explosive devices, but are you suggesting that the world should shutdown every mobile phone network as well?

To note as well, I did not bring up the topic about 'Bingy's Buzz Bombs' nor did I criticise your previous opinions on the possibility that they may be made or used. I do not believe though that they would be used extensively enough to warrant a full scale implementation of Selective Availability or even for the system to be turned off (but who knows, I may be be proved wrong in the future as the future is a long stretch of time).

At the present point in time there are two fully functional worldwide GNSS networks, GPS (USA) and GLONASS (Russia). By 2020 it is expected that in addition to GPS and GLONASS that there will be additional two worldwide navigation systems, Compass (China) and Galileo (EU). It is expected that in the future GNSS devices will be able to utilise signals from multiple satellite networks to derive a position, not just the GPS network. It is already happening with the Garmin GLO as one example that can utilise both GPS and GLONASS to derive a position fix. (I have seen it stated that some believe that Garmin have only done this to avoid Russian tariffs that are imposed on GNSS products that do not utilise the GLONASS network, and I don't blame Russia for imposing such tariffs given the obvious cost behind setting up GLONASS, but it at the end of it all one would expect that future GNSS units will use all available networks for their own benefit and reliability).

Now, come 2020 with four fully functional GNSS networks, run by four different governments it is unlikely (note I have said unlikely, not won't) that a situation would occur that would result in any or all of the networks to be either switched off or have Selective Availability imposed. What benefit would doing either have? If any major country was to cause aggression with another, there would be no benefit in making their network unavailable to the other because the opposing side will have their own network to utilise anyway.

Quote:
via Check_Thrust #56:
...I think we will have other things on our mind apart from ADS-B not working." You've obviously given the matter much thought and research, please do enlighten us Check_Thrust...I think you already know the logic behind my comment but since you have asked I will provide it anyway.

If there is enough aggression towards a nation that controls a GNSS network that then results in that nation to either turn off their network or to impose Selective Availability do you not think that the first thing on your mind would be, "Heck, the world is in a seriously screwed situation if there is going to be a war" and "although I can't do anything to stop it, how will this affect me and my family".

Now apart from that dramatised scenario above, if GNSS was switched off, we would not be the only industry affected by it. Marine, rail (believe it or not), road transport (not talking Joe Blogs that uses his car satnav to go to the corner shop), mining and law enforcement agencies (and no doubt many other groups as well) across the globe would all be affected. Although these industries have operated in the past without GNSS and they can do so again if need be, it would obviously be a large inconvenience for it to happen and not necessarily in a governing states best interest for it to happen.

CDMA phone networks (although no longer used in Australia there are still over 50 countries including the USA that have and utilise CDMA networks) rely on the timing provided (not position fixing) by the GPS network in regards to how it encodes, sends and decodes telephone transmissions, so if GPS was turned off it would have major effects on telecommunications as well. (If you were one of the many Australians that owned a CDMA phone did you live in fear that your phone call would cut out and your phone rendered useless if the US decided to make GPS unavailable?)

In addition to all this from an aviation perspective for the USA alone there are over 3000 LPV approaches of which over 1500 serve airports without an ILS, so again, if the USA was to tinker with their GPS network it would have big effects on themselves as well.

Again, I will restate that although it is possible that each GNSS network could be tinkered with to prevent civilian use of the systems but I believe that it is extremely unlikely that it would happen given all the implications that would occur. Also given that there will be four networks available, for something to happen that would affect all four networks it would have to be a very major global event (and yes, I am aware that there have been major worldwide confrontations before), however with each major government power having their own network it wouldn't really provide a strategic advantage to make their own network unavailable (I know I am repeating this point).

So to say that Australia and other nations (including the US, although not mandatory until 2020) should not implement the use of ADS-B on the bases of "What happens to ADS-B when the civy GPS gets turned off ?" is in my opinion, silly (and you are entitled to your own opinion that conflicts with mine). If ADS-B was to fail due to the GPS network being turned off in current times, or multiple GNSS networks being turned off in future times, air traffic controllers the world over will still be able to revert to procedural based separation where there is no SSR coverage (although I am sure it would cause many headaches in areas of crowded airspace). To prevent making air transport easier and more efficient for everyone involved on the bases of what might happen due to a very remote possibility is again just silly.

[Tidbinbilla]

Back on topic thanks.

[Flying Binghi]

Hmm... were going to start a new subject thread though as this ones gone quiet may as well continue to post here...

via Check_Thrust:
...I never said that terrorist groups can't or wouldn't use GNSS to their own means, it is quite a logical conclusion that they would try, just as groups have utilised mobile phone technology to detonate explosive devices, but are you suggesting that the world should shutdown every mobile phone network as well?...


Terrorists using GPS is unfortunately logical, and already happening.

Check_Thrust, your obviously new to the discussion because the mobile phone detonator argument has been bought up in pprune before re GPS guided terror drones. The phone bomb scenarios/events are typically a bomb is placed with a mobile phone detonator and then later detonated by another phone. This requires terrorists to be in country and a lot of recognisance and logistical effort to set up. Whilst these sort of attacks happen around the world here in Oz the chances of terrorists being captured pre attack or post attack are very high so repeatability of attack likely nil. A very high cost attack with the high probability of traceback to the terror group leaders makes even the contemplation of this form of attack low. Would we shut down the mobile phone network for a possible one-off attack? doubtful.

On the other hand, GPS guided terror weapons can be launched out side of Australian territory. At most, all thats needed to be done in country is vertical and lateral destination co-ordinates for the GPS. If needed a year or two before the attack a tourist takes some pictures or somebody just drives by.
A scenario i presented some years ago...
A GPS guided terrorist drone, or drones, just wanders in over the Oz coastline and proceeds to a target. Likely unseen until the target is hit. Where did it come from and who sent it ? Whens the next one coming and from where ?

The GPS guided bomb drone doesn't need to be large, a hand grenade sized bomb payload delivered to a few square metres of airspace would be very effective from a terrorists point of view. Repeatability of attack guaranteed with public concern being very high.


Nuff fer now...













.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

What was the verdict?

[welcome_stranger]

Everyone might as well forget about the military and any discussion here to, as they, by dint of the Defence Act (whatever year), do not have to abide by any civilian rule or regulation.

For example RAAF pilots do not have to hold or comply with civilian pilot licences/rules/regulations.

RAN Captains/Navigators do not have to hold Master Mariners tickets.

Army personnel driving military vehicles are not required to hold civilian driving licences.

Nor do military personnel have to hold gun licences to carry, shoot or have weapons.

Just so long as they are undertaking their normal military occupation they are not required to hold civilian equivalancies.

The military outfit their aircraft to civilian standards but are under no obligation to do so, if they need the cubic space/weight for military purposes that equipment will be out and on the shelf so quick your head may spin.

If some jet jockey has to go from YWLM to YPDN in a F/A-18 and plans at block F300-F400/M0.97 with only a Mk1 eyeball for navigation he/she is allowed to and ASA/CASA/Mr Joe Public cannot gain say him/her, controllers have to accept it and keep other traffic out of the way. (Remember F111 planned from YAMB to YAMB via YMLT and a few points just SW of YMLT and that was all the info given)(Got some nice happy snaps though)

[Jabawocky]

(Remember F111 planned from YAMB to YAMB via YMLT and a few points just SW of YMLT and that was all the info given)(Got some nice happy snaps though)

post the pics :ok:

[welcome_stranger]

Sorry, but Biggles still holds the copywrite and won't Joe Public see the photos that his Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines fitted with Box Brownies have taken, either that or can't find them with google

:ok::ok: