ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

[Dick Smith]

It is now becoming obvious that after Australia led the United States and other leading aviation countries by six years in the ADS-B mandate that there are now business jets which are flying non-ADS-B compliant and are being forced by Airservices Australia Air Traffic Controllers to fly at flight 290 or below in the non-radar airspace. Already I have heard that one plane was forced into very bad weather.

I just wonder how long it will be before there is a serious accident causing multiple fatalities because a business jet is not able to fly above the weather but is being forced by the Air Traffic Controller to fly in the middle of the worst weather possible. Especially with summer coming on and the wet season in the Northern Territory and some pretty horrendous weather conditions around.

I am sure there are those who will say that the pilot can use the radar to weave in and out through the big CBs, however it is not always possible to avoid the maximum turbulence this way.

If you look on Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com) it’s obvious that about 98% of the time there are plenty of flight levels available in the non-radar airspace where these aircraft could operate and, once again, using Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com), it’s quite obvious that non-equipped aircraft would be able to climb and descend with procedural separation standard.

I understand it’s not the ATCs who have refused to accept these aircraft, but a small group of “concrete minded bureaucrats” within the upper echelons of Airservices and CASA.

Of course, when the inevitable accident occurs because a bizjet has had its wings pulled off, I bet it will be the ATC who will be blamed or will at least have it on his or her conscience that the aircraft could have flown above the weather and been separated in an acceptably safe way.

[Minosavy Masta]

I operated F28s in the tropics for around 10 years at the levels you are so concerned about ie. FL280/ FL290 never came close to having the wings torn off Dick. In fact after the DC3 and F27 it was sheer luxury to be at those Flight Levels, as always I suspect you have an alterior motive for raising the issue,I wonder what it is ?

[Australopithecus]

Just pay for the upgrade and abandon your infantile sense of entitlement Dick.

I am still working around compromises in the airspace made to suit your personal wants.

[Cactusjack]

It's irrelevant what Dick's agenda is, all of us have "agendas in life", anyone who says otherwise is a liar. The point of Dicks comment is there in plain English. A good post that certainly gives good food for thought.

And finally, Creamie would be most disappointed if I didn't fire a shot across CAsA's bow, so here it is - Indeed, there are concrete minded idiots at the helm of these organisations that are pulling these ridiculous strings.

[Frank Arouet]

Dick. I'll probably get the blame for this, being one of many who fought to stop the mandatory installation of ADSB for every aircraft. (like my Piper Colt). I suppose I inadvertently got a 50% win. Airservices and CASA felt duty obliged to mandate it elsewhere, (above FL290), where the poor bloody fare paying travelling public, (read voters), matter, who if asked would support it 100%. (even in the circuit at Oodnadatta). Of note however is the opposite of those who vehemently proposed its introduction everywhere got 50% of what they were looking for. As we all know compromises rarely work except to keep the peace.


I didn't intend for this to happen, but those concrete minded supporters did and still need more. Not all are Bureaucrats either.

[Capn Bloggs]

You have got to be joking...

[tempsky]

Dick, I thought you were a founder of the Australian Sceptic’s society - remember all those logical fallacies your railed against? Here's a wall chart in case you forgot: Your Logical Fallacies
(https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/FallaciesPoster24x36.pdf)
Your post ticks the strawman & appeal to emotion fallacies as you have framed it.

[Dick Smith]

I have spoken to controllers who reckon they can easily handle the small number of aircraft that havn't yet been able to get a manufactures service bulletin for the upgrade.- just as they did with non RVSM compliant aircraft.

If I was a professional controller I would not like to be told that I had to force business jets to low levels( up to $1000 per hour extra fuel cost as well as the WX worries) unless there was a good reason for it.

I would want to provide a professional service to all that were paying my salary- not force their passengers into operations with lower levels of safety.

[Dick Smith]

Australo, what compromises?

I havn't been involved for a decade so why havn't you had the problems rectified?

Or have you fabricated a story? I challenge you to give a bit more info on the changes you do not like.

[nitpicker330]

Back to your Aussiemite Richard. Stop stirring up the pot for you entertainment.

"Forced into bad weather...." Give me strength....:{

p.s. Don't tell the poor Q400 drivers in QLink about the possibility of having their wings torn off mate, they too fly in those dangerous Flight Levels because they can't get any higher!!

Drivel, utter tosh.

[Capn Bloggs]

force business jets to low levels( up to $1000 per hour extra fuel cost
You are joking. You're a numbers-man, Dick; prove your claim.

[-438]

I think what Australo is probably referring to is the CTA steps Australia wide that have been compromised for the benefit of a few GA aircraft to avoid paying airspace charges.
For every other minute of the day there is a high capacity jet flying a compromised descent profile burning excess fuel and pumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere.
The problem is getting worse as a result of newer aircraft types with lower descent (more efficient) profiles.
This problem rarely exists anywhere else in the world.

[Hempy]

If I was a professional controller I would not like to be told that I had to force business jets to low levels.....unless there was a good reason for it.


Really?? If you were a professional controller you wouldn't like to do anything that doesn't have a good reason for it explained to you? What would you do if no one could explain a 'good reason' to you, break the rules on your own authority or suck it up and do what you are told? That's how Aviation in this country works now Dick. You should know, you started it. The only difference is back then we all thought your ideas were ****, but you didn't, so we had to do what you wanted even though there was no 'good reason' for it to anyone other than you. Its still the same today...people making arbitrary decisions without consultation.

Blaming the ATC's is infantile and something I would have honestly thought was beneath your level of intelligence...ATC's are given rules to follow, if they don't follow them in todays highly regulated workplace they get stood down and potentially lose their livelihoods. If you want to bitch about the ADS mandate take it up with the rule makers not the poor bottom feeders at the console. Feeling irrelevant as you get older Dick? Reap the whirlwind..

[bankrunner]

Are these few that can't get the manufacturer service bulletin because they left their run late or because the manufacturer has been dragging their feet?

It's because those manufacturers sell the vast majority of their aircraft to customers in the USA, Europe, and other places where ADS-B mandates are either a few years away, or there is currently no mandate at all.

The only reason Australia is rolling in ADS-B before the rest of the world, and therefore before the market is ready for it is to give senior CASA staff something to brag about to their mates in Montreal.

[Capn Bloggs]

Australo, what compromises?

I havn't been involved for a decade so why havn't you had the problems rectified?

Or have you fabricated a story? I challenge you to give a bit more info on the changes you do not like.
Dick you are joking, again? CTA Steps?? Every time I hear an A330 or 777 being told "further descent in XX miles" and I think what that crew is going through getting high on profile, I think of you, Dick.

AngryRat, ask Dick what his total fuel flow is at 350 verses 290. Then see how that matches this extra $1000 per hour claim. Maybe challenge him "to give a bit more info"...

[yssy.ymel]

It is now becoming obvious that after Australia led the United States and other leading aviation countries by six years in the ADS-B mandate that there are now business jets which are flying non-ADS-B compliant and are being forced by Airservices Australia Air Traffic Controllers to fly at flight 290 or below in the non-radar airspace. Already I have heard that one plane was forced into very bad weather.

Whilst I see your point, the mandate for ADS-B has been out there for a while, and there is a process to give yourself more time to become compliant. If a pilot of a bizjet can't follow that process, that's negligence on their part. Whilst it is expensive (I think around 50K?) and it does take the plane out of service, if you can afford to own and maintain a biz jet, you can afford to upgrade to ADS-B. They aren't Commodores.

If I was a professional controller I would not like to be told that I had to force business jets to low levels( up to $1000 per hour extra fuel cost as well as the WX worries) unless there was a good reason for it.

About 400lbs/hr difference at 280 v say 410. At the current Shell price for A1, 182kg is about $350 an hour. And that's on what are probably less efficient turbines than on newer jets.

Planes fly at 280 and below all over Australia, Dick. I don't see the problem.

[tail wheel]

Without entering the debate..........

If a pilot of a bizjet can't follow that process, that's negligence on their part. Whilst it is expensive (I think around 50K?) and it does take the plane out of service, if you can afford to own and maintain a biz jet, you can afford to upgrade to ADS-B.

I don't believe it is a matter of affordability or cost, rather that Service Bulletins are not yet available to install ADSB in many pre-existing aircraft types, including certain models of the Cessna Citation series.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I just wonder how long it will be before there is a serious accident causing multiple fatalities because a business jet is not able to fly above the weather but is being forced by the Air Traffic Controller to fly in the middle of the worst weather possible. Especially with summer coming on and the wet season in the Northern Territory and some pretty horrendous weather conditions around.

As someone who spends most of the time in the mid-F300s to low-F400s, the idea that I can be safe by flying above the worst of the NT wet season weather is a complete fallacy. Even FL500 is nowhere near good enough. Unless you're in something like a U2, the only way to be safe with that stuff is to not be in the same place.

[yssy.ymel]

I don't believe it is a matter of affordability or cost, rather that Service Bulletins are not yet available to install ADSB in many pre-existing aircraft types, including certain models of the Cessna Citation series.

Thanks for that Tail Wheel. I'd not considered that. There is still the exemption process until that happens.

[Australopithecus]

I was referring to the CTA steps primarily, but also the arbitrarily high floor of controlled airspace over most of the continent. Often times dispatch at FL250 or below is required by DDG requirements. The FL240 floor leaves little scope for operation.

The BBJ would not burn an extra thousand an hour...and I have often opted for FL280 in similar types with negligible change to SFC.

I will add my voice to the many pointing out that the mid-levels were fine for the first half of aviation's short history. And still are too for huge fleets of aircraft daily.

RVSM and ADSB are modern advances. If you don't like them maybe you should trade in your A340* executive jet for something more appropriate like a Howard 500 or Beech 18

*no wait...that'd be compliant, and STILL wouldn't burn $1000hr more 6000' lower than optimum.

[Capt Claret]

An emotive lot of claptrap Dick. ATC can't force any pilot to do anything. Self serving sensationalism at its worst. What's next a gig in journalism? :ugh:

[Capt Fathom]

There is still the exemption process until that happens

You give notice of your flight a fortnight in advance... and it will be considered!

Not very helpful for any operator really, be it private, corporate or charter!

[50 50]

Well said Capt Claret. Unless ATC is going to suddenly materialise on a flight deck and wrest control of the aircraft from the pilot in command, then there is no way to force crew to enter any situation they deem unsafe. Let alone one that might "rip the wings off".

[maui]

Has anyone noticed that it is currently full moon!!

[Hempy]

Astralo, you can thank Class E Airspace and Dicks love of everything VFR for the 'base'. It wasn't about safety, it was about doing it on the cheap (for said VFR's anyway)

[tail wheel]

There is still the exemption process until that happens.

I seem to recall from an earlier thread that Dick was denied an exemption by CASA (for I think a flight to Western Queensland?) and was looking to a Court challenge.

I suspect the primary issue here is that Australia has imposed an ADSB requirement ahead of most of the rest of the world, before all manufacturers have developed compliant Service Bulletins for ADSB installations in existing aircraft? I don't think it is not a matter of cost, rather having available an approved installation method?

Exemptions are unavailable: one day a number of Australian corporate and private aircraft are safe to operate above FL290, but the next day they becomes a threat to airline safety?

Still not entering the debate. Only observations. :)

[Goat Whisperer]

When the well-laden 737-800 I fly won't burn an extra $1000 per hour of fuel if kept down at FL290 (or FL250 for that matter) i call bullsiht on your claim Dick. You're doing your argument no favours resorting to specious reasoning.

[alphacentauri]

but the next day they becomes a threat to airline safety?

I thought the point of ADS-B implementation was to increase airpace efficiency? ADS-B allows AsA to fit alot more aircraft within a volume of airspace then they had with procedural airspace.

The problem is not that it is unsafe to let Dick in, the problem is now it is impractical and less efficient to let Dick in...as an example 10min longitudinal separation is approx 50-80nm...with ads-b it is now only 5nm (corect me if I am wrong). So now ATC have to find/make a 50-80nm hole to fit him in. Who do they penalise to do this? Someone has to cop a speed/alt/tracking hit to fit him in. Would the airlines think this was fair?


Already I have heard that one plane was forced into very bad weather.


Of course you have Dick, because it fits nicely with your argument. Provide details or it didn't happen. There isn't an ATC in this country that would force an aircraft into "very bad weather".

[ozbiggles]

I've heard of people wanting to take legal action for accusations less that this...on this site too.

[Old Akro]

Dick raises legitimate issues which deserve discussion rather than attacking Dick.

It is true that we are implementing ADS-B well ahead of the US (where the equipment is designed & made). Why?

It is also true that Australian has opted for a different system than the US which exacerbates that equipment availability issue.

It is true that many aircraft (from memory Dick's Citation is one), do not currently have a technical solution to fit ADS-B. I'd suggest that those with a chip on their shoulder about Dick being able to afford to run a Citation should read some of the previous threads first. Are we really trying to implement a system that is technically not yet possible for all aircraft?

I have heard (I do not know first hand) that some of the airlines are not ADS-B equipped and are operating with exemptions. It would be interesting to explore this. If CASA are selectively granting exemptions, then we are back to CASA at its best and we owe it to ourselves to highlight this.

The issue should not be that Dick (and others) can fly below FL290 and should put up with a workaround. The question should be why we are not able to facilitate the optimal operation of these aircraft?

And for Alfacentauri, you are unquestionably correct that not ATC would force an aircraft into very bad weather, however, I have witnessed them force aircraft into non-optimal weather for the sake of operational expediency. My question would be: are we making FL 280 & FL 290 unnecessarily crowded and does this diminish the safety in those levels? Without meaning to be alarmist, there is still an active ATSB investigation about ATC "losing" an airbus near Adelaide. Isn't it safer to have as many altitudes available as possible? Investigation: AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-161.aspx).

[Duane]

Dick..
Big Country...little radar coverage. You have tried (and made an absolute dogs breakfast) to get US type of airspace implemented in Australia, the critical shortfall in your plan was that we dont have a fraction of the radar coverage in Oz as the US have over the pond.

Simple solution: ADS-B installed in aircraft to make up the shortfall in ATC surveillance.

If you want to be separated from other aircraft efficiently, get this piece of equipment installed, from the costs you are talking about it will only take a few trips at correct flight levels to recover the costs.

As an ATC, I will tell you right now, I dont give a flying rats ass if aircraft are flying at their non planned levels if it is a requirement for me to have the aircraft separated, ADS-B equipped or not. I dont care if it costs them $1000 bucks an hour in fuel, as long as it doesnt cost them their lives.

If you are not flying under surveillance ATC separation standards become rediculously large (5 miles radar/ADS-B to upto 50nm co altitude) as it is impractical to launch aircraft out of terminals on the same route (into non surveillance airspace) 50nm apart....vertical separation needs to be applied.

Dick...get your aircraft equipped with the best technology available to ensure you get to your destination on time and on budget.

This is not ATC's problem. This is not CASA's problem, this is your problem, and a lot of it is of your own making because of you banging on about airspace.

[Duane]

Akro,
Sure, the non compliant aircraft can have his planned level. Now I will just put these 2 complient aircraft over 100nm apart so that he can have his planned level....

getting the picture?

[Old Akro]

Now I will just put these 2 complient aircraft over 100nm apart so that he can have his planned level

Is this the separation that was used on Dec 11, 2013?

[le Pingouin]

CASA granted Dick an exemption. With an exemption you can fly above F280 around the J-curve and off the coast from SW WA around to NE NT. Outside those areas you still have to operate F280 or lower, exempt or not.

CASA EX113/13 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01837)

There are very few aircraft regularly flying that aren't compliant and F280 is far from being crowded.

Would "operational expediency" mean "for separation"?

[Nautilus Blue]

It is true that we are implementing ADS-B well ahead of the US (where the equipment is designed & made). Why?

Because the US has blanket radar coverage, we don't. The US is replacing radar with ADSB so the gains are minimal. We are replacing nothing with ADSB so the gains are substantial.

I have heard (I do not know first hand) that some of the airlines are not ADS-B equipped and are operating with exemptions. It would be interesting to explore this. If CASA are selectively granting exemptions, then we are back to CASA at its best and we owe it to ourselves to highlight this.


Yes, some of the airlines aircraft are "ADSB Exempt". So is Dicks Citation. It allows the aircraft to fly above F280 in ADSB Exempt Airspace (very roughly the J Curve and the oggin).

It basically come down the the "greater good". ADSB only delivers its full potential if its exclusive. What the biz jets lose is less than everybody else gains.

are we making FL 280 & FL 290 unnecessarily crowded

However, this may be valid (pedant mode - its F280 and F270)

I do wonder if the powers that be have decided on a hard mandate so we avoid the situation of RVSM. Over 10 years later we have non RVSM aircraft using three times the airspace that otherwise would.

[Duane]

I would say that the 50nm standard gets used all the time Akro, daily and hourly.

If you are reffering to an incident on a specific date, unless you can link the ATSB report, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Old Akro]

Would "operational expediency" mean "for separation"?

No. plus extra characters to make 10.

[le Pingouin]

Akro, then what was it for?

[Old Akro]

I would say that the 50nm standard gets used all the time Akro, daily and hourly.

So my question - and it was a genuine question - is whether the separation requirements for non ADSB aircraft (ie the 100nm you tabled) is more arduous now than before the Dec 12 ADSB requirement. If the answer is yeas, then Dick and others are being penalised because they are unable to comply with the regulation requirement due only to lack of equipment.

If the answer is no, then I struggle to see why he couldn't do the same flight on Dec 11 as Dec 12.

The other thing I don't understand is how overseas aircraft are treated. I presume all the bizjets with N tail numbers in hangars around Essendon do not have ADS-B and I also assume that International carriers do not have the Aussie ES ADS-B units. How are these handled and is it any different to how Dick is being directed to operate.

[Old Akro]

Duane

Forgot to add that I did link to the ATSB report. Just checked and it works on my computer.

[Nautilus Blue]

I also assume that International carriers do not have the Aussie ES ADS-B units.

You assume wrong. If there is such a thing as an "Aussie ES ADS-B unit", the the only International that I've seen without one is the occasional Springbok to/from PH. Being in the ADSB Exempt airspace as soon as that cross the coast they don't suffer any penalty.

[Old Akro]

Le Pingouin

Not going to hijack this thread with details. But, for reasons that the ATC was either unable to be aware of weather or was maybe not fully appreciating the difference in weather that a light aircraft can tolerate vs a jet or (dare I say it) even laziness. It does happen. If the pilot responded with a request or requirement, I maintain confidence that the controller would react with diligence. But not all pilots do this. Aside of the instances where I have first hand knowledge, there was a case a bit like this that the ATSB was questioned about in Senate estimates last year.

But, the common enemy in this thread is a regulator which imposes regulations that cannot be complied with because the required equipment is not commercially available.

[dubbleyew eight]

parallel thought line.

I had wondered why no one produced a solid state stand alone ADSB transponder that could be fitted to an aircraft with not much beyond a radio in the way of electronics.

CASA in their infinitesimal wisdom have made it illegal.
the reasoning being that the adsb info must never be different to the information presented to the pilot.
....but what if there is NO information being presented to the pilot?

their logic, or lack of it, beggars belief at times.

[le Pingouin]

Akro, There has been no change to the separation standards. Previously all aircraft were equal so if Dick entered a piece of airspace first he owned it and other aircraft were moved around him. Because he's non-ADS-B he takes up a much larger volume of airspace and so do the other aircraft we're separating him from. Instead of being able to use 5 miles separation we have to use 20 or 30 or 50 miles or 10 minutes. His lack of ADS-B is shafting those around him who have it.

No-one is treated any differently - no ADS-B no play. Be they N reg bizjet or B reg airliner. All the foreign airliners we get into ML have ADS-B.

As to the weather thing. We have no way of really knowing where the weather is or what you can accept without you telling us what you need. All we get is the same weather radar pic from the BOM that you get here on-line. One aircraft will want 10 miles off track & the next one two minutes later will sail straight through. If I think weather is a consideration I'll ask if a pilot can accept a particular heading, other than that it's up to the pilot to refuse or suggest something acceptable. We simply have no way of knowing what is out there.

[le Pingouin]

dubbleyew eight, so you're happy to fly without an altimeter I take it?

[dubbleyew eight]

dubbleyew eight, so you're happy to fly without an altimeter I take it?

ok I'll bite. just how does a Koehler altimeter set to area QNH feed the altitude to the adsb transceiver?
if my gps is a Garmin Etrex10 receiving both GPS and glonass sat info how does that feed to an adsb transceiver?

[Old Akro]

You assume wrong. If there is such a thing as an "Aussie ES ADS-B unit

Correct me where I'm wrong. But while ADSB operates on the same frequency worldwide, Australia requires an " Extended Squitter" that is not required in the US. Europe may also be using the "Extended Squitter" version also, I'm not fully across that.

Therefore mode s transponders designed for the US cannot be used as " mode s" transponders here.

This is in part Dick's problem, because the US avioinics manufacturers (which apart from Becker and Trig is basically all of them) are developing US UAT versions before the ES versions. I think at the moment the only options for ES versions are Trig & the late model Garmin 330ES (or an early Garmin 330ES with a software update). King have announced a new modes S transponder which will have an ES version, but its not yet in production. My memory is hazy, but I don't believe the new Garmin GTN 750 has an ES transponder available yet, nor do the Garmin EFIS packages.

So, my presumption is that American based jets aren't likely to have ES version mode s transponders and are therefore unable to operate above F290. This maybe OK from the East, but I have not been in a jet that has traversed Australia below F290. So, they either do have ES mode s transponders, or they too operate under an exemption.

[Old Akro]

I had wondered why no one produced a solid state stand alone ADSB transponder that could be fitted to an aircraft with not much beyond a radio in the way of electronics.


Mode S requires input from a C146a GPS unit (ie WAAS, which for GA is currently only Garmin GNS 430, GTN650 or GTN 750). I presume it also requires new altitude encoder with digital output for the GPS unit (gray scale??). WAAS units also require different antennae & coax cabling than non WAAS units.

This will be an expensive conversion for those who require it.

[dubbleyew eight]

acro has it.
the transceiver is about $3000.
the rest of the stuff approaching $15,000.

the only way it will happen for most of private GA is if the transponder does it all internally and solid state.

when we land at Albury, there is only 1 runway. same for Kalgoorlie, Newman etc etc.

[Nautilus Blue]

Akro - I'm not doubting that the units are different. Your assumption was that international carriers didn't have an ADSB that worked in Austtralia. What I'm saying is all the internationals I've seen, based in Europe the ME and Asia do. In fact before the mandate there were more overseas aircraft with ADSB than Australian.

Do any US carriers into Australia fly outside the J Curve and ocean? If not, like the Springbok I mentioned, they would not suffer any penalty for not having it anyway.

Just thinking out load here, and call me a heretic, but if Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Australia have a difference with the US, just maybe its the US thats out of step?

[Old Akro]

Just thinking out load here, and call me a heretic, but if Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Australia have a difference with the US, just maybe its the US thats out of step?

At least for GA, the US market would be as big or bigger than the rest of the world combined. So I do actually think they set the pace of the marching steps.

According to Bendix King, there are somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 general aviation fixed-wing aircraft in the world. About one-third of these aircraft have hull values less than $50,000, while another one-third of them have hull values between $50,000 and $100,000.

Note: The NATA fact book indicates that about 200,000 of these 250 - 300,000 aircraft are in the US (ie well over half the world fleet). There are something like 10,000 GA aircraft in Australia.

But, the real issue (which is where Dick started) is why we would implement something so far ahead of the world's biggest market when the (US based) manufacturers have not yet developed products for their own domestic requirement let alone our different one.

And for W8 my guess to replace our Garmin 300 & King Nav / Com will be:
Txp $3500 (currently typically USD$3300, but will come down)
GTN 650 $10k (430's will be gone by the time we do it, but the new King & Avidyne units might be a cheaper option by then)
Encoder $1k
New CDI $2k
Engineering orders $1k
Install $5k

Total $23,500.

In the US, the government has a fund to soften this blow to aircraft owners

NextGen GA Fund Will Finance Avionics Upgrades - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NextGen-GA-Fund-Will-Finance-Avionics-Upgrades221262-1.html).

There is some logic to this as what is really happening is that the cost of our infrastructure is moving from a government expense to an aircraft owner expense.


I have until 2 Feb 2017 to do this and probably will, but I can see a lot of guys giving up IFR and sticking to VFR. In a recent interview about its new GPS units, King said that the average owner of a GA aircraft in the US is a 57 year old male. You can see these guys voting with their feet and moving to RAA. Others will just buy a boat.


Exactly how different do we need to be? Hard hard do we want to make it for GA? Does driving aircraft from IFR to VFR overall improve safety or reduce it?

[Duane]

I think you have missed the point Akro, the 50nm standard is used all the time at all levels. What they have done is say that they do not wish to use non-surveillance standards in RVSM airspace anymore. Most airliners fly in RVSM airspace and changing the rules such that most of the traffic can now be more efficiently flowed. This is a huge win for people trying to save/make a buck on a very large scale.

Bizjets who do not have this sort of thing attached surely cannot legitimately cry foul that they dont need/want it on, the jet itself is worth millions, if you want to save a buck go fly Tiger airways.

The problem was that the 1 aircraft in the airspace was ruining the entire sector for everyone as procedural separation standards had to be applied between every aircraft, and the non compliant aircraft. That could effect 10+ aircraft but to be realistic it probably effects 5 at most but that 5 would be effected indefinately if they were on the same route.

As usual, I would say that Dick is once again blowing this all out of proportion. Bizjets flying in RVSM airspace probably is about 1-2% of total control burden on average, I dont have a problem with the greater good for the most people in this circumstance.

With regards to weather.....
If you ask for something and I can give it to you...I will. If you ask me for something rediculous (I need 50 miles right of track straight into the teeth of every single arrival into Sydney) I will ask for something more realistic (normally a heading or something that I can base separation on) If you want to divert into active restricted area I wont let you (you can go on your own but the risk of you being shot down inadverdantly by the NAVY is your risk not mine So if you must go in there Ill be terminating your control service and wish you the best of luck) however I have a Radar...

Guys who dont have a radar now need to base separation not on standard routes (which is easy and pre calculated) but now that have to Mcgyver up some standard based on the clearance you have been issued (50nm L or R of track isnt unheard of enroute) rather than your actual position. And that is the problem, someone without surveillance coverage instantly wants 50nm left of track, and if you are running close to your standard laterally, they cannot give you your request without having a procedural breakdown in separation. Basically, you cant have it right away, it takes time for us to let you have your standard, and we might have to move a bunch of aircraft for you to get your diversion.

With this new change, we are actually keeping you away from 90% of the traffic by keeping people out of RVSM airspace where less aircraft are, the change wont effect as many aircraft and at the end of the day you will likely get diversions delivered more efficiently.

[alphacentauri]

I apologise if my last post seemed I was making an accusation. That was not my intent.

But a bold, some would say controversial, statement has been made in the name of safety. The only evidence provided to support it is an anonymous incident. I'm sorry but if a pilot is forced by atc into weather that compromised the safety of the flight, then the pilot should have reported the incident. I know of no such report or incident.

I don't doubt, that something similar to Dicks example happened. I do doubt it was as bad as has been implied



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The V-tail is ADSB compliant!

Now if I can just figure out a way to get up above FL290 to get away from all those low flying non-ADSB equipped busjets!

Dr :8

[Hempy]

The weather business is garbage. Whilst ATC have an 'appreciation' of the weather' in their airspace, they aren't actually up there..If an ATC vectors an aircraft towards weather the expectation is for the PIC to pipe up and say so. Not one rated controller in this country would, on receipt of that advice, continue that vector. If ATC descend aircraft into cloud that they are told about, its because any other option would cost you time and there is no other vertical choice separation wise. Any suggestion otherwise is pure slander.

[Jabawocky]

Forkie....you have met a guy who tried (well 270).......but he had a bit more puff than you.

You do enough getting in the road as it is :E

[Capn Bloggs]

The V-tail is ADSB compliant!
I thought things that did less than the 110km/hr speed limit were ADS-B exempt... :8

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Hate to be picky, but ADS-B is mandated above F280, not F290. And RVSM is F290-F410 inclusive. ADS-B is mandated at all levels above F280. All these foreign aircraft that have applied for and been granted an exemption that are SE Asia based cannot transit Oz ADS-B airspace say SIN-SYD at even F530, nothing above F280 until within the radar coverage East Coast J-curve. I think that here they could have made a compromise... ADS-B should have only been mandated in the RVSM band. With the exception of the occasional (at this stage) B787, the GVs, Global Expresses and Falcon 2000s have above F410 pretty much to themselves, and don't get in anyone's way

[Nautilus Blue]

There is some logic to this as what is really happening is that the cost of our infrastructure is moving from a government expense to an aircraft owner expense.


Sort of agree but its not government money, its the users. The unfortunate reality in Australia is that the airways are not a Govt funded service for the benefit of everybody. They are a profit making user pays service. Aircraft owners/operators pay for ASA's equipment as well as their own. Most of the users will be better off because that get a better service, a few will be well and truly financially shafted to enable this.

As for why we are doing this before the US, thats been answered several times in this thread.

[Capn Bloggs]

They are a profit making user pays service.
Where have I heard that before...

[FGD135]

Any suggestion otherwise is pure slander.
Hempy, how about you actually read what Dick wrote?

They are a profit making user pays serviceThere is no such thing. User pays? Yes. Profit-making? Rubbish.

... get this piece of equipment installedDuane, and all the others that think Dick has simply chosen not to install the ADSB, understand this:

Dick can't get it installed because the manufacturer of his aircraft, Cessna, has not provided the necessary engineering prerequisites. Dick has no choice.

As for why we are doing this before the US, thats been answered several times in this thread.It has? I have read the entire thread twice. The only "answer" I saw was something about CASA bragging at Montreal. Good answer!

I personally believe that staffing levels at ASA are behind the explanation.

CASA in their infinitesimal wisdom have made it illegal.
the reasoning being that the adsb info must never be different to the information presented to the pilot.Appears to be sound logic on the part of CASA, but when you look a little more closely, you find some credibility in Cactusjack's sentiment, expressed on page 1 of this thread, which was:

Indeed, there are concrete minded idiots at the helm of these organisations that are pulling these ridiculous strings.Looking more closely at this little technicality, you find that two separate position sources, giving two different positions, is actually more beneficial to safety, as it makes it more obvious if one of the sources has a significant error.

With the one source, the error can remain hidden. So, not only a vastly more expensive option, but one that is less safe. Concrete minded idiots!

[Plazbot]

Thankfully after many years I inflict ATC in an Airspace where you have to be RNAV5 or better and above 145, IFR. Everyone does what we say with ZERO complaining and none of this rubbish goes on. Bliss. Down to the ground VHF, ADSB ans WAMLAT. Constantly growing traffic volumes in the order of 8-10%. Even the French Navy stick to their assigned (negotiated) levels and areas of operation.

What was the question again?

[Nautilus Blue]

They are a profit making user pays service
There is no such thing. User pays? Yes. Profit-making? Rubbish.
I'm don't understand. Are you saying ASA don't make a profit or the they don't provide a service?
Dick can't get it installed because the manufacturer of his aircraft, Cessna, has not provided the necessary engineering prerequisites. Dick has no choice.

I get that. What we're saying is that's bad luck and not fair but the overwhelming majority of aircraft can and have, and they get the benefits. The needs of the many and all that.

As for why we are doing this before the US, thats been answered several times in this thread.It has? I have read the entire thread twice. The only "answer" I saw was something about CASA bragging at Montreal. Good answer!
How about
I think you have missed the point Akro, the 50nm standard is used all the time at all levels. What they have done is say that they do not wish to use non-surveillance standards in RVSM airspace anymore. Most airliners fly in RVSM airspace and changing the rules such that most of the traffic can now be more efficiently flowed. This is a huge win for people trying to save/make a buck on a very large scale.

Akro, There has been no change to the separation standards. Previously all aircraft were equal so if Dick entered a piece of airspace first he owned it and other aircraft were moved around him. Because he's non-ADS-B he takes up a much larger volume of airspace and so do the other aircraft we're separating him from. Instead of being able to use 5 miles separation we have to use 20 or 30 or 50 miles or 10 minutes. His lack of ADS-B is shafting those around him who have it.
Because the US has blanket radar coverage, we don't. The US is replacing radar with ADSB so the gains are minimal. We are replacing nothing with ADSB so the gains are substantial.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The thread starts with a low act blaming ATC.
Previous thread starts with threat of court case if exemption not forthcoming.

....so far, following a well tread path to gain publicity. Way to go, predictable Dick:ok:

Dick, your predicament pure and simple, until the gear is available and fitted you are locked out of that airspace. Legal yesterday is immaterial! What you ask, as has been stressed, is effectively entering SSR airspace without a transponder. This same situation occurs in RVSM airspace across the puddle...Atlantic...Non RVSM bisjets are not allowed and at F280 or lower, do not have the range to make it with one stop...bloody expensive operationally! However, no exemptions. Either refit at a lot of money or trade in at reduced value and get one that does the business....oh, to be a pilot for a multimillionaire banker.

Dick, you used the mandatory fitment of transponders to eliminate a level of service. Effectively, you have been eliminated by that same requirement.

AFAIK there will be a solution this year, the cost I am unsure, but a solution there is. To AKRO, you need to read up on what exactly ES is...start with the ICAO. The requirement is not just Australia ABV F290.

[Hempy]

Plazbot,

All we ever hear is how things are done in Australia so very differently and poorly compared to the rest of the developed world, and this is bad... until pilots themselves are expected to comply with same.

Then the sky falls in...

FDG135, what, you mean something like Already I have heard that one plane was forced into very bad weather?

[TWOTBAGS]

Dick is partly correct, there are several jet manufacturers that have been unable to comply with ADSB modification and certification, Cessna is one of them.

The integration for Honeywell systems has been particularly painful and unsuccessful. Although there has been several aftermarket solutions which are fine for your everyday bugsmasher to allow compliance they are not FAR25 certified nor do the meet some of the requirements for TSO146.

Currently in the US there is FEDERALLY FUNDED FINANCE Programs available at 2% to upgrade your aircraft with ADSB capable equipment.

This encourages the operator to not only comply with the requirements but also fix upgrade their whole nav suite.....:D

Is it no wonder that there are compliance issues here where there is no support of the industry by the government and regulator in order to achieve compliance.

[Dick Smith]

I love it! By putting a few factual comments on this site the amount of personal attacks and misinformation is amazing.

Let me try and address some of the issues.

First of all, Blogsy – a Cessna Sovereign flying from the east coast to Ayers Rock, I am told, spends about $1,000 per hour more for fuel if it is forced down to 290 or even 270 compared to its normal flying altitude of above flight level 400. In fact, by being forced to the lower altitude it also has to land and refuel at, say, a place like Broken Hill and, of course, the climb in low level operations uses even more fuel. The amount of $1,000 per hour has been given to me by a bizjet operator who has been greatly affected economically by this regulation.

-438 – if I had my way, the CTA steps and airspace would follow that of the USA where the Class B and C zones are surrounded with Class E controlled airspace to 1,200 feet AGL. This means in the USA airline aircraft can descend in a very flexible way remaining in controlled airspace. Of course we don’t have the same here because people are obsessed with keeping huge amounts of uncontrolled airspace near airports.

Capt Claret – you state, “an emotive lack of claptrap” and then say “an ATC can’t force a pilot to do anything”. In a recent flight by a business aviation aircraft from the East Coast to Ayers Rock flight planned at flight level 430, the pilot was instructed by the Air Traffic Controller on leaving the radar covered airspace to descend to flight level 290 – or it may have been lower. That sounds to me as if the Air Traffic Controller was forcing the pilot to do something he didn’t necessarily want to do. Yes, I agree that the ATCs are following the instructions. Imagine what a low morale your group would have when you know the management of your organisation is so totally incompetent that it’s forcing extra costs on the aviation industry – and sometimes losing revenue – just so a few boffins can skite that they have led the world in the mandate.

Capt Fathom – there is actually no exemption available at all primarily because CASA lied to the industry by saying that consideration would not be given for exemption applications for flying in the non-radar airspace above flight level 290. This was an illegal demand from CASA, however it completely prevented the industry from putting in a substantial case as they believed CASA was telling the truth.

Alphacentauri – surely you would agree that forcing aircraft that are capable of flying at high flight levels above much of the weather – down into the weather – is not a good idea. I agree there are lots of smaller planes that are forced to fly in the sub-flight level 300 flight levels. However, if you look at the safety statistics you will see the operations of these aircraft results in more accidents than the pressurised turbo jet aircraft which operate at the higher flight levels. The facts are there for everyone to see. Yes, I agree it’s only an incremental increase – or a decrease in safety – but why not go on the positive side when it’s possible?

Duane – you state I should go ahead and get the equipment installed. Well, here is the problem. Cessna have not yet come up with a service bulletin for the CJ3 – they are working on it and it should be within the next few months. Before then, if I install ADS-B it will be some time of ‘Mickey Mouse Band-Aid’ upgrade (or downgrade) using Garmin or similar equipment that then will not be certifiable if I sell the aircraft back to the USA or anywhere else in the world. The same situation exists for many business aviation aircraft. There was no way the United States companies were going to drop everything and start prematurely designing ADS-B upgrades because Australia, with its very small fleet, had decided to lead the world by six years. I can understand the really low morale of people working for Airservices considering the stupidity of their bosses. For example, I did not do that flight to Longreach – my aircraft remained in the hangar and I saved a lot of money including not paying Airservices for the enroute charges. However, when I looked at Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com) at the times I would have flown, there was absolutely nothing that would have stopped me from flying above flight level 400 and then descending into Longreach and climbing out. If I had done the flight below flight level 290 I would have been procedurally separated in the non-radar airspace – why couldn’t this happen above flight level 290? In fact, I have been told by responsible Controllers that, “any Controller worth his salt would have been able to cope with the flight”. Imagine working for a commercial organisation – even though it’s a monopoly – where the Bosses are so incredibly incompetent that instead of looking for a way to get the small number of aircraft that have not been able to fit ADS-B up there and flying and earning an income, they actually come up with a result that will either send these smaller operators into bankruptcy because of the extra costs, or end up staying in my situation with the plane sitting in the hangar.

As it was, my meeting with the CEO of the Stockman’s Hall of Fame was resolved by him driving from Longreach to my house at Terrey Hills. This is a great message for aviation, isn’t it!

[Sarcs]

Having now read through this thread in entirety I have got to say that Dick is a crafty old bugger...:E The first 30 or so posts contained the usual Dick haters, the Skygod/Towergod commentators/educators blah..blah..blah..:{

It wasn't till Taily & Old Akro stepped into the fray that we started to get some rational debate happening and that is where the best value comes from a Dick instigated thread...:D

So from an ignorant knuckledragger a couple of observations and QONs...

le PingouinNo-one is treated any differently - no ADS-B no play. Be they N reg bizjet or B reg airliner. All the foreign airliners we get into ML have ADS-B.
Ok so from 12th December '13 no ADSB no go above FL280 except as per CASA EX113/13 ....yep got my head around that...:hmm:

And I can kind of understand the disconnect with the US dragging the chain, there is no rush on over there as they pretty much (unlike here) have universal radar coverage, so mandating ADSB is a lower priority for all sectors including the aircraft/avionics manufacturers.

I also understand the huge advantages/efficiency of the ADSB system, especially here in Oz. The cost savings alone for the bigend of town operators/airlines almost totally justify (CBA) the mandating of ADSB, not to mention the environmental savings in carbon emissions.
{Comment: Slightly contradictory to those savings would be the case of a certain A380 flogging across the continent at max speed, presumably very high fuel burn to try and match another government/bureaucratic mandate i.e. the Sydney airport curfew}

So then that leaves us with the "safety case"...alright then a couple of quotes...

Taily: I seem to recall from an earlier thread that Dick was denied an exemption by CASA (for I think a flight to Western Queensland?) and was looking to a Court challenge.

I suspect the primary issue here is that Australia has imposed an ADSB requirement ahead of most of the rest of the world, before all manufacturers have developed compliant Service Bulletins for ADSB installations in existing aircraft? I don't think it is not a matter of cost, rather having available an approved installation method?

Exemptions are unavailable: one day a number of Australian corporate and private aircraft are safe to operate above FL290, but the next day they becomes a threat to airline safety?

Still not entering the debate. Only observations.
OA:Without meaning to be alarmist, there is still an active ATSB investigation about ATC "losing" an airbus near Adelaide. Isn't it safer to have as many altitudes available as possible? Investigation: AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013. (Investigation: AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013.
And OA's QON: So my question - and it was a genuine question - is whether the separation requirements for non ADSB aircraft (ie the 100nm you tabled) is more arduous now than before the Dec 12 ADSB requirement. If the answer is yeas, then Dick and others are being penalised because they are unable to comply with the regulation requirement due only to lack of equipment.

If the answer is no, then I struggle to see why he couldn't do the same flight on Dec 11 as Dec 12.
Then backtracking slightly from NB:Yes, some of the airlines aircraft are "ADSB Exempt". So is Dicks Citation. It allows the aircraft to fly above F280 in ADSB Exempt Airspace (very roughly the J Curve and the oggin).

It basically come down the the "greater good". ADSB only delivers its full potential if its exclusive. What the biz jets lose is less than everybody else gains.All good stuff by the way..but onwards and out of the weeds.:E..NB mentioned that prior to 12/12/13 that some airlines aircraft had exemptions that were zapped on D-day, well here is one of those exemptions: CASA EX96/13 - Exemption — use of ADS-B in Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft LV-CSF (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01662/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)

Hmmm...right too my pumpkin at midnight QONs... In the guts of that explanatory statement it says...

"..The Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft operates on scheduled passenger service into Sydney from Buenos Aires. It is accepted that the safety impact will be negligible because ADS-B is not used by Air Traffic Control for the surveillance of air traffic in the oceanic areas of airspace to the east of Sydney. Surveillance is by Secondary Surveillance Radar in that airspace..."

Q1/ Has the oceanic airspace to the east of Sydney automatically changed as of midnight (pumpkin time) on the 11th December'13?
Q2/ If the mentioned aircraft was transiting (I know theoretically impossible because of the YSSY curfew) through that airspace at 23:59:30 EDST on 11/12, would it at 00:00:01 on 12/12 automatically turn into a greater risk to the once accepted safety risk?? Or am I (besides a few screws) missing something??
Q3/ Presumably the two aircraft mentioned in... AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013 (Investigation: AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013.)... were suitably ADSB configured, so what added safety benefit did the ADSB system give to the SA of those ATC controllers in that case?? TIA..Sarcs :ok:

[Old Akro]

How about

Nautilus Blue, the 3 arguments you list are all good reasons to implement ADS-B. I don't think anyone argues those points.

But none of them address why we should do it 6 (?) years before the US AND before the required equipment is commercially available.

I would remind you that based on the data that just happens to be on Avweb at the moment, our fleet is something less than 10% of the world fleet. Isn't it the height of arrogance to expect that US based avionics manufacturers will develop the different ES form of transponder required by Australia before they develop the UAT one for their home market - which is maybe 2/3 of the world market??

The ONLY reason that has been put forward about why we are mandating so far before the US is the one about AsA execs being able to boast about in in Montreal.

[Dick Smith]

Ozbusdriver – it’s clear you have very little commercial sense whatsoever. Surely a competent manager in Airservices would be looking at a way of getting income from any source as long as it could be done in a legal and safe way. Air Traffic Controllers have told me that, “any Controller worth his salt” would be able to handle the very small number of non-compliant aircraft in the airspace above flight level 290. The fact is the Controllers are not given the chance. I bet if an accident occurs because an aircraft was forced into horrendous weather at the lower flight levels that the newspapers will blame the Air Traffic Controller by stating words to the effect, “the Air Traffic Controller issued an instruction that forced the plane to descend from flight level 410 to flight level 270 – right in the middle of the worst weather conditions”. Of course, the management at Airservices who have forced this situation will all run for cover and say “it’s nothing to do with us! It was a CASA requirement”. If I was a professional Controller I wouldn’t want to know that planes were sitting in hangars instead of flying and earning an income for the company I worked for and that hopefully will be able to pay me an increasing salary in the future. This is not going to happen by forcing aircraft out of the sky or forcing them to fly at flight levels where the costs are so high that the actual charter price would result in the company losing money.

The next time an airline aircraft is flying from Cairns to Ayers Rock and the ADS-B fails, I bet they are still allowed to descend into Ayers Rock and depart again to get the unit serviced. If they can be handled in the relevant airspace, why can’t a small number of business aviation aircraft? Oh, I know! The business aviation operators are individually weak and bullies always exploit weakness!

[Duane]

Dick,
Just because any controller worth their salt could handle you in a couple of potentially isolated incidents doesnt mean that the rule should be broken. I am sure that i could probably take a few aircraft where i work on occasion that dont have functioning transponders, but i dont, because quite simply the requirement to fly in class C airspace is a functioning mode C transponder. Remember that word...requirement.

Now if i let an aircraft in without a transponder and then that subsequently delayed an airlines arrival/departure would I be in the right or the wrong, because this situation is Identical to yours.

This isnt a bad rule because it hurts 1% (probably less) of fliers in those areas, it is a good rule because it helps out the 99% who are compliant, for the 99% of compliant flights this makes RVSM airspace more efficient and safer.

Dick, Australia is never going to have 100% radar coverage, heck it wont even get 50%, ADS-B has better coverage, is simple to maintain and install and gives as good a coverage and is reliable. Surveillance coverage means better safety of aircraft. Australia is implementing the system before the rest of the world because we HAVE TO. Whilst the problem isnt unique to Australia, it certainly is one of our biggest issues (big space, coastalised population) and short of building radar sights every 60 or so miles, this is a far cheaper and better option for Australia, hence we are bringing it in before the US.

Dick, I know you have been around the world, and in particular, loved how Aviation works in the US. I am sure with a population over 300 Million and spread out as much as the US is, we wouldnt need to do what we are, however....we are what we are, and that doesnt mean we have to solve problems like the US does. Our problems cannot be solved by mimicking how the US operates, we cant support it, it is unsustainable.

Getting ADS-B early is by far....by a country mile the best solution we have to getting safer more efficient skies in Australia. If you dont want to get delayed sell your current aircraft, get one that is ADS-B compliant and move on...you can afford it, and if you cant, I know Qantas, Tiger, Virgin all have compliant aircraft if you want to save a buck.

Sarcs:
ADS-B doesnt get used over water because it still requires antennas etc, these cant really be placed 100 miles out to sea etc, so everybody plays by the same procedural rules there, whether you are ADS-B compliant or not. My experience with the jets from south america is that they probably wouldnt even get to RVSM airspace inside of surveillance (radar) coverage anyway (they climb terribly, often 12-13000 ft with 60 track miles on departure) So based on this evidence I am sure you can see why the rules dont apply to them in this particular case.

[nitpicker330]

So to prove a point you made the Stockmans hall of fame Manager drive down for the meeting instead of you flying up below FL290 in your exec Jet.

So you expose him to the considerably increased risk of dying on the roads because you can't fly high enough!!

You mean bugger. :=

Trade the CJ3 for a King Air.......problem solved and you'd save money.:)

[Dick Smith]

Old Akro – you are correct. If Bill Gates arrives here in his flying palace and wants to fly to Ayers Rock, he will be forced down to below flight level 290 spending a small fortune in extra fuel to fly there. And that will happen even if there is not one aircraft above flight level 400 on the entire route and there is also no aircraft that could affect his climb or descent. This is because instead of allowing Air Traffic Controllers to professionally decide whether they can give the service or not, that has been taken out of their hands by the people at Airservices (not CASA in this case) because they really just don’t know what’s going on when it comes to running a commercial business.

Old Akro, all of the US manufacturers are planning to issue service bulletins for ADS-B that will work in Australia (i.e. Mode S Squitta) however they haven’t yet completed these service bulletins. CASA initially refused to allow anyone to put in a stand-alone ADS-B unit as they sensibly didn’t want a position being transmitted that wasn’t coming from the flight management system in the aircraft. However, CASA has changed their view on this and I understand there are some business aviation aircraft flying around with a separate transponder and GPS installed. Of course, all of this will have to be removed when the proper service bulletin comes out and something like $60,000 to $80,000 will have been completely wasted. The quote I received for upgrading my CJ3 – a very modern aircraft equipped with Collins Proline – was something like $60,000, however it was to be an Australian unique modification and not accepted if I sold the aircraft anywhere else in the world. Now I can afford to ‘waste’ $60,000 but I would much rather donate it to an important cause, not just to waste it completely.

Duane – you say that I am blowing it all out of proportion. In fact, I am saving money by not flying the Citation in non-radar airspace. I will use my Cessna Caravan and fly VFR, see a lot more scenery and not pay a cent to Airservices – ha ha ha! Yes, some would claim that the safety of flight is not as high, but I have made this personal decision – I am not a passenger in a charter bizjet which is forced to fly at low levels because it’s not ADS-B equipped and I haven’t been informed of this. I say again, imagine being in the Management of Airservices and being so incompetent in business that you haven’t worked out a way of capturing for enroute charges the twenty or so business aviation aircraft that haven’t yet been made compliant – or, alternatively, supporting a system that is going to force some of your customers into financial difficulties so they may not be able to pay the enoute charges! Ha ha again!

I point out that in my applications I have always said I am happy to be given “second fiddle”, i.e. whilst on a flight to Longreach to remain at the higher flight level until other traffic is at least the procedural distance away before my descent. In fact, in practice this will probably never, ever happen as for more than 20 years I have been flying jets in the non-radar airspace where the Air Traffic Controllers have used procedural separation and I have never once been held on descent or climb. How can it be claimed by the Airservices management that using procedural separation above flight level 290 is a safety issue when they then force aircraft below flight level 290 and – wait for it – procedurally separate them?

Isn’t it incredible that the military have been given an exemption of the ADS-B requirement in non-radar airspace above flight level 290 because they stated it was going to cost too much to upgrade their Legacy aircraft!!! So they can fly around as much as they want whilst the business aviation charter community is forced to pay to either keep their aircraft in the hangar or pay ridiculous amounts for extra fuel and non-required landings.

The airlines are allowed to fly for up to three days with an ADS-B fault. Also, if one of the ADS-B repeater stations in the outback goes off air – say, from a lightning strike – it’s obvious that the Air Traffic Controllers will then have to procedurally separate all of the aircraft. Why, then, would Airservices management object to allowing a small number of business aircraft that have not yet been able to become compliant to still fly in the system?

Nautilus Blue – you state, “What we're saying is that's bad luck and not fair but the overwhelming majority of aircraft can and have, and they get the benefits. The needs of the many and all that.” Nautilus, I will say again that the Australian Business Aviation Association on behalf of the aircraft owners who have not been able to get the equipment fitted – not for cost reasons but because the service bulletins aren’t available – are happy to be treated as “second fiddle”, i.e. non-ADS-B equipped aircraft will be allowed to climb normally in the radar airspace with the existing exemption then be given a flight level (if available) in the non-radar airspace. If an ADS-B aircraft requires a flight level that a non-ADS-B aircraft is already using, a Controller can simply get the non-ADS-B aircraft to descend below flight level 290. My point is that these dopes have brought in a blanket rule when there would be many cases where non-ADS-B aircraft can be fitted into the system safely. It would be simple to put in a requirement for extra holding fuel to be taken if a descent has to be delayed. This, in my view, will rarely happen – I suggest you look at Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com) and see the number of aircraft that are around places like Birdsville, Coober Pedy and Ayers Rock – not many - and it wouldn’t require much expertise to arrange for a non-ADS-B aircraft to be descended procedurally without delaying or affecting ADS-B fitted aircraft in any way.

[Duane]

So Dick, because you havent been held at an intermediate level on climb or descent thats basis for you to fly in RVSM airspace...

So a potential problem should become an actual problem before it gets fixed?

[Nautilus Blue]

Akro I think its time to agree to disagree. We now have a surveillance system equivalent to what that the US and Europe has has for many decades. The airlines, domestic and international, and ASA have the equipment in place to provide a significantly better ATS in Australia right now, so we are using it. Aircraft built by Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Fokker, BAe, Pilatus, Hawker, Cessna and others are currently receiving the benefits, and unfortunately they outweigh the costs to some operators of some models of some manufacturers aircraft.

Sarcs - no exemptions were zapped, they still apply. The terminology chosen for ADSB Exempt airspace and ADSB exemptions is unfortunately confusing. An aircraft with an ADSB exemption can fly in ADSB Exempt airspace (ocean and J curve) above F280 but not in ADSB airspace. I think what they should have said was anybody can fly in ADSB Exempt airspace above F280, thus removing the confusion surrounding and ADSB Exemption, which is not what it sounds like. So
Q1/ Has the oceanic airspace to the east of Sydney automatically changed as of midnight (pumpkin time) on the 11th December'13?
Non ADSB aircraft can fly in this airspace now, so nothing changed on D-Day.
Q3/ Presumably the two aircraft mentioned in... AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013... were suitably ADSB configured, so what added safety benefit did the ADSB system give to the SA of those ATC controllers in that case??
The aircraft were in ADSB Exempt airspace. Two non ADSB aircraft could fly in the same airspace today ay any level. The aircraft were on SSR so ADSB is irrelevant.

Dick - its not about safety or whether we can handle non ADSB aircraft, its about providing the best service to the most customers. Non ADSB aircraft take up more space. There are occasions certainly were it wouldn't matter, but I get the impression that the powers that be wanted one consistent rule rather than lots of exceptions. (For example, the area around PH has SSR and no ADSB but is not included in the ADSB exempt airspace, presumably to keep it simple.) The three day period for broken equipment does I agree smack of the airlines wanting to have their cake and eat it to. The military thing is just as hard to defend.

[FGD135]

CASA initially refused to allow anyone to put in a stand-alone ADS-B unit as they sensibly didn’t want a position being transmitted that wasn’t coming from the flight management system in the aircraft.Dick, why is this sensible? To me, a better system is one where the ADSB position is derived from a different RNAV source to that being used by the aircraft's FMS - because, in the event of a significant error in one of the sources, that discrepancy would then be a lot more obvious.

And, it would allow much more rapid and cheaper solutions to this issue.

[Old Akro]

Aircraft built by Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Fokker, BAe, Pilatus, Hawker, Cessna and others are currently receiving the benefits,

I think this whole thing started because Cessna aircraft cannot yet receive the benefits.


And I'be be betting not Fokker, BAe, Pilatus or Hawker because I would expect that they will all be in the same catch 22 service bulletin quagmire that Dick is in.

In fact, I suspect that regardless of aircraft type, anyone with Collins Proline, or Garmin EFIS is in the same boat.

No one is disputing that ADS-B is a good thing. Its the implementation timing and the transitional arrangements that are being criticised.

If I wanted to be ADS-B compliant today, I would have 1 model choice from 1 manufacturer for a C146a GPS (ie GTN 650 - GNS430 has uncertain supply and GTN 750 doesn't yet have a compatible ES transponder) and 1 model choice from 1 manufacturer for a mode S ES transponder (I don't think the Trig unit fits a standard 6.33 inch GA rack). In 12 months that will at least triple as new products from Avidyne & Bendix / King become available.

Today, Dick has zero options to be ADS-B compliant. Within 1 year, he will have a factory sanctioned option.

As I read it, Dick is asking for better transitional arrangements while there is no technical solution for him to be compliant with the new airspace regulations which have been introduced with an arbitrary timing that has been set without regard to the availability of equipment required to comply. Frankly, it doesn't seem unreasonable and it sounds like there are precedents elsewhere in the world to do it.

Cost is an issue that I (and a long queue of others) will bleat about. But at the end of the day, I'll put in new avioincs that will represent 20% of the hull value of my twin so that I can fly in an airspace system that it seems has been myopically designed around the airlines (or the greater good as you call it).

Frankly, I'd be more enthusiastic about spending money on ADS-B if we were implementing an ADS-B IN system so I could get the benefit of traffic data like the US is doing.

[Nautilus Blue]

I think this whole thing started because Cessna aircraft cannot yet receive the benefits.


And I'be be betting not Fokker, BAe, Pilatus or Hawker because I would expect that they will all be in the same catch 22 service bulletin quagmire that Dick is in.


Possibly one source of misunderstanding and friction on here between pilots and ATC is that most of the aircraft we see are ADSB equipped, so the instinctive reaction is "well why can't he?". I can assure you there are many F100, Ba146, PC12 and at least one HS125 and Citation operating in Australia with ADSB. I do understand "Citation" covers a number of different models and whats possible on one is not necessarily possible on another. I also don't doubt that anything on an aeroplane will be much more expensive than a layman would think.

[Old Akro]

I can assure you there are many F100, Ba146, PC12 and at least one HS125 and Citation

There are 34 PC-12's in Australia. About half with the RFDS and half in private hands. Most have steam gauges (maybe only 8 have glass panels). As do early Citations.

My (imperfect) understanding is that the old steam gauge ones are like a GA aircraft. They will have a GA type avionics rack that will take a Garmin 430W 530W / GTN650 / GTN750 or even an old 480. Couple this with a Garmin 330ES transponder that you fit in place of the original flat pack transponder and its all done.

The newer glass panel aircraft are a completely different kettle of fish and clearly (from Dick's description) require type specific service bulletins. My guess would be (and its only a guess) is that any cabin class aircraft (turboprop or jet) that has glass panel displays will be in the same boat as Dick.

A number of companies are working on discrete ADS-B boxes that can be remotely mounted, but I don't think any are commercially available yet. There are also companies working on C146a GPS sources that will remotely mount specifically to give data to the transponder (so you don't need new GPS display units) but I think these maybe 2 - 3 years away.

And if our regulators didn't know all of this before they set the implementation timetable, they should be slapped.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Before anyone starts bashing anyone about who owns what....

Commercial sense??????....let that one go to the keeper.

Access to class C/A with no transponder....good luck!

[Dick Smith]

I already have ADSB in my Caravan. Came at virtually no extra cost when I upgraded the Garmin equipment

Totally different with my CJ3 - as stated by others Cessna are still working on the upgrade - maybe a few months away.

I may then fit it if I decide to keep the aircraft. Get more fun flying VFR in the Van and not paying
money to AsA who are so hostile to GA.

[Dick Smith]

Nautilus Blue – thanks for clearly stating the truth, that is, “its not about safety or whether we can handle non ADSB aircraft, its about providing the best service to the most customers”.

If you look at the attached letter to John McCormick (see HERE (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/dicksmithflyer_-_140110_letter_to_john_mccormick_re_ads-b.pdf)) you will see that CASA can’t actually write ADS-B rules that are primarily there for economic purposes. Of course, with the present management of Boards of CASA and Airservices Australia, this doesn’t seem to matter. The reason the Australian Business Aviation Association did not put in a comprehensive submission in relation to the ADS-B mandate is that they were clearly told that concessions would not be considered for the non-radar airspace. As I said in my letter to John McCormick, nothing but sheer bastardry from these people.

It is clear to everyone that the small number of business aviation aircraft that are not yet fitted with ADS-B can be handled in the present system in a totally safe way. The very fact that they are forced to below flight level 290 and then procedurally separated shows that this is so. The mandate has been brought in for economic reason, i.e. so the number of Air Traffic Controllers can be reduced and so the airlines can do more direct tracking and make more profits – nothing wrong with this as long as provision is made for the smaller operators to be able to fly fairly in the airspace until they can get their equipment upgraded at a reasonable price.

If I end up in Court over this – and this is becoming very likely – I know it will be a lay down misère in relation to a win; that is, CASA didn’t comply with its own regulations and has brought in the regulation primarily for economic reasons. The fact that the smaller business jet companies now have extra costs without any extra income will clearly result in safety being reduced. You only have to look at the Advance and Seaview crashes to know that unprofitable operators become unsafe operators.

And for anyone who wants to know if it’s actually happening in practice, I have spoken to a number of business aircraft charter operators who don’t yet have ADS-B compliant aircraft and who have been heading out into the non-radar airspace and have been forced by the Controller to descend – even as low as flight level 270. So here you have an Air Traffic Controller - who is actually earning his living from the enroute charges paid by these operators - forcing the aircraft to fly at very inefficient flight levels where the operator can’t even cover the charter costs for the flight, let alone run a viable business.

At the same time, Airservices is charging the full enroute amount – i.e. laughing all the way to the bank!

It appears to me that there is a problem with the management in these organisations. We need people who are responsible and ethical and can bring in an ADS-B upgrade in a way which is fair to all – not just the powerful.

And Nitpicker330, you are right – obviously the Manager from Longreach would have been exposed to greater risk, however I’m not on about one flight or my aircraft operations at all. I see we have gone back to the old, “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom” days of unaccountability to an industry that actually provides you blokes with your remuneration.

When the CASA Director is ignored by the people below him, it reminds me totally of what happened thirty years ago when the whole aviation regulator and air traffic control service provider became dysfunctional.

My suggestion is you read Chapter 3, “Brotherly Bureaucratic Love at Darling Harbour” in my Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom publication – see HERE (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/hall_of_doom.php). Particularly note this quote from the chapter:

This is an example of what I was to find again and again … a total lack of accountability for anything. They acted, and still do, with contemptuous disregard for the very people they were being paid to serve – including the people who were going broke and losing their jobs.

Yes, it looks as if we have gone back to those terrible old days.

[Dick Smith]

FGD it was CASA that originally said that a stand alone system was not acceptable for safety reasons. That's all I was stating

[alphacentauri]

Dick,

Isn't the issue here with CASA, not AsA? Isn't AsA just following the rules as written? (Genuine question)

As you and many have stated it can be done, was being done before Dec, so the capability is there. If the rules prohibit it, then should not the finger be pointed at the rule makers?

I just think its a little unfair to be blaming the ATC side of things for this one. Or is the point that you want AsA to lobby CASA for a rule change?

A

[Dick Smith]

Alpha, the boss of CASA put in writing that he would support exemptions similar to the RVSM exemptions

The worker collectives in each Organization decided to take no notice of his views- after all he is only the Director of Aviation Safety

Just like the "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom Days"

But it's the ASA people who are the dopes because they are losing income and profits for no good reason.

[willadvise]

I am not going to join this argument as I think most of the salients point have been made.

I will contribute that if a "roll back" of the rules is to occur it needs to happen soon.

I have been an ATC for 20 years and gained my initial rating in the West Australian procedural airspace. Our tools then were flight progress strips, whiz wheels and china graphs on maps. The airspace was often worked by 2 controllers, one talking and one drawing and calculating. It was pretty much at its limit. Then TAAATS came along. Despite it short comings, it made the procedural controllers life much easier by doing a lot of the calculations automatically and simplified coordination massively. Over the years further enhancements to the system (LATC tool) and sep standards (RVSM and GPS 7CEP) has allowed the controller to handle more aircraft.

Now if you were to remove one of these functionalites that controllers rely on, significant training would need to occur. I will give an example TAAATS has an Estimated Time of Passing tool. You select two aircraft and it automatically calculates the ETOP. The process takes about 2 seconds. Previously a manual ETOP calculation may take a minute or more depending on how good you are. When I got my initial ATC license I could do these calculations quickly and accurately everytime. Ask me to do one today I would take 2 mins. Ask a controller rated post TAAATS to do one they would have to get the book out and look it up. Now the ETOP is a wonderful thing. It removed the chance the controller making a mistake and has probably prevented many incidents. Now if you took that tool away, there would need to be significant retraining to teach us how to do it quickly and accurately again. Now if you remove ADSB from the new generation of controllers who have never separated procedurally before, then significant training would need to occur.

I have already seen the difference in controllers who were rated pre ADSB and ones rated post ADSB. While they are not unsafe, there mindset is entirely different and it won't be long before the procedural separation skills are lost even from the pre ADSB rated controllers.

To put it in piloting terms, imagine we removed RNAV/GPS tomorrow. There is a whole generation of pilots who have only flown with GPS and they would struggle without retraining.

PS Dick:- I have restricted your climb in procedural airspace. PM if you want details.

[Dick Smith]

Willa. So if a plane comes from the east coast below fl190 won't the controller have to still be trained in procedural separation?

No roll back needed. As you now have to handle non compliant military aircraft just treat them the same!

[willadvise]

The ATCs doing below F285 will still be trained. But the guys doing above 285 (Upper Airspace Services is the ASA dept) will not have the full procedural training in the future.

You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. You are proposing a roll back. I am telling you it needs to be sorted quickly before skills are lost.

You are fixed wing and rotary rated. I assume you maintain proficiency in both. A bit like a curernt UAS controller, proficient in procedural and surveillance separation. A future UAS controller would get the rotary theory, a few circuits and that will be it, before doing a full fixed wing course. They may, in an emergency or a equipment failure be asked to fly that chopper but they will not be proficient at it.

[Old Akro]

I'm sure this is misconstruing it, but this sounds a lot like putting less skilled people on the high traffic, high capacity aircraft routes.

But the guys doing above 285 (Upper Airspace Services is the ASA dept) will not have the full procedural training in the future.

[willadvise]

I'm sure this is misconstruing it, but this sounds a lot like putting less skilled people on the high traffic, high capacity aircraft routes.

No. Every job in ATC (tower, approach, enroute) is different. Every sector, tower or TCU is different. They all have there own unique challenges and each controller is trained to handle them. The situation I describe is what currently happens to the controllers handling the J curve. They don't routinely separate procedurally. Try asking them for a clearance without a transponder during a busy burst and see what happens.

[Nautilus Blue]

Dick - who is ASA most answerable to though? If we can save 1000 customers $1, but increase the costs of one customer by $100, should we do it? Looking at the big picture would suggest yes, but I admit I'd be hacked off if I were that one customer.

With regard to willadvise's point, you may not be aware of the power and glory that is SDE. Amongst other things, under this plan the sectors are split at F285 (outside J curve and ocean). The high level sectors would be surveillance only, and eventually controllers working these sectors would have little procedural training and almost no recent procedural experience. However, as pointed out the mil exemption is a rather large flaw in that argument.

Reading Akro's post would it be fair to suggest you jet is in an unfortunate "middle ground"? i.e. newer glass cockpit aircraft have ADSB already fitted or available, analog cockpit aircraft have a simple aftermarket bolt on.

[Hempy]

Akro,

Apparently systems don't fail

[le Pingouin]

No Akro, it's simply a matter of needing to practice the skills to remain good at it. I haven't done full procedural separation in years as I work full radar sectors now. Doesn't mean I can't do it, just that I'd be seriously crap at it as I'd be very slow.

I haven't done a tower or approach course - not because I can't but because it isn't necessary for me to do my current job.

[Jack Ranga]

Dick, I've got ADSB out, ES. I can give you a lift if you like? Where are you off to?

[Dick Smith]

Nautilus Blue – I suppose it basically goes back to what is ethical. Airservices Australia is a monopoly so of course it can abuse its market. I think that is what it is doing in this particular case. If there was proper leadership there they would have gone to the industry and said what the advantages were for the majority of the industry and then looked at using some of those advantages to subsidise those who were going to be affected but could not get an equivalent cost benefit.

Also, I think they are pushing this through in an incredible hurry. If you are telling me that the mandate came in last December and they are going to move quickly to these new airspace procedures and not allow the non-ADS-B aircraft to have time to be updated?

I just find it amazing that the CEO of Airservices hasn’t issued a statement saying how she is concerned about the small number of business aviation aircraft that have been affected and she is looking at doing something to minimise their costs and their problems.

I’m sure the United States could have decided to bring in the mandate five years ahead of time, but they realised it was going to cost the industry – especially the smaller operators – far more money than they could ever benefit from.

If the airlines and Airservices are going to get, say, $100 million per year in savings from this new system, what would be wrong with them using $5 million of that to assist the smaller operators with their extra fuel costs?

The fact is that the Australian Business Aviation Association was seriously misled by CASA when CASA stated that they would not consider any exemptions for the non-radar airspace.

Personally it does not affect me at all as I do not charter out my aircraft and if it’s sitting in the hangar I am actually saving money. However I am concerned about a number of the charter operators who are fantastic little Aussie companies that need to be retained in our aviation sector – not destroyed.

[Captain Nomad]

There are 34 PC-12's in Australia. About half with the RFDS and half in private hands. Most have steam gauges (maybe only 8 have glass panels).

Old Akro, not sure where you got your PC12 data from but it is a bit off the mark. Australian Aviation September 2013 type listing shows a total of 55 PC12s (of all series) and 24 PC12/47E 'NG' machines (glass panel Honeywell Primus Apex). I know for a fact that the numbers have risen since September also with at least some of the new glass machines now ADSB compliant.

[Old Akro]

I got the numbers by searching the CASA database!

A few years I had a bit to do with Pilatus in Adelaide and at the time they said there was 24 in Australia, so I thought an increase of 10 smelled right. CASA must have some tucked away under a slightly different designation.

[Captain Nomad]

Hmm, I wonder how often the CASA database is updated then? :E

[Captain Nomad]

Just did the CASA database search and got the same result as Old Akro - 34. Found an interesting quirk though - if you search for 'PC12' it will only show results for PC-12/47 and /47E. If you specifically search for 'PC-12/45' it will actually bring up an additional 22 results for the older machines! 34+22=56 total PC12s which is probably pretty up to date in accuracy.

[andrewr]

How many aircraft are generally flying above FL290 outside the J curve?

I would have expected that separation via levels was possible in most cases during cruise? Climb and descent would be the issue, but then how do you get up and down without passing through airspace below FL290?

[Captain Nomad]

There is a lot of life outside the J curve... Transcontinental flights, internationals, North/South flights through the middle, Sandgroper territory with numerous North/South long distance flights which have exploded in number over the last few years, top end routes etc. Even flights from Kalgoorlie to Perth can get up to FL400.

[Nautilus Blue]

Also, I think they are pushing this through in an incredible hurry. If you are telling me that the mandate came in last December and they are going to move quickly to these new airspace procedures and not allow the non-ADS-B aircraft to have time to be updated?

The mandate was announced 5 years ago. I can understand your point, but as the GM ATC said in a recent interview, something like 40 non ADSB biz jets were imported between the announcement and the implementation. No one should have been taken by surprise, and possibly this whole argument is 5 years late?

I’m sure the United States could have decided to bring in the mandate five years ahead of time, but they realised it was going to cost the industry – especially the smaller operators – far more money than they could ever benefit from.
Agreed, but as previously stated ADSB does not give any new capability to US ATS whereas it makes a huge difference in Australia.

The fact is that the Australian Business Aviation Association was seriously misled by CASA when CASA stated that they would not consider any exemptions for the non-radar airspace.
If thats what CASA said then I agree they were lied to.

If I'm reading this CASA EX113/13 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01837) correctly it is CASA not ASA that are forbidding non ADSB aircraft in ADSB airspace. ASA hands are tied.

[Dick Smith]

All you have to do is go to Flightradar24 and you can see them all,

At this time only 4 aircraft in the central Australia area- and none above F390,

Plenty of space for even a beginner ATC to let a non ADSB aircraft climb or
descend at Ayers Rock.

How come no comments on my CAA letter- or doesn't anyone care if they comply with the law?

[willadvise]

All you have to do is go to Flightradar24 and you can see them all

No you can't. You only see the ones in range of the Flight radar 24 adsb receivers.

[Dick Smith]

Then there must be receiving enthusiasts in Alice and at the rock!

[Plazbot]

More the point is that no one cares that some rich guy can't fly their multi million dollar SECOND aircraft where ever they want. Ho hum. It is astounding how out of touch with the real world some people are I am sure you will agree.

[Old Akro]

More the point is that no one cares that some rich guy can't fly their multi million dollar SECOND aircraft where ever they want.

I find this just plain offensive. I don't know Dick and I'm not rich. But there are not different conditions depending on wealth. What is right is right. What is honest, transparent & rational behaviour by CASA doesn't change depending on income.

This should be a forum to debate issues. Its not a forum to sling off at guys that fit your description of having too much money.

I do not see this form of reverse snobbery in any other country's. Its one of the things I like least about Australia.

Man up and contribute to the debate or if you want to make personal shots at someone have the backbone to identify yourself.

[Awol57]

Dick, it's quite possibly one of the ATC guys at Alice. The planefinder feed for the northwest is run by an ATC in Karratha. So you only see what is visible to that receiver. Not sure how many are between us and Perth.

The others sites would be the same no doubt.

[Plazbot]

Hey Old Akro, let's back up about half a dozen pages and read the thread title where poor little Dicky accused Air Traffic Controllers of killing people if you want to talk offensive. The 'identify yourself' card is tiresome and completely against the rules of Pprune. I have reported your post.

[Old Akro]

Air Traffic Controllers of killing people

I don't believe that Dick has ever done this. He portrayed a potential future event in an alarmist manner to get attention, but for the most part this thread has had some pretty good debate.

poor little Dicky

Why do you feel this is necessary??

I have reported your post.

Go your hardest

[Creampuff]

It just goes to show how fundamentally different the culture of Australia is compared to that of the USA.

In the USA, individual freedom is at the heart of the culture. The country became and remains great because of each individual’s freedom to determine his or her own destiny. The kid training in the 152, the millionaire in the G5 and the 737 all get the same priority. They are the county. The government is grudgingly tolerated and held in constant suspicion.

In Australia, you’re all just subjects to be regulated by the government! The government is the country. The government decides what’s ‘in the public interest’. If it’s expedient for the government, it magically becomes the public interest to do it, and individuals can just go and get stuffed (or, as happens very frequently, move to the USA ….) The three day period for broken equipment does I agree smack of the airlines wanting to have their cake and eat it to. The military thing is just as hard to defend.Yup. I can think of stronger words than “hard”. This whole thing is just another Part 61. Its not properly thought through. Time they saw sense and delayed implementation the way they did with that. Would make more sense just to do it on the same timetable as the Yanks. At least technology options would exist that might even be affordable.Yup.Currently in the US there is FEDERALLY FUNDED FINANCE Programs available at 2% to upgrade your aircraft with ADSB capable equipment.

This encourages the operator to not only comply with the requirements but also fix upgrade their whole nav suite.....

Is it no wonder that there are compliance issues here where there is no support of the industry by the government and regulator in order to achieve compliance.Yup. The Yanks have this crazy idea that if they are proposing to force something on an individual so that someone else gets a benefit, they’re obliged to sweeten the deal. In Australia, if the individuals disadvantaged don’t have enough political clout to change a government, they can go and get stuffed.

Dick: Remember when you were threatening to support Tony Windsor to run against John Anderson in his comfy House of Reps seat? That’s when the government pretended to take you seriously and gave you lots of aviation things to play with. It was, after all, ‘in the public interest’.

My suggestion is that if you want your ideas about ADSB to be implemented, you’d better start looking for someone popular to run against Warren Truss. :ok:

[Sarcs]

OA: This should be a forum to debate issues. Its not a forum to sling off at guys that fit your description of having too much money.
Well said OA..:D and top post Creamy...:ok:

To add another dimension to this debate and in context of Creamy's...

"...It just goes to show how fundamentally different the culture of Australia is compared to that of the USA...."

...the Yanks in the area of ATC are also in a world of hurt but their hurt is largely to do with an ever decreasing pot of funds and a Congress diminished in effectiveness due to divisive political self-interest...:{

Came across an article from the US Cato institute titled.. New Study on Air Traffic Control Reform
(http://www.cato.org/blog/new-study-air-traffic-control-reform)...which also links to a report just completed by Robert Poole from the Hudson Institute titled Organization and Innovation in Air Traffic Control (http://ifi.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=9826&pubType=IFI_Studies_Papers) One of Poole's findings in the report actually praises countries like Australia for embracing self-supporting organisations, like ASA, to run ATC: •Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and Germany are doing a better job of embracing new technologies for ATC. These countries have restructured their systems as self-supporting organizations outside of their government bureaucracies. Unfortunately that would appear to be the sum total of comparison with Oz, as the report primarily focusses and promotes the US northern neighbour's (Nav Canada) ATC system as the model to which the US should espouse: Airports and Air Traffic Control (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/airports-atc)Canada's ATC system has been fully commercialized.30 In 1996, Canada set up a private, nonprofit ATC corporation, Nav Canada, which is self-supporting from charges on aviation users. The Canadian system has been widely praised for its sound finances, solid management, and its investment in new technologies.31 The Canadian system is a very good reform model for the United States to consider. Nav Canada's corporate board is composed largely of aviation stakeholders.32 It has 4 seats for the airlines, 3 for the government, 2 for employees, and 1 for the non-commercial aviation industry. Those 10 stakeholders select 4 directors from outside aviation, and then those 14 select the company president, who becomes the 15th board member. To further strengthen governance, neither elected officials nor anyone connected with suppliers to Nav Canada can serve on the board. Nav Canada also has a 20-member outside Advisory Committee.

A number of studies have found that ATC commercialization has generally resulted in improvements to service quality, better management, and reduced costs.33 At the same time, air safety has remained the same or improved in the countries that have pursued reforms to set up independent ANSP organizations.

A thorough 2009 report by Glen McDougall and Alasdair Roberts compared the performance of 10 commercialized ATC systems and the FAA during the 1997 to 2004 period.34 They looked at large amounts of performance and safety data from the systems in the various countries and conducted over 200 interviews with managers, workers, and users of the different systems. The researchers found:

ANSP commercialization has generally achieved its objectives. Service quality has improved in most cases. Several ANSPs have successfully modernized workplace technologies. The safety records of ANSPs are not adversely affected by commercialization, and in some cases safety is improved. Costs are generally reduced, sometimes significantly. Other risks of commercialization—such as erosion of accountability to government, deterioration of labor relations, or worsened relationships between civil and military air traffic controllers—have not materialized.35

For the United States, a commercialized ATC organization would be more likely than the FAA to efficiently implement the major aviation infrastructure advances that the nation desperately needs. Air traffic control is more complex and dynamic than ever, and it needs to be managed in the sort of efficient and flexible manner that only a commercialized environment can offer. Countries like Canada have shown the way forward for air traffic control, and U.S. policymakers should adopt the proven organizational reforms that have been implemented abroad. Hmm..this is getting a bit repetitive bloody Canucks leading the way again...:E (like with the TSBC & Transport Canada:D), must have something to do with the rarefied air in those northern latitudes..:confused:

Anyway thought this could possibly add another perspective to what is becoming a great debate..?? :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Creampuff


you’d better start looking for someone popular to run against Warren Truss.


I once lived in Truss' electorate and he treated my letters to him with gross indifference and displayed all the virtues of a king with his serfs. I have since written to him in his present Ministerial position and was ignored until I went through my local member and only then did I get a 'mickey mouse' answer more to appease the local bloke than me.


My grandkids wrote to Ronald McDonald c/o the local dispensary of hamburgers and GOT A REPLY and some freebies for them and their school.


What's that tell you?

[Creampuff]

It tells you he didn’t care because he didn’t have to care. It tells you it was ‘his’ seat whether or not he responded to your letters.

If Dick gets on ‘Australia All Over’ each Sunday morning and starts promoting someone against Warren Truss in Warren Truss’s seat, because the government isn’t requiring ATCers to wear pink tutus, ATCers will end up wearing pink tutus. It would clearly be ‘in the public interest’ for them to do so. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Jack in a pink tutu. Bring it on.

[Frank Arouet]

Ronald McDonald in a pink tutu would still be more popular than Warren Truss. The aviation portfolio needs a loose cannon like Barnaby Joyce or Fiona Nash to run the show.


As you correctly say, the government is grudgingly tolerated and held in constant suspicion in the US, while here, I believe, the government is held captive by the Bureaucracy. Some sort of 'Stockholm Syndrome' aberration?


BTW has anyone heard anything about when the DAS is going? Is it still February?


I keep hearing rumors that things are about to change with this new mob. I don't hold much hope for the Truss 'review' but looking at a wider picture, 'post review' may lead up to the Brandis/ Attorney General matter already having the wheat separated from the chaff to suit it's initial requirements for the terms of reference. Of note one being the reversal of the burden of proof which could put paid to the criminalization of administrative breeches and open the door to having the whole 23+ years of regulation review 'dimwittery' put to the sword and put in place the FAR's equivalent.


But I've been wrong before.

[Cactusjack]

Frank, my source tells me Mr Angry will be around until sometime in March. Just a rumour though. And then he will fly away.

Pink tutu's? Interesting, but I think Hoody would probably look the best in one of those :ok:
I can picture Truss and Mrdak dressed like Adam and Eve, walking the gardens of Parliament House nude except for lettuce leaves strategically placed over their man bits! As for the rest of Fort Fumbles execs, the potty ones, here they are;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bQidM91CkXE

They borrowed Pot Plant Pete from Senator Nash's office, and some of Fort Fumbles plants as well!

[dubbleyew eight]

I keep hearing rumors that things are about to change with this new mob. I don't hold much hope for the Truss 'review' but looking at a wider picture, 'post review' may lead up to the Brandis/ Attorney General matter already having the wheat separated from the chaff to suit it's initial requirements for the terms of reference. Of note one being the reversal of the burden of proof which could put paid to the criminalization of administrative breeches and open the door to having the whole 23+ years of regulation review 'dimwittery' put to the sword and put in place the FAR's equivalent.

I sincerely hope that you are correct.
the move to strict liability is the very stupidest change in law ever inflicted on a basically honest population of pilots.

from my personal perspective I got back into aviation after a break about 15 years ago now. I read all the aviation acts, all the regs all the other aviation bumf. locked it away in the head.
I didnt agree with it all but understood it.

I absolutely refuse to read any of this new legislative crap. It is heading inthe wrong direction and it is all crap. all of it.

I would support the entire dismissal of CASA and replaced by contracting out the oversight to Transport Canada.

In Classic Wings Downunder issue 91 is a wonderful testament to just how bad CASA is.
The Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum were restoring to airworthiness a Lancaster Bomber.
I quote from the article...
"The restoration work took many years with great assistance from Air Canada, Dowty, Western Propeller and many others. The Department of Transport also supported the Lancaster restoration by issuing a Restricted Certification Authority letter in March 1985. This RCA allowed the DOT in Ottawa to supervise the restoration from arms length and the CWHM to certify the Lancaster without having the endorsement on a private aircraft mechanics licence."

Can you imagine HARS ever having that sort of cooperation from our Fumble Fort? CASA need to be abolished from Australian Aviation permanently.

[Frank Arouet]

That clip looks like they're wearing a jelly mold on their heads. Seems appropriate, but I feel I'll now have nightmares about Truss, Mrdak and Lettuce leaves. Thanks for that.


W8, any mob who have their own dictionary to explain their version of the Oxford version is bent and demonstrates what's wrong with the system. That and 23+ years and $millions to achieve nothing is incompetence and is why the whole show needs the sword including all it's functionaries. I understand DOCS are looking for good folk to further bugger the family unit. Oh, and there's also The Greens. Same horse just different jockey's.

[tyler_durden_80]

'in the USA, individual freedom is at the heart of the culture.'

C'mon...seriously...? Two words. Patriot Act.

[Jack Ranga]

Green is more my colour ;)

[Frank Arouet]

Did I mention The French?

[Creampuff]

'in the USA, individual freedom is at the heart of the culture.'

C'mon...seriously...? Two words. Patriot Act.Tell you what. Go on to a few US aviation blogs and tell them that all flight crew should be required to have and display a thing called an “Aviation Security Identification Card”.

Let me know if you make it out alive. :ok:

[CaptainMidnight]

Quote:

All you have to do is go to Flightradar24 and you can see them all


No you can't. You only see the ones in range of the Flight radar 24 adsb receivers.

Correct. Flightradar24 relies on "enthusiasts" to set up their own receivers and feed whatever data they receive to Flightradar24.

From the site:
Flightradar24 relies on volunteers around the world for the majority of our coverage.

It most certainly doesn't display all aircraft. In areas away from the J curve only a very low percentage are displayed, those that happen to be within range of an enthusiast's site. That's obvious from looking at the map.

[Old Akro]

I assume that the 4 biggest GA areas in the world are the US, Europe, Canada and Australia - in that order. The comparisons are a bit rubbery because different country's have different aircraft registration definitions (ie Australia does not count RAA registrations, but some other countries do).

Australia seems to be completely on its own in mandating ADS-B for GA and for IFR below 10,000 ft.

WHY?

And given that no other major country seems to be adopting Australia's "one size fits all" regime, I would assume that the rest of the world has found a way to accommodate non compliant aircraft like Dick's Citation.

I agree that ADS-B has benefits, but why the rush to implement a blanket solution in Australia before the mandated equipment is readily available????

Here is the roundup I have found:

The US is implementing ADS-B by 1 Jan 2020 in class A, B & C airspace and in class E only above 10,000 ft.

See here: ADS-B Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/programs/adsb/faq/#7)

Europe seems to be bundling ADS-B implementation in with the "Single Sky" policy via EASA. Its a bit hazy to me, but I can't see that Europe ever intends to mandate ADS-B for aircraft under 5700 kg / 250 kt cruise speed, although implementation into GA still seems to be in debate.

See here:

http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2010/adsb/sp22.pdf

Canada

No current plan to implement across domestic airspace.

See:

http://www.midcanadamod.com/sites/default/files/adsb_white_paper_for_posting.pdf



Some useful summaries from Honeywell

http://pages3.honeywell.com/rs/honeywell3/images/ADS-B%20for%20BAN%209-2013.pptx

And Boeing

http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2012_ADS_B_SITF_11/SP09_Boeing%20ICAO%20ADS-B%20SITF-11%20041812%20Final.pdf

And Boeing again

http://www.caac.gov.cn/dev/fbs/xjsyy/201006/P020100623590147660674.pdf

[Awol57]

Any chance you could now compare those 4 countries level of surveillance coverage? The picture may perhaps become a bit clearer I suspect.

[Old Akro]

QUOTE]Any chance you could now compare those 4 countries level of surveillance coverage?[/QUOTE]

I don't think that is possible from publicly available data.

Its hard enough finding what I did. And once you get into ICAO minutes you're eyes cross. In part the lack of information I suspect its a reflection that most of the rest of the world doesn't attach the significance to ADS-B that we do. But my guess is that Canada might be quite similar to Australia in terms of surveillance coverage and implementing ADS-B domestically is not even on their agenda.

However, I will counter with the question whether ADS-B will make any measurable improvement below 10,000ft (or maybe even F150) outside the J curve?

1. The traffic densities are very low and 2. Most of the traffic is VFR NOSAR NODETAILS and therefore ADS-B is not offering anything in terms of traffic separation or increased safety. ATC has bugger all value to the pilot in these areas and nearly everyone saves the money & aggravation.

Indeed I would go further and argue that ATC does not even represent a safety net for emergencies (outside the main population centres) since it doesn't monitor 121.5 and flightwatch is effectively disbanded. In the era of Sat phones, satellite trackers (eg Spot) and 406 MHz GPS EPIRBS, we are better off looking after ourselves.

The areas where ADS-B will make a big difference are the non radar coverage airports with RPT like Mildura & Albury where we should be slapped for not having put in radar decades ago.

Somewhat interestingly, the regional airline turboprops that operate in these airports that would greatly benefit from the additional safety of ADS-B are currently exempt from implementing ADS-B until 2017 since they typically operate below F280. Yet Dick's Citation can't transit through the ADS-B levels even in remote areas.

Once again, I support ADS-B. But it seems like we have made a mess of the implementation.

Why have we used altitude to define who needs ADS-B? Other countries have used airspace type (eg US) or flight type (eg RPT in Europe)?

Wouldn't it be more important to get all RPT on ADS-B than an IFR C-182?

After 2017 an IFR aircraft will require a $20,000 + ADS-B installation to fly from Mildura to Broken Hill at 3,000ft Why?

After 2017 an IFR aircraft will need ADSB to fly from Moorabbin to Essendon for an Essendon entry. Why? ( I can see more special VFR requests).

After 2017 if I fly from (say) JR's Lethbridge base to Temora for one of the museum fly-ins. There is a bit of weather around the Mountains, so rather than scud run, I'll put in an IFR plan (which surely is safer and should be encouraged). Its spring and the freezing level is a bit low, so I plan at 5,000 ft and go via Ballarat which keeps me under the steps then maybe Bendigo, Tocumwal, Temora. ADS-B will not improve my safety one iota. I will have potential VFR non ADS-B traffic scud running at various altitudes, Potential Non ADS-B traffic cruising VFR at (maybe) ICAO levels, Non RAA(Aus) traffic doing things that only they understand at any level, Non-ADSB gliders and potentially non-ADSB skydive aircraft. So, ATC cannot offer me any better separation or traffic advice that they can today. Why did I spend that $23,500 on the ADS-B upgrade?

A couple of flights ago I met an RV - without functioning mode C - cruising opposite direction at the IFR ICAO level of 9,000 ft while I was on an IFR plan. How does ADS-B improve this? Would I be better off with a $1,000 ZAON XRX?

[T28D]

Why are we surprised we live in the worlds most over regulated society with a bureaucracy full of mindless time servers.

[FGD135]

Australia seems to be completely on its own in mandating ADS-B for GA and for IFR below 10,000 ft.

WHY?Why has CASA been so silent on the answer to this question?

As I stated earlier, I believe the answer is related to staffing levels within ASA, given that labour costs in Australia are very likely the highest in the world.

Perhaps some bean counter/bureaucrat has some incentive payments linked to his future success at reducing staff levels.

I think we would all like to see CASA give a proper explanation.

[Awol57]

I am not an enroute controller so I am not really sure what difference it will make to them workload wise with the introduction of the low level stuff.

As a procedural tower controller I can't see ADSB anyway, however it certainly makes it easier for me when Centre can separate longer to help with a sequence or even getting the higher one that is in front through the followings level (5nm radar vs 20nm with no closing procedural standard).

But I am also equally happy to hold you up high and overfly while number 2 becomes number 1 because he was cruising at a lower level. The joys of procedural separation.

[FGD135]

Old Akro,


Thanks for the links to that further information. I haven't delved into it yet, but am really curious about one particular aspect of this issue:

The requirement that the ADSB transmitted position be the same as the position used by the onboard navigation system.

I am curious because this one requirement has made the installation requirements much more complicated - and therefore, much more expensive. I heard that, for a chap with a Global 5000 jet, the avionics upgrade cost him about $130,000.

This requirement would be acceptable if there was some tangible benefit behind it, but I cannot see any. I would really like to know what the supposed advantage/benefit is.

I can only see a disadvantage, which is because there could have been two (2) independent positions in play, but now there is only one.

With two positions, it would have been more obvious if a significant discrepancy between positions had arisen. With only one, that discrepancy could remain hidden.

I know this is not a big concern, given the expected accuracy and consistency of the positions, but in the absence of any other reasons, it really stands out.


It would have been a much more robust system with the two positions in play. I think we all take the availability and accuracy of GNSS positions for granted these days, but a future event involving solar flares (taking out some of the satellites) could make things interesting.

[Old Akro]

As I stated earlier, I believe the answer is related to staffing levels within ASA, given that labour costs in Australia are very likely the highest in the world.

How would you know?

Airservices Australia seems to be one of the few member organisations of CANSO (Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation) that does NOT participate in the benchmarking study.

I wonder why not?

CANSO - Transforming Global ATM Performance (http://www.canso.org/)

[dubbleyew eight]

sorry if this is a thread drift....but.

do you guys realise that there are more people outside of aviation playing with ADSB than there ever will be inside of aviation.

my boy has hacked his way through most of his experiments, but hasn't quite got the final thing working. there are evidently thousands of people playing with this.

using an american data mobile phone connected to a raspberry pi and a bunch of code in the raspberry pi to decode the adsb signals he has full output of everything the adsb system is transmitting line of sight.
he is working to input the information to his oz runways display on his iPad.

very interesting.
once the prototyping is sorted the chipsets get made into a reliable board and become a commercial product is my guess. maybe not by him but by lots of others.

[Old Akro]

The requirement that the ADSB transmitted position be the same as the position used by the onboard navigation system.

I have seen someone working on a discrete C146a GPS box simply to feed mode s transponders. I forget who, but it was one of the TSO manufacturers - the likes of Trig / Aspen / Sandel or maybe Becker. The idea is to get a cheaper way to feed the mode s transponder than upgrading the GPS.

So --- I don't know.


But I can see this being another 406 Mz transponder or Part 61 type implementation stuff up and at the 11th hour CASA will realise they have done something unworkable, back down and blame it on industry not being ready despite x years notice.

As a corollary, a friend noted tat a new car is pretty much always launched on time (or within a week or two) after what may have been a 5 year development. And, this is the industry that is fat and inefficient that we don't want. When was the last time we saw a government project delivered fully functional on time?

[Sunfish]

Idly thinking of buying a gtn635 and coupling it to the Skyview and a Skyview transponder.

That would make me the slowest, but fully AdSb compliant aircraft in the world. If I ever got stuck in IMC in theory the GTN (with jeppesen database of approaches) coupled to the Skyview autopilot might get me out of trouble.

Reading this thread turned me off the idea. My view is that CaSA sees Ads-B as giving them "total information awareness" and the ability to automatically generate infringement notices throughout the country as well as pinpoint any aircraft for purposes of harassing its owner/ pilot.

No sale.

[dubbleyew eight]

not only but also....

if you can see the speed and id of an aircraft and its position you can home in on it.

not everyone would want to home in on an aircraft for friendly reasons methinks.

casa's mindset and the innocent openness of adsb are just a packet of salted crisps for the mind of a determined hacker.
something to be munched on as a pleasantry.

[Frank Arouet]

Some Bureaucrats would have us all micro chipped or tattooed at birth. It fits in with the new world order I believe.

[Cactusjack]

I think the acronym CASA is inaccurate and outdated. They have no reasonable input into 'Aviation', absolutely no input into 'Safety', and they abuse and misuse their 'Authority'. The word 'Civil' can stay because they do worm their way through the civil side of things (lucky the RAAF don't have to deal with them in great deal). So I am going to simply call them C--- for the time being :ok:

And Frank, Dr Hoodoovoodoo already knows what we are all up to mate - magic potions, Witchdoctory, hocus pocus, boiling cauldrons, pins in dolls etc etc. He sees much :=

[Frank Arouet]

I read a book a long time ago. Bamboo and Bushido. Forgot the Author, but he was a Pommie caught at Singapore. He related a new Jap Commanders first day on the job addressing some Aussies. It went something like this;


"You Orstralian bastards. You think I know fcuk nothing... well I tell you I know fcuk all.


And that is what our doctor of witchdoctery knows.

[Jabawocky]

Hey Dick

Has your LAME read SL525B-34-05 by any chance?

[rotorblades]

I can certainly see two sides to this argument, I can also wholeheartedly say I was a little offended by the title...

Regardless of whether now was or was not the right time to implement ADSB required airspace, a date has/had to be fixed...it would've been preferable for all concerned to have been a date when all aircraft can reasonably have been expected to be heable to receive the equipment, through serv bulletins or whatever, but also a date taste encouraged the manufacturers I te aircraft to actually get it done n not drag their heels forever...

ADSB for GA is very useful on an ATC side of things, probably a bit cost prohibitive for general GA but that's not my argument...for example in the airspace I control on the J Curve we have lots of military airspace & C steps and there are several GA aircraft regularly seen flying around with ADB squirting out..this helps very one out as if we see that aircraft tracking towards or into mil airspace, restricted airspace, CTA we can direct out call specifically, rather than just make a general broadcast for a VFR based on a point/geographic position/Navajos that the pilot not know or be aware of and thus ignore the call thinking it's not him

I'm not saying GA should be forced to get ADSB squitters, before people jump all over me, just that it is a valuable safety device

And dick, don't blame the controllers we have to follow the rules or we lose our controlling privileges and potentially our jobs...blame the ones who made this decision and took the ATCs flexibility away

[Creampuff]

When you have an ‘big airline’ aircraft with an ADSB system that’s been unserviceable for less than 3 days, or a regional airline turboprop or a military aircraft without an ADSB system, how do you manage?

What’s the practical impediment to managing the teesny weensy number of other non-ADSB equipped aircraft in the same way, until 2017? :confused:

[underfire]

Quite the conversation. First off, I will caveat by saying I am not a proponent of ADSB, but not for most of the reasoning I see in this thread.

A system is needed to provide location and indentification of aircraft in the airspace. Mostly for ATC, but also for self separation and avoidance.
We have to face it, the airspace, like any other highway, is getting crowded and congested.
Unfortunately, the means and methods of tracking in that airspace, are stressed to the limits, and development around airports has significantly reduced RADAR capability.
Incoming ADSB. Currently, in my opinion, being touted as an intermediate /future step in airspace management, but actually, it is a technologically ancient system. ADSB uses the 800 Mhz system, recently moving ground ops to 1090 Mhz taking some of the load off. (you can see all of the 'commitees' working on the broadcast message)
The ADSB system has the capability, due to bandwidth, to manage 4000 'messages' per second. The message is each signal broadcast, but important, a signal is a single 32 bit message. 32 bits does not include one whole hell of a lot. (ie, a single message string includes aircraft id, but not location) Each broadcast string, per aircraft, to include ID and location, etc, will consist of many message strings.
Depending on the frequency of messages (typical is every 5 seconds) the data from the ac will be broadcast. So, long stry short, each aircraft, depending on the requirements, will be broadcasting multiple strings of data, at 5 second intervals.
It is also important to keep in mind that aircraft are not the only ones using this system and frequency.

Being an 800MHz system, (and 1090) there is a limitation to the bandwidth and sub frequencies available. This system cannot multipath, so when a freq/subfreq is used, it is unavailable to others. As a point of reference, many are familiar with push to talk hand held radios, ADSB is the same type of system that push to talk systems use, so when you push to talk, you use that bandwidth until you unpush. That is why the ADSB system for aircraft is limited to a 32 bit string.
That 32 bit string equates to 4000 ADSB messages per second. WOW that seems great!
Then reality creeps in once again.
Each aircraft broadcasting strings, ID, then location, then speed, etc..every 3 seconds, doesnt take long to determine in a crowded airspace, how many messages ADSB system will encounter.

A while back, we did a trial at Munich, well in 1995. When full capability was turned on, there were 40 THOUSAND messages per second. Remember above, the freq/system had capability of 4000/second. The ADSB was effectively shut down, hence the need for 'selective capability' of the system, or in regulatory speak, 'committees' to determine signal content and priority.

This is why mandates have been so far out. When some agencys, like the FAA, in 2005, set a deadline for 2020, it simply means, push off this deadline to after I retire so I dont have to make this work during my career.

Sooo, long story short.

In 2020, when the ADSB mandates and protocals are in full decided and put into operation, it will be the technological equivalent of using Morse Code on your cell phone.

[Old Akro]

Mostly for ATC, but also for self separation and avoidance.


Underfire, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it Australia (unlike the US) is not implementing ADSB-IN, therefore we will be denied the ability to see other ADSB returns and therefore unable to self separate. When I shell out the money for a new Garmin GTN unit to achieve the required C146a input, I will not have the option of seeing traffic like our American counterparts.

For the RPT sectors, I can see absolute benefit from ADSB. Especially the non radar RPT destinations like Mildura.

However, for a private GA IFR pilot like me who flies below 10,000 ft about 90% of the time, I cannot see any benefit because I will be still mixing with non ADSB VFR traffic and even non transponder RA(Aus), historic and glider traffic.

[Jabawocky]

However, for a private GA IFR pilot like me who flies below 10,000 ft about 90% of the time, I cannot see any benefit because I will be still mixing with non ADSB VFR traffic and even non transponder RA(Aus), historic and glider traffic.

I do and have. But I can understand some arguing it is not warranted. I am glad to have it. :ok:

[Old Akro]

I'd like to consider the Avidyne GPS and the King txp. It may to be hard to do that and meet the deadline. All the US manufacturers are working to a 2020 deadline for UAT units (with ES units as a second priority), not our 2016 deadline.

But, while its a good thing, it would be better value (as far as I'm concerned) if we had gone with ADSB-IN.

And, I can't see how my safety will be improved at all. I can see that AsA will save money. I can see that is makes controllers life easier. But outside the primary control steps I can't see that it makes my flight any safer or that traffic separation will be handled any differently because of the mix of non ADS-B VFR traffic.

If we were serious, we'd mandate it on all aircraft and subsidise implementation like the US.

[peuce]

I often wonder if Airservices/CASA have considered all the effects of greater surveillance.

For example, with a greater visibility of air traffic, have they considered the greater workload of Controllers...burdened with a duty of care to intervene in any potential conflictions...whether inside or outside Controlled Airspace?

Will more Controllers be required? If so, where from?

[underfire]

Akro, (warning: rambling content :})

The best use for ADSB is for the areas outside RADAR and to provide better update rates than a RADAR system. Especially valuable for trans Oceanic flight tracking.

While ADSB-In has been touted to provide all sorts of wonderful benefits, it will likely never, ever happen. As noted in the Boeing document, they fully support ADSB-out, and say they will look to meet mandates for In. The plans show for ADSB-In to be used on the ground, even equipping all ground vehicles. Nice diagrams and work for the next 30 years, but I am sure that technology will run right past the capability. The ground movement has pretty much stalled because ADSB is line of sight, and when the ac is sitting or on taxi, the runway surface reflection, other aircraft, and structures, blocks the signal.

All of this ADSB has been in the works for many, many years, operating in a silo, and not keeping up with technology. Its broadcast is limited to line of sight, low power, so in AUS, while you may be broadcasting, there would have to be stations to receive, with GA altitudes, a lot of stations!

There are far better, faster ways of achieving the same goals with current and near current technologies. That is why I feel it will languish like MLS.

The significant reason why you will never see any commercial system rely on ADSB data is that the signal is not secure, and there is no way to validate. It is very easy to spoof the ADSB broadcast signal, so you really dont want to turn on the 'In' of your FMS. ADS-C is a contract, and does have some security capabilities.

What kills me is the 1090 band is already used up in many areas of the world, and the capabilities havent even been turned on yet. So, now they are looking at ac below 18,000 to use 978. Lets back up to the first point. The FAA is already aware the system is busted with just the basic information being transmitted. The 'congestion' as they call it, means it starts leaving aircraft out of the system

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Good find on that SB, Jaba...been googling for days to see what was actually on the boards....come up with nada except comments on availability this year. Still cannot find anything relating to that SB anywhere.

underfire, FRUIT is a real issue in Europe and east coast US...not likely out here for a very long time, if ever. 1090Mhz is still VHF!

OldAkro, you do not have to wait for a certified Rx unit to gain benefit from advisory data.

EDIT...underfire...have you actually read any data on how ANY ADS-B system works?

[T28D]

Since when is a Giga Hertz VHF ???? 1090Mhz is still VHF!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Arrrrrfgggh...my bad! UHF!...OK...back to RF101:ugh:

[Creampuff]

I think you'll find that 300 meg to 3 gig is UHF. :ok:

[Jabawocky]

old radio techs......gotta love em hey creamy :ok:

Dick and anyone else interested. Here is an ADS-B world summary from the Cessna folks from last October. It is well worth watching for an overview of ADS-B systems, standards, equipment upgrades and the related stuff.

CESCAST For October, 31, 2013-ADS-B Update - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dieDQ0wDAUo&feature=youtu.be)

Some points to consider;

1. The delay in equipment options due the US move from DO260A to DO260B minimum standards fairly late in the game.
2. That aircraft with Collins 260A compliant gear (outside the US - including Australia) have a simple ‘jumper’ amendment available – Hey Dick, has Ol’ mate LAME read SL525B-34-05 yet?

[sprocket check]

And here is something about the reliability of ADSB (from a RF hack site):

Unusual landing site
First, what a brilliant concept you have there. Really nice.
Second. Was watching QF 0613, VH-VZU this morning, 2304 at around 0725 landing on RWY 34. The Flight Deck view (also really good, the MS Flight Sim guys will love it) showed it was landing at YSSY but on Google Earth it appeared to land next to Gundaroo Rd about 9nm south of the Hume Hwy.

I hope this is the sort of feedback you are looking for. Hopefully you will get this coding issue sorted and you produce an outstanding aviation app. Are you going to do one for YMML since it is a 24 hour airport, unlike YSSY with its curfew. ;-)

reply
Mon, 23/04/2012 - 11:00 — balint
RE: Unusual landing site
Thanks for testing it out!

This is an interesting phenomenon: I have spent a great deal of time adding sanity checks so that corrupted position reports do not throw out airframe tracks. If an ADS-B frame is valid though, it is processed as-is. There are, in fact, a number of broken transponders, which result in very odd tracks, such as the one you saw. I have verified this with other receivers/services too - so I think chances are they're sending bad data (and AvMap is interpreting it as it ought to).

Some people have kindly offered a feed for YMML, so it will hopefully be on the map soon!

[Dick Smith]

I still find fascinating the complete lack of ethics from CASA and Airservices on this issue. As my letter of Friday 10 January 2014 to John McCormick stated (see HERE (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/dicksmithflyer_-_140110_letter_to_john_mccormick_re_ads-b.pdf)), “Exemption requests for other areas of airspace will not be approved is totally illegal.

The industry at the time believed the advice was correct so did not put up a strong case for exemption requests in the non-radar airspace believing the statement of CASA to be supported by law. It clearly was not.

My suggestion is you read the letter again. It’s interesting how there have been no comments on this letter from CASA.

It’s interesting – I’ve copied my letter to John McCormick to Minister Warren Truss but he has not yet made an announcement that he will force CASA to comply with the law – the sensible thing in this case would be to delay the mandate for, say, twelve months whilst a proper consultation can take place.

The Cessna video which is linked on a previous post is interesting if you can stay there for the whole forty minutes. First of all it states that in Australia only about 8% of the business aviation aircraft have been able to become compliant. It then mentions, “the goal posts have been moved” then such words as, “the technical solution from our suppliers does not exist. In Australia the timing is very challenging” - that is, indeed, an understatement with business aviation aircraft being forced to fly at low levels using lots more fuel, required to fly lower in bad weather and also having to land unnecessarily enroute.

If you watch the video they mention Canada – how different to Australia! The ADS-B mandatory level is flight level 350 to flight level 400 but, most importantly, you can apply to fly in those levels without ADS-B if there is not another aircraft that is going to be affected.

I am amazed that Minister Warren Truss hasn’t said to CASA words to the effect, “Comply with the law. If you have informed the industry that no exemption requests will be accepted when this is against the law, you will have to change that advice and delay the introduction”. Why hasn’t the Minister said this? In my view he has always seemed to be an honest person. Is it that he is not game to force them to comply with the law?

It’s interesting that John McCormick clearly stated that a reasonable dispensation would be allowed, however the people below him have simply ignored his advice. The only advantage in bringing in this mandate so early is a potential cost saving for Airservices by being able to reduce staffing levels. But surely they can delay this for twelve months whilst they comply with the law?

More importantly, if they are going to make a huge saving from this premature introduction of mandatory ADS-B above flight level 290 in the non-radar airspace, why can’t they compensate the small number of aircraft that are having to pay extra? If this is a small part of the total savings it would be a sensible and ethical thing to do.

See HERE (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/dicksmithflyer_-_140113_ds_ltr_minister_warren_truss_re_urgent_action_requir ed_re_ads-b.pdf)for a recent letter I sent to the Minister asking him for a meeting within three days. As of today’s date, eight days after the letter was sent, no response has been received.

I will repeat – I find it fascinating that CASA requires the industry to comply with the law but doesn’t seem to have to do so itself.

Once again, I will say I am not blaming the Air Traffic Controllers for this situation, however if they do force an aircraft into bad weather and an accident results, I know what the media will say.

[Creampuff]

I will repeat – I find it fascinating that someone with your smarts and experience still hasn’t worked out that it hasn’t got anything to do with what’s right or wrong. If you want something done about ADSB (or you want ATCers to wear pink tutus), identify and publicly support a popular candidate for Mr Truss’s House of Reps seat. :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Unless he 'bugs out' and leaves Barnaby in charge, I doubt the plebs want to wait that long. Probably doing a job on him would have a better and quicker result. His sterling performance as 'acting PM' is a measure of his worth in any job. I'm hoping he proves me wrong and is only setting CASA up for a fall with his 'review' which will give Brandis something to go on with his inquisition into the legal system. Why is Shorten telling fibs about Abbott stealing from pensioners when he could be attacking this bloke?


Oh, I get it. Something will probably come back to bite him on the arse. Maybe CASA should get into the insurance business.

[Jabawocky]

Dick, I take it then that this is all about

1. You think the implementation is illegal, and maybe it is.
2. ASA and airlines gaining a benefit but it costs you to equip.
3. making outrageous hypothetical "sky is falling" claims
4. ......and nothing to do with you having the ability at modest cost (comparatively) to squitting out ADSB.

Your claims at point 1 might be true, but based on the rest how do you expect the rest of industry to support your cause. Maybe you should have supported strongly the subsidy concept several years ago? If you had it would have taken care of points 2,3 & 4 and point 1 would have been moot by now.

So Dick, having sat through the video and no doubt you have obtained a copy of the SL, what did Cessna say or quote you to do the jumper swap and fill in the log books? Even if it was a lot of paper work it surely can't be much more than a 4-5 hour job?

[Creampuff]

Frank, we wouldn't have to wait for the actual loss of a seat. Last time around there mere prospect of Mr Smith moving and supporting a powerful chess piece to a very inconvenient place on the electoral chess board acheived the result he wanted. :ok:

[CaptainMidnight]

I see the letters to Messer's McCormick and Truss both infer Flightradar24 displays all aircraft.

Any ATC confirm what percentage of aircraft outside the "J" curve it displays vs reality? Or have a TAAATS screen grab of a time period the same as Flightradar24 for a comparison?

Closest I can come up with is this, which according to a Google search comes from an Airservices presentation to the Engineers Australia Southern Highlands and Tablelands Regional Group conference. While 2 years old it does show far more traffic outside the "J" curve than Flightradar24 does now.

Air Traffic Control Video - YouTube

I also stumbled across this. Quite cute I thought.

http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/wp-content/post_images/PDFs/050151B3-2.pdf

[Jabawocky]

The issue over it being a cost and staff reduction is far fetched, it is more about providing the safe level of service to a rapidly increased amount of traffic with no surveillance at all. Unlike the USA with Radar everywhere, we don't and won't. This is about giving the controllers at the coal face the tools needed to handle the increasing volumes in a more congested space. Radar or ADSB will do it, take your pick.


Capt12am

Flight radar24 and the like take feeds from plane spotting PC users who have an ADSB receiver on their roof and provide the data live via the internet to the FR24 site.

They will not have anywhere near the coverage in central Australia that ASA have due to the lack of techno nerd plane spotters in the GAFA.

[Dick Smith]

Jaba, I can afford to do the mod- so no problems for me personally.

There are lots of operators who cannot remain viable while doing the upgrade.

If Canada with its very large amount of polar traffic heading to the USA in non radar covered airspace can come up with a fair mandate why can't ASA?

And why doesn't anyone answer Creampuffs very reasonable query about how military aircraft and Airlines with faulty equipment can be handled but not an occasional bisjet.?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

An alternative view...bizjet A is compliant and bizjet B is not. Which jet will be chartered by safety pedantic mining company?

[Frank Arouet]

The cheapest.

[Old Akro]

safety pedantic mining company

How would they know? The mining companies are about lip service

[Dick Smith]

By the look of it there is are enthusiasts sending Flight24 data from both Alice and Ayers Rock- and that's where biz jets want to operate to
and from!

[Awol57]

You guys clearly have close ties to the mining industry then... :rolleyes:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Nahhh, just doesn't fit their argument.

.....no entry, mate. You haven't got the right number of holes in your lace up boots.

[underfire]

ozbusdriver...why yes, I do, what are you referencing?

Aside from that..

This is from ASA

ADSB coverage at 5,000 ft
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/adsb_at_5000f_GM.jpg

Coverage at 10,000

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/adsb_at_10000ft_GM.jpg

Coverage at 20,000

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/adsb_at_20000ft_GM.jpg

Coverage at 30,000

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/adsb_at_30000ft_GM.jpg

[Creampuff]

A question for the ATCers

When you have a ‘big airline’ aircraft with an ADSB system that’s been unserviceable for less than 3 days, or a regional airline turboprop or a military aircraft without an ADSB system, how do you manage?

What’s the practical impediment to managing the teesny weensy number of other non-ADSB equipped aircraft in the same way, until 2017? :confused:

[underfire]

CaptMidnight,

The US supplies data on a 5 min delay, which Flight Radar/Flight Aware use. Australia does not.

I have not checked to see if FR and FA have the same network of private ADSB receivers.

AUS has some limited airports that are tracked with Webtrack, a combination of ASA supplied data and ADSB. (for noise)

[missy]

As an air traffic controller I find the title of this thread "ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?" offensive and ask that it either be deleted by the moderators or by the original poster.

[Jabawocky]

Dick...my thouhts in red

Jaba, I can afford to do the mod- so no problems for me personally. That is great, so this is not about you then? So get the CJ3 set up and no problem :ok:

There are lots of operators who cannot remain viable while doing the upgrade.
Ohh really? So 12 months will be the difference for them surviving or not? C'mon that is business 101, they are good to operate now or in the future or not.

If Canada with its very large amount of polar traffic heading to the USA in non radar covered airspace can come up with a fair mandate why can't ASA? We are in Oz

And why doesn't anyone answer Creampuffs very reasonable query about how military aircraft and Airlines with faulty equipment can be handled but not an occasional bisjet.?

Because every flight is not a U/S equipment flight. They allow for a small number of U/S commercial flights but if everyone did it...what is the point? For commercial airliners already equipped a reasonable allowance has to be made for equipment that is unserviceable or at short notice, or down route return to maintenance which is a world of difference from an aircraft which is not equipped at all.

As for military flights ...........Think about it Dick!!!

[Old Akro]

Underfire

I assume you got the coverage maps here:

ADS-B coverage | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/ads-b/ads-b-coverage/)

It would seem that the different colour areas have specific meaning. However, I cannot find any sort of legend. Which makes me suspicious that its more a sh1t & glitter exercise than a genuine effort to impart information.

Do you know what the colours might mean? I'm also a bit suspicious of these maps. They look very like the ones Telstra produce for mobile coverage or AsA produce for VHF coverage. I've had ATC ring me in flight on my mobile because they could not reach me of a nearby QantasLink flight on VHF

[Old Akro]

So 12 months will be the difference for them surviving or not? C'mon that is business 101, they are good to operate now or in the future or not.

Jaba, cashflow kills most business, not profitability. One month can be critical, let alone 12.

[Jack Ranga]

missy, it is highly offensive, libelous & defamatory. If you made a similar post you would find yourself threatened with legal action.

Personally, I don't give a rats arse what's posted here but what you will find on this forum is one moderator in particular who's Dick's biggest fan, sycophant you may call it.

Hope you get to see this post, more than likely it will be deleted by the sycophant and me banned for another week ;)

Dick's a bloke at least that stumps up his own cash, has the integrity to put his money where his mouth is. Almost on his side here, would have been except for the bullsh!t title to this thread.

Interesting to note that the usual princesses that report a post as offensive for containing Aussie vernacular haven't jumped on this? Where are you petals?

[tyler_durden_80]

Similar to 'Rotorblades' post, in my airspace I like the problem solving potential ADSB equipped VFR Aircraft allow me...especially considering some VFR pilots sleep through YWLM and YSSY airspace...(couldn't help it). Do I think the out of pocket expense is fair...? No.

Uncontrolled airspace should be just that. Uncontrolled. Sqwark 1200, identification terminated, frequency change approved'. Class 'E' is a terrible concept from my point if view...how on earth is it safe to have RPT A/C receiving a 'control service' in 'CTA' but mixing with VFR aircraft that have every right to be there too...it should be you're either in controlled airspace or you're not...rant over

P.S we still have negative RVSM or negative RNP4/10 aircraft flying around in CTA (and OCA outside of ADSB coverage) take up vast swathes of airspace...just saying....

[le Pingouin]

Akro, they're coverage diagrams based on terrain and antenna propagation, so to that extent they're theoretical. They don't account for things like atmospheric conditions on the day and localised anomalies.

The colours around the J-curve, Perth and Darwin represents radar coverage. The other colours are for ADS-B and TASWAM. No idea why different colours were used for the different altitudes, but there is no significance in it.

They're not produced to try and fool you or anyone. They're exactly the same as we in ATC get to see and what you'd expect from line-of-sight radio propagation.

The atmosphere can do weird and wonderful things to RF propagation at times - we'll get as big hole in radar coverage at say F390 but see aircraft at F330 no problems. Not to mention ducting and skipping of VHF radio

[rotorblades]

To answer creampuffs question on how we cope with aircraft that have malfunction less than 3 days, mil aircraft, etc...we cope (quite easily in the airspace I control because we have radar as well) I'm sure the perspective will be different from a controller in non-radar airspace...but the rules say they can come in so we can let them, without putting our jobs on the line...whether we agree with the rule or not as a controller we have to abide by them, te same as we radaries have to abide by 5nm or 1000ft separation...
Unfortunately if you don't meet the criteria for ADSB, by having it or having an exemption from CASA or ASA then you can't come n play...

I have to say i think, and jut my own personal opinion, is that a bigger differential should've been made between 1/ airspace that has radar & 2/ airspace that has no radar but ADSB
In case 1 anyone should be allowed to fly in the airspace provided that they could meet the criteria needed for that airspace prior to the ADSB rule
In case 2 it should be more flexible in that if you don't have ADSB you can be allowed in subject to other users with ADSB capability with the expectation that if you are penalising a compliant aircraft you can be expected to be shuffled about with change of levels or whatever is needed to not hinder the compliant aircraft

As to forcing an aircraft into weather, we don't have good systems here for seeing weather, the pilot(s) need to inform ATC that they are encountering or about to enter adverse weather & use the words 'Require', route deviation or level change to avoid the weather...ultimately the pilot is responsible for the safety of the aircraft & passengers onboard, ATC will do anything they can to assist in achieving that as the rules allow us..I don't know any controller that would deliberately force an aircraft into adverse weather if The weather is known to the controller...

[le Pingouin]

Personal anecdotal experience: I've seen maybe a dozen ADS-B exempt bizjet flights and precisely zero airlines with broken ADS-B transponders or military. i.e. the bizjets pose a far bigger problem than the military or broken airliners.

[Creampuff]

Thanks rotorblades

lP: They are a far bigger problem comparatively.

Are they a substantial problem practically?

How often do you have to route/clear ADSB-equipped aircraft in ways that you otherwise wouldn’t, because of ADSB-exempt bizjets, and what were the practical consequences for the ADSB-equipped aircraft? I’m not interested in knowing what you would have to do, in a range of hypothetical operational circumstances. I’m interested in what actually happens and how often. :ok:

[ramble on]

What about the concept of providing some infrastructure and jobs by putting towers and controllers back at some of our major regional airports rather than relying on ADSB to do the job.

In my view, the greatest threat of an accident in Australia involving RPT is not during the cruise phase, it is to going to be a mid air collision of a high capacity RPT aircraft operating at regional airports mixing it with GA while trying to operate on two radios - this is where close in control is needed.

Jeez, you can go to just about any country airport in India and they have an ATC tower, fire service and flight briefing....at every airport.

First world country - sure we are.

Infrastructure & jobs required.

[Frank Arouet]

Can someone educate this ADSB illiterate by answering if a WAAS enabled A/C say from the US can interface with a GBAS system like we have here?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

In a word...NO
WAAS implies DO260B. As long as the right modeS 1090es transponder is fitted...and the paperwork is filled, submitted and approved....however, GBAS is a Ground Based Augmentation System...proprietary...licence...equipment...money:{

Just to add, Francis...do you remember that deal between AirServices and Honeywell a few years ago...system allowing CATIII approaches into a fogbound SY? That's GBAS.

[rotorblades]

Creampuff, I'm sure there will be some controllers on here who control in non-radar airspace that would be able to give you a fairer reflection and more accurate picture, as to the effect in my radar airspace (in the ADSB exempt airspace on te J curve) of an aircraft not having ADSB at high levels is none...(presuming they have working transponder lol) as we can utilise 5nm lateral or 1000ft/2000ft vertical separation between any mix of ADSB & standard transponders

More of a problem are the slow & normally non-RVSM aircraft going into those levels (like some Citations ) but RVSM is a different topic :D
But we let them up there because we have discretion to do so and normally the workload allows us to manage it & not hinder RVSM approved aircraft.

[underfire]

do you remember that deal between AirServices and Honeywell a few years ago...

ASA owns 50% of Honeywell SmartPath

Akro,

I dont think the colors have any meaning. Given the line of site, its pretty easy to get on GE and radiate out on the terrain model...

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Under fire, that's the gear.

However, there was a lot of debate about WAAS and a certain crash in north Qld..and then someone from ASA started pushing smartpath and how it was so much better....methinks the same guys are still there putting the knockers on a WAAS solution...vested interest?

[underfire]

Oz,

Not sure what the WAAS talk is all about. First off, there is no WAAS Sat coverage, and second, AUS doesnt have the ground ops stations.

GBAS cost about $2.5Million per airport to install. All commercial aircraft from Airbus and Boeing are capable, and there is no cost from either to have it installed. Think how muach a few sats and ground stations would cost for WAAS.

We have been able to add at least one curve to final in the GBAS signal, and RNP to GBAS final is seemless.

With one system an airport can manage 26 runway ends, code different GPA, displaced thresholds (for wake mitigation), and even CATIII autoland.

Since it is not a beam, but a signal, there are no issues with multi-path, temperature, other aircraft, or blackout areas.

You can have ARR and DEP from the same runway end, because the DEP doesnt disrupt the signal like ILS.

GBAS is a perfect solution..I am really uncertain why it is not everywhere.

EDIT: Currently, SmarthPath is Cert to Cat I, (FAA) the actual broadcast is very, very good. There are quite a few government agencies in the world using it for CAT III autoland, especially for military helos.

In AUS, it is just too difficult at YSSY, runway config, ATC, FL constraints, and traffic blend to make GBAS effective as a prototype. I am hoping they move the GBAS to YMML, where it will be very, very effective. We shall see.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This is becoming thread drift now.

underfire, I could also make a good argument to put WAAS over the continent. Think about it, ASA owns half of that system...do you really think they will fit out a basin and then allow use of that same system for gratis?

If the argument is saving lives, you only have to think a little where all the fatalities have occurred...we should start another thread and bring this one back to why would someone want an exemption to fly in controlled airspace without a transponder.

[T28D]

Maybe I am a bit simple, but how will ADSB change this:
If the argument is saving lives, you only have to think a little where all the fatalities have occurred


Even if it is a significant problem my take is most of the fatalities lately have occurred close to home, close to the ground and below 5000 ft.


Just how ADSB would or could change this is a mystery to me, anyone with me ????

[FGD135]

If the argument is saving lives ...


It is NOT about saving lives.

[Jack Ranga]

If ASA cannot charge you for it (therefore the government not getting a cut) then it WILL NOT happen in Australia.

[Old Akro]

Not sure what the WAAS talk is all about.

WAAS is being used colloquially to mean C146a. ADS-B requires a C146a GPS source. The only C146a GPS units are WAAS enabled ones. Garmin GNS 430's are C129a units. Garmin GNS 430W units are C146a units.

I believe today the only C146a units you can buy are the remaining Garmin GNS 430W plus GTN 650 and GTN750. Sometime in the not too distant future there will be King & Avidyne units - but they are not yet commercially available.

Despite that lack of WAAS in Australia, CASA is effectively mandating that we fit WAAS units.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just to direct you on your path of learning, Old Akro. Embrace the term FDE:8

*FDE - Fault Detection and Exclusion.

[Old Akro]

FDE - Fault Detection and Exclusion.

Which is one of the technical requirements of C146a that is not present in TSO C129a.

But a rose by any other name. These units will still be commonly referred to as WAAS units not C146a units or FDE units.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Yes! However, regardless of WAAS availability in our skies. FDE guarantees the integrity of the position. Therefore the integrity of the ADS-B message. That is the single reason why C145/6 and higher are minimum equipment requirement.

[underfire]

I just dont see ASA or anyone in AUS willing to pay for the sats...

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/521941-waas-australia-you-heard-here-first-5.html#post8212685

[Old Akro]

OZBUSDRIVER, I was responding to UNDERFIRE pointing out that all the references to WAAS were not necessarily referring to augmentation capabability, but instead because WAAS units are C146a units which us required for ADSB. That's all.

To be a bit pedantic, the FDE capability of C146a units does not guarantee integrity of position, it just flags if there is not integrity of position. Integrity of position is determined by the health of satellites, the almanac position of satellites, antennae and physical issues of the GPS unit, environmental conditions and potential presence of jamming sources. A C146a unit does not have magical control of these factors to guarantee integrity - but it can flag conditions where integrity of position does not exist.

[Sarcs]

The following article is very interesting on Australia's preferred (mandated) ADSB system. I apologise in advance if this is a re-hash...:E

Researchers reveal how attacks could alter aircraft trajectories. (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/367996,flaws-found-in-mandated-aircraft-safety-system.aspx) The automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) network was last week mandated to be installed for all aircraft cruising above 29,000 feet in Australia by the nation's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Australia was the first country to deploy the system using the 1090ES platform.

The United States uses a dual ADS-B platform of 1090ES for all flight altitudes and what critics argue was the more effective Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) system for flights below 18,000 feet.

Crucially, the latter platform provides enough bandwidth to enable encryption, which would render the demonstrated attacks ineffective.

"Our results reveal some bad news," researchers Matthias Schafer, Vincent Lenders, and Ivan Martinovic wrote in a research paper (pdf). "Attacks on ADS-B can be inexpensive and highly successful."
Fort Fumble's response is pretty standard...:ugh: CASA did not respond to multiple requests for comment from this publication. And ASA's is also typically type written :rolleyes:: "Australia's air traffic control system and network has multiple layers of safety, security and resilience built into it to both mitigate and minimise current and prevailing risks," a spokesperson said.

"All threats, both real and perceived to our environment are monitored and reviews undertaken to ensure the integrity of our systems is balanced against the alternatives."

The air navigation provider said it "regularly assesses" risks to Australia's airways including "ongoing assessment of the risks associated with the adoption and use of new technologies such as" ADS-B.
Oh yes ignorance is bliss..:E

[Flying Binghi]

via Sarcs #202:
The following article is very interesting on Australia's preferred (mandated) ADSB system. I apologise in advance if this is a re-hash...

Yes, old news.

Apart from short term disruption what would be achieved ?

Me-thinks any system 'attack' using that method would be of limited use to terrorists and likely quickly traceable. More likely to be done by some geek kid a couple of times until caught.











.

[underfire]

"Attacks on ADS-B can be inexpensive and highly successful.

Apart from short term disruption what would be achieved ?

There will never be anything published on what can be done (even currently) in these regards.

EDIT:

Akro, Oz...yes, WAAS is still subject to RAIM.

Sarcs,
Crucially, the latter platform provides enough bandwidth to enable encryption,

Yes and no. It is the broadcast string length that is the formost issue, there is not room in the string to add encription, so it would have to be a seperate string, (OR perhaps use ADS-C which is only somewhat better.)
Second is the bandwidth issue, which as it is already overloaded, adding encription would effectively double the congestion and associated drops of ac..

[Jabawocky]

This might help you guys out.....settle the BSing and all that. Enjoy :ok:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/FAQ-ADS-B-Final-18MAR12.pdf

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Underfire, you do know what you are talking about? I think you are getting your NIC mixed up with your NUC and your HPL with your HFOM...go and have a read....there is a huge difference between running a TSO129 NUC/HFOM which IS affect by RAIM and TSO146 gear running HPL. This argument was done to death years ago with Leadsled and T28D.

[bankrunner]

The key issue (pardon the pun) with encrypted 1090ES is that it is not possible to securely issue and manage symmetric key material for all 15,000 odd aircraft on the VH register, let alone the rest of the world's civil aircraft. The bandwidth problem is pretty minor compared with this.

[LeadSled]

Yes and no. It is the broadcast string length that is the formost issue
Underfire,
Would you like to reconsider this statement, the FAA UAT system does not use the transponder, it is a separate transceiver, it is CDMA broadband, this is why encryption is not a problem.
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Here is a PDF from Lincoln Labs. Granted, it is a PowerPoint display. Hope this helps understand the basic workings of the ATM system.
http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/WG3_Meetings/Meeting8/Squitter-Lon.pdf

edit- to add, PDF actually goes in depth on a number of issues.

[underfire]

Leadsled, what are you talking about CDMA broadband? ADS-B systems use the 1090 MHz Extended Squitter (1090ES) data link.

First off, the ADS message is limited to 56 bits. The issue has been, how much data from the ac can be braodcast in 56 bits. Note that currently S mode is 56 bits total.

http://i59.tinypic.com/2ijs27b.jpg

Second, the bandwidth issue is well known, the FAA calls it congestion. Currently, ADSB uses 1090 Mhz, but the FAA is looking at using 978 Mhz below 18,000. Congestion is caused by the bandwidth being used up, and the system will drop aircraft.

http://i60.tinypic.com/1695ahg.jpg

Encription, again, well known issue..

"At the Black Hat and Defcon security conference this week in Las Vegas, two security researchers plan to give separate talks on the same troubling issue: By 2020, a new system known as Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast or ADS-B will be required as the primary mode of aircraft tracking and control for commercial aircraft in the U.S.–earlier in other countries such as Australia. And both researchers say that ADS-B lacks both the encryption necessary to keep those communications private and the authentication necessary to prevent spoofed communications from mixing with real ones, potentially allowing hackers to fabricate messages and even entire aircraft with radio tools that are cheaper and more accessible than ever before.

“Anyone can technically transmit these messages,” says Andrei Costin, a Ph.D. candidate at the French security institute Eurecom who plans to give a talk called “Ghosts In The Air (Traffic)” at Black Hat. “It’s practically possible for a medium-technical savvy person to mount an attack and impersonate a plane that’s not there.”

Next-Gen Air Traffic Control Vulnerable To Hackers Spoofing Planes Out Of Thin Air (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/07/25/next-gen-air-traffic-control-vulnerable-to-hackers-spoofing-planes-out-of-thin-air/)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This is getting a long way off the thread.

....and to make it worse. Underfire doesn't even know what Leadsled is talking about:ugh:

[Jabawocky]

Indeed a long way.

So Dick, has your maintenance org sorted out the Service Letter yet? What did they say?

Did you give them a tune up for not sorting it out for you a few years ago?

[Flying Binghi]

This is getting a long way off the thread...

Hmm... though allowed to continue..:hmm:

Seems to me some around here have an agenda.

Who makes the money from ADS-B ???












.

[Old Akro]

Who makes the money from ADS-B ???

Who saves money from ADS-B???

I know who will be paying for it.

[underfire]

Okay, I will bite...I am very aware that there are multiple systems...

I see nothing that shows there is enough bandwidth, as congestion is a well known issue.

I see absolutely nothing that shows any sort of encryption availablity in the data string. It is another well known issue.

So, rather than be cryptic and insultive, why not explain what you are talking about?

[Old Akro]

I'm not an expert, I've just read a bit. Others know more.

ADS-B systems use the 1090 MHz Extended Squitter (1090ES) data link.

ES not not universally used. The prime advocate of it is Australia. This is one of the reasons we have trouble getting ADS-B capable transponders.

Also your diagram shows ADS-B in, which Australia is not implementing.

The document that your diagrams come from is 14 years old and is predicated on data transfer speeds of 1 Mb/s. I'd be very surprised if there has not been significant improvement in these speeds which will increase the data capacity.

Congestion depends on the amount of traffic. Australia is the only country in the world that is universally mandating ADS-B for GA IFR aircraft. Other countries implementation varies. Some are by flight type (ie RPT) and some are above an altitude. Only Australia will require all IFR aircraft to use ADS-B.

ADS-B is another example of Australia thinking it has to be different than the rest of the world and the cost of this is borne by aircraft owners.

[Check_Thrust]

Here is a link that may provide a bit more perspective on the worldwide requirements of ADS-B. Please note that the document provided from the link is not from an aviation governing body, it is from an avionics supplier in Canada so I will accept that some of the information may be incorrect or incomplete in regards to various aviation jurisdiction requirements. So if it does feel free to point out any discrepancies, errors or omissions in it, I do feel however it should provide a good overview.

http://www.midcanadamod.com/sites/default/files/adsb_white_paper_for_posting.pdf

Here are a few exerts from the article (my bold) that I have included for those who do not wish to trawl through it:
Page 3:
NAV CANADA has thus far adopted exclusively the 1090ES (ADS-B Out) format, as have all other countries worldwide. The only exception is the USA with their “Dual-Link” ADS-B program.For Canadians, aircraft with a 1090ES Transponder and approved interfaces will be compliant with US operating requirements; however those who frequent US skies under 18,000’ may also opt for a UAT.Page 4:
The European mandate, in broad terms, requires 1090ES ADS-B Out with a Diversity Mode-S transponder.As to the future, in July of 2012, Iridium Communications and NAV CANADA announced a planned joint venture. This new relationship promises to offer worldwide ADS-B-based air traffic surveillance services using the upcoming Iridium “Next” satellite network. These satellites begin launching in 2015 and will be completed in 2017.

The Iridium-NAV CANADA joint venture is called Aireon. It will add 1090ES ADS-B receivers to each of the 66 satellites (and backups) destined to form the Iridium “Next” constellation. The low-earth-orbiting Iridium satellites will offer worldwide coverage, including Polar Regions, and with the ADS-B payloads will provide complete visibility to all aircraft everywhere. This will help ANSP’s (air navigation service providers) increase efficiencies. This new capability will extend the benefits of current radar-based surveillance systems (which presently cover less than 10 percent of the world) to entire planet coverage. Aireon is expected to become operational in 2018.Page 5:
1090ES ADS-B Out is the globally accepted system for ADS-B compliance.

One note here though - the FAA has uniquely adopted a “Dual-Link Architecture” for ADS-B compliance in the USA. This allows for a second equipment option.Page 6:
The second or optional system is called a UAT. It is only applicable to aircraft operating in US airspace under 18,000 feet.Note: a 1090ES ADS-B Out System is an absolute requirement for all aircraft that operate above 18,000 feet in US airspace and internationally.aircraft with a 1090ES Transponder and approved interfaces will be compliant with US operating requirements; however those who frequent US skies under 18,000’ may also opt for a UAT.Page 9:
The ES format carries much more data than the basic “short squit” Mode S version. In fact, some 49 individual parameters can be sent over the extended squitter, compared to three for Mode C and seven for basic non-extended Mode S. (Note: The 978 MHz UAT “Out” has the same basic data transmission elements as ES — however, it uses a different frequency in the radio spectrum to broadcast the information.)

[Dick Smith]

Jabawocky

Re your post #212, I have been in touch with Cessna Pacific and also Cessna in the USA for more than two-and-a-half years in relation to the ADS-B upgrade for my CJ-3.

A service letter is not actually a service bulletin. It appears the service bulletin from Cessna is necessary to give an avenue to modify the boxes in my aircraft so it is compliant.

The Cessna Tech Rep says the service bulletin is promised for the first quarter of this year – that “it’s coming”. When that service bulletin is available I will get a quote and then decide whether to spend the money on my aircraft or flog the aircraft back to the USA (I don’t use it that much) and fly my other aircraft more where you don’t have to pay Airservices a cent and you see fantastic scenery - or spend more time on my boat.

Most importantly, I have asked “the powers that be” if they would consider dispensations in line with what has been allowed in Canada. That is, the ADS-B airspace is flight level 350 to flight level 400 and dispensations will be considered into that airspace for non-ADS-B equipped aircraft depending on load factors.

I will advise what the outcome is!

By the way, have Airservices been able to save on staffing levels since the introduction of ADS-B? i.e. how many ATCs have been sacked?

[Old Akro]

Check Thrust, the bit you omitted in the (overall good) canadian reference is this:

At the time of writing we are not aware of any timetable for implementation of an ADS-B requirement
across Canadian Domestic Airspace by NAV CANADA.

I say again. Australia is the ONLY country in the world seeking to mandate ADS-B for GA IFR aircraft below about the mid flight levels.

WHY?

[le Pingouin]

Maybe, just maybe the radar coverage is different.......

[Old Akro]

how many ATCs have been sacked?

Dick, the question is provocative because AsA is almost certainly understaffed at the operational level while being dramatically overstaffed in the airconditioned offices of Canberra.

But the sentiment is 100% correct. If there is not a cost saving that can be measured and passed on to the users, there is no impulsion to mandate ADS-B other than generating overseas trips for management.

I think the question is sharper for me than you. In the Flight levels you will ultimately get the benefit of better traffic awareness and reduced separation. But at 6,000 ft OCTA I will get none of this benefit because I mix with non ADS-B VFR aircraft and non transponder RA(Aus) and glider traffic. So, why must I spend what might be $25,000 to upgrade. I can see absolutely zero safety or efficiency benefit. I will simply be spending nearly half the median Australian income for the benefit of AsA.

[Jack Ranga]

$25k?? Is that why you can afford outrageous call out fees?? :E

[underfire]

Unfortunately, the FAA has decided to keep the message strings the same. There are many, many comittees working on trying to work with the string, add to it or modify it, to no avail for at least eh last 10 years.

(Akro, the diagram doesnt show ADSB-in, is shows the ac being able to see each other)

As far as UAT, it doesnt matter how it is transmitted, the message bit is the message bit. The freq bandwidth of the 1090 and 987 Mhz is the problem, there are only so many messages that you can put into each frequency, how fast you do it doesnt matter.

From last year:

http://i57.tinypic.com/a4bd44.jpg

From the Garmin site (http://www.garmin.com/us/intheair/ads-b/squit/):

Even though it’s called a “Universal Access” transceiver, the 978 MHz UAT is actually less universal that the 1090 MHz “ES” transponder in terms of where it can fly and what airspace it can use.

For example, in its criteria for ADS-B “Out” compliance, the FAA will require 1090 ES transponders for aircraft operating higher than 18,000 ft MSL — while UAT is limited to aircraft that will operate no higher than 17,999 ft MSL.

So far, no country except the U.S. has accepted the 978 MHz UAT format for their ADS-B datalinks. (this may be why there is the issue)

Consequently, pilots who want to fly outside the U.S. — or operate at or above FL180 — will need the 1090 ES transponder for ADS-B “Out”. Since the FAA has decided to retain its Mode C and Mode S transponder requirements for flight in regulated airspace (to provide a secondary radar backup to ADS-B, as well as communicate with other aircraft that have traffic warning systems), the 1090 ES solution can satisfy both the ADS-B “Out” and functioning transponder requirement with the same piece of equipment.

[thorn bird]

This debate has been very educational when you get past the emotive issues.
There is no doubt in my mind that ADS is a wonderful safety tool, I just cant help wondering why we so desperately needed to do it ahead of the rest of the world, given our traffic density is really quite modest.
I have heard some fairly frightening figures $ wise that it cost Qantas link to comply with its Dash 8 fleet, a figure sure to reflect in the ticket price. Thats the rub really, we once had the RAAF who owned all the airspace and tolerated us civvies using bits and pieces of it, now it would seem Australian airspace is to become exclusively for the use them that can afford it. Of course RPT can spread the enormous costs across an awful lot of tickets, unfortunately GA dosnt have that luxury.
The added penalty CAsA has imposed on the whole industry by jumping the gun comes later down the track, when hapless owners who used Australian EO's try and sell their airplanes overseas, and find that CAsA's world best practice maintenance Reg's dont cut the mustard.
Check thrust's post #217 gives a tantalizing hint that technology is going to overtake the whole ADS debate or debacle whichever way you view it.
I have a very uncomfortable feeling that there will be a whole lot more aerial vehicles swanning about outback OZ nosar no details soon.
Would this have happened if "foster and promote" was in their brief??
.......and meanwhile across the Tasman.....

[Old Akro]

$25k?? Is that why you can afford outrageous call out fees??

Touche. :D

But I plan ahead to use swipe cards or arrive in hours to try and save money to upgrade my steam panel to something halfway towards the RV-10.:rolleyes:

[Jabawocky]

Dick, SL + CAR 21M approval =:ok:

Have they not thought of that?

[Jack Ranga]

But I plan ahead to use swipe cards or arrive in hours to try and save money to upgrade my steam panel to something halfway towards the RV-10.

So do I, I was just advocating for those that don't have the coin to pay for all this :E those that are being forced out of their hobby by onerous and insidious charges.

Did you know that to register an aircraft now you have to:

* Provide certified copy of ID.
* Provide a photograph of the data plate (I f@cking kid you not)
* Provide proof of residence in Australia with a rates notice & bill with your residential address on it.

This despite holding an ASIC with exactly the above details on it, an ARN, a passport, drivers licence & 7000 other police, ASIO & AFP checks.

Every 2 effing years :cool: Another wasted 2 hours of my time. F off CASA and leave aviation to aviators :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Jaba, yes they have. Unfortunately it appears such a mod would not be accepted if I want to sell my aircraft overseas.

No proper
cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement . Does anyone know why?

[Old Akro]

No proper
cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement . Does anyone know why?

This WAS done in the UNITED STATES. But not in Australia. The cost to industry is routinely considered in the US, but I've NEVER seen it done in Australia.

WHY?

[T28D]

Because politics are the centre of ALL Australian decision making in federal government, cost benefit only skews the political process and moves it out of the pollies control.

[Jabawocky]

Dick, To have the jumpers reversed and the SL modification reversed would hardly be an issue would it?

I am confused as to why Cessna would issue an instruction that would enhance its value here but lesson it overseas???

Does that not seem strange to you?

Anyway for everyone else, here is progress in the march towards far more economical ADSB boxes. With integrated TSO GPS as an option.

http://freeflightsystems.com/images/rangr_adsb.pdf :ok:

[underfire]

I see no reason to mandate anything before the FAA does. OEM and aftermarket will do little without clear guidance from the FAA.

As shown by all of the committees and studies currently underway by the FAA et al, who knows by 2020 what will happen. The MLAT stuff is a good indication of another system trying to get this to work.

It is obvious all of the short comings, so why jump in before it is sorted, especially if the OEM or aftermarket suppliers do not have a product available.

[Capn Bloggs]

No proper cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement .
Neither was it needed because the answer is so flippin' obvious. I sat 20nm behind one of my colleagues today at 350 out in the boondocks for an hour, not a word from anybody. One of us saving fuel.

In the US with blanket radar coverage then a CBA would be necessary to justify the ground stations verses replacing radars. In Oz, the benefit of providing the coverage in the first place is so obvious you'd have to be stupid not to see it not to mention the safety increase.

This discussion is analogous to someone wanting to ride down a freeway in a horse and cart.

[Jack Ranga]

This discussion is analogous to someone wanting to ride down a freeway in a horse and cart.

Pretty accurate summation :D

[Creampuff]

It’s one thing to say that the concept is a ‘no-brainer’.

It’s quite another to say that the implementation arrangements, including the timing and selective exemptions, are justified.

The discussion is mainly about the latter, not the former.

[underfire]

It’s one thing to say that the concept is a ‘no-brainer’.

Exactly, "Concept" No Brainer

Implementation "Brainer"

This all remeinds me of the Russian GBAS.

Again, concept no brainer.
Implementation before all of the issues had been sorted left the Russians with a GBAS system, incl sats, that didnt communicate with the standard once implemented worldwide.

[Creampuff]

Yes. In Australia, the implementation is left to the brains trust at CASA and Airservices, supervised by the brains trust in government.

Enough said. :rolleyes:

[thorn bird]

Creamie how true, and of course Blogsie considers Australian airspace is for the exclusive use of RPT.

[Old Akro]

Neither was it needed because the answer is so flippin' obvious.

Bloggs you've got gold bar blinkers. Underneath the rarefied atmosphere of the the high flight levels we are being forced to adhere to the same rules.

A GA IFR aircraft is still mixing with non ADS-B VFR aircraft and non transponder RA(Aus) aircraft. I get no benefit from reduced separation or priority handling.

At a guess there are maybe 3,000 IFR aircraft (1/3 the GA fleet). At $25k each that $75 million.

Let me repeat that slowly for you. S.e.v.e.n.t.y F.i.v.e M.i.l.l.i.o.n D.o.l.l.a.r.s.

The GST alone on this is $7.5m. Plus the 2% duty on the import of the hardware is probably another $180k.


This is 50% more money than the government has just refused to pay to maintain a fruit processing industry in Australia. And this cost impost on GA has been done without a whiff of analysis.

The FAA did this analysis and saw no cost benefit in mandating ADS-B. So did Canada. So did the EU.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

If this drift is going to continue then how about some posts from previous threads that still say the same as this thread...I particularly liked one from Jabawocky,

procrastination = mastubation, in the end you are only screwing yourself!


Still fits:ok:

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

"I have heard some fairly frightening figures $ wise that it cost Qantas link to comply with its Dash 8 fleet, a figure sure to reflect in the ticket price."...

Why would they have bothered, with a service ceiling of FL250?

[Sarcs]

250B10 probably 'cause (from your friendly, anonymous, helpful FF HQ IT/t.w.i.t.t.e.r guy...:E)...

Performance-based navigation: are you equipped to fly? (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101882)

The evolution of performance-based navigation in Australia continues with the introduction of new equipment mandates for all instrument flight rules aircraft from 6 February 2014. Since 12 December 2013, all aircraft operating in Australian airspace have needed approved and serviceable automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) equipment installed in order to fly at or above flight level 290. CASA has provided a limited exemption to this requirement for aircraft operating in designated areas of airspace until December 2015.

The next round of equipment mandates come into effect from 6 February 2014, when all instrument flight rules aircraft new to the Australian register must be equipped with ADS-B and TSO C145, C146 or C196 global navigation satellite system (GNSS) equipment. Existing aircraft that are modified on or after this date must also be equipped with compliant GNSS equipment, as well as an ADS-B capable transponder if the aircraft operates in class A, C or E airspace or in class G airspace above 10,000ft. If you are planning to buy an aircraft from the USA and operate it in Australia, you need to ensure the aircraft has the right GNSS equipment and that the ADS-B installed uses Mode S transponder with Extended Squitter (commonly referred to as 1090 MHz Extended Squitter). Aircraft from the USA with ADS-B through the Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) system will not work in Australia and are not compliant with the new rules.

By 4 February 2016, GNSS will become mandatory for all aircraft operating under instrument flight rules and by 2 February 2017 all aircraft operating under instrument flight rules in Australia must be equipped with approved ADS-B. CASA will be holding more information sessions about performance-based navigation in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Essendon during February and March.

Find out session dates and locations (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101480) or read more about the implementation of performance-based navigation in Australia, equipment mandates and the limited ADS-B exemption (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101663).

OA: A GA IFR aircraft is still mixing with non ADS-B VFR aircraft and non transponder RA(Aus) aircraft. I get no benefit from reduced separation or priority handling.

At a guess there are maybe 3,000 IFR aircraft (1/3 the GA fleet). At $25k each that $75 million.

Let me repeat that slowly for you. S.e.v.e.n.t.y F.i.v.e M.i.l.l.i.o.n D.o.l.l.a.r.s.

The GST alone on this is $7.5m. Plus the 2% duty on the import of the hardware is probably another $180k.


This is 50% more money than the government has just refused to pay to maintain a fruit processing industry in Australia. And this cost impost on GA has been done without a whiff of analysis.

The FAA did this analysis and saw no cost benefit in mandating ADS-B. So did Canada. So did the EU. Akro would be interesting to see what the FAA's CBA figure was when they did the analysis..:rolleyes:

Even though not mandated till '20 (at least) it is obviously still a hot topic in the States...EAA, FAA Review Full Agenda at Summit (http://www.eaa.org/news/2014/2014-01-30_eaa-faa-review-full-agenda-at-summit.asp#.UuvSrEurnP0.twitter)

Among the issues discussed during the summit's two days were:
• Allowing electric propulsion for ultralights and light-sport aircraft, and clearing regulatory hurdles that prevent today's electric motor technology from emerging
• Current conflicts in regulations that limits the availability to provide flight training for ultralights and other low-mass, high-drag aircraft, so those areas of aviation can become more vibrant and safe
• An option for use of an additional qualified pilot during homebuilt flight testing, which would add an additional opportunity to enhance safety and best practices in those initial flying hours
• Incompatibility issues for ADS-B and NextGen technology, where pilots are spending significant dollars for future mandated equipment but cannot ensure that it is supplying the correct data
• Warbird operating limitations that potentially hinder how warbird owners can use their aircraft or add significant cost and complexity to their maintenance and operation
.....:ok:

[Old Akro]

Akro would be interesting to see what the FAA's CBA figure was when they did the analysis..

It took me 3 minutes to find. I timed it.

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/programs/adsb/media/arcReport2008.pdf

page 22

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/programs/adsb/media/ADSB%20In%20ARC%20Report%20with%20transmittal%20letter.pdf

page 31

note: The mid to low-end GA aircraft owner faces a marginal business case based on current equipage
costs. Based on the benefits of FIS–B and Situational Awareness applications, the payback
period is 6 to 12 years for ADS–B In equipage. It will cost aircraft operators an estimated
$6,000 to $12,000 per aircraft for a panel mount display, including installation costs, to
implement ADS–B In (this does not include ADS–B Out); the business case would be marginal
because hull values of many existing GA aircraft may not justify this additional investment.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-28/pdf/2010-12645.pdf

Page 26

If you spent time going back through docket numbers I'm sure there will be more detail. Unlike AsA, the FAA is quite transparent.

[LeadSled]

....and to make it worse. Underfire doesn't even know what Leadsled is talking about:ugh:

Oz,
Precisely

Underfire,
As Oz has suggested, go back and read the very extensive threads on this subject.
Tootle pip!!
.

[Jabawocky]

Akro
This didn't take long either.

International reporting on ADS-B in Oz – 2005
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/archives20012009/2005/adsb_adsbsitf4rpt.pdf
Agenda Item 1 6.2 through 6.5.7

http://legacy.icao.int/icao/en/ro/apac/2005/ADSB_ADSB_TF3/ip21.pdf
Airservices had issued Request For Proposals for 1500 shipsets of GA Avionics (initial proof of concept fit-outs). Two companies had tendered way back then, no doubt that RFP alone would have accelerated 1090ES GA gear to market.

Australia cancels ADS-B equipment plan for general aviation, reconsiders system's use under 30,000ft - 6/29/2006 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-cancels-ads-b-equipment-plan-for-general-aviation-reconsiders-system39s-use-under-207529/)
Airservices cancelled the RFP late in the process after a noisy minority had successfully unnerved the Political leadership of Government.

The proposal/Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/newrules/airspace/jcp/,svFileName=jcp.pdf

Cost Benefit Analysis of Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/newrules/airspace/jcp/,svFileName=analysis.pdf

The Finance Department eventually rejected the Project ATLAS cross-industry funding, and the rest is history. That was back in 2006-7 Warren Truss was the responsible Minister! Subsequent, the VFR mandate was dropped, and the other dates pushed back, then re-set based on a raft of inputs such as industry input (ASTRA), traffic density, growth, safety infrastructure necessities, and efficiency.

That was 7 years ago!!!

It is unfair really to blame/accuse AsA, CASA, and the Dept given the work done over many years to introduce ADS-B with financial support for GA owners. What a shame the few nay-saying, soapbox seeking drongo's in industry here in Australia denied the rest of our industry exactly what the FAA are now providing the GA industry in the US i.e. financial support for adoption.
That horse has long since bolted! Gates still flapping in the breeze.... :hmm:

[Creampuff]

Jeez Jabba, tell us what you really mean… :D

Ya gotta admit that if the government, the regulator and the ANSP could at least make and stick to a bad decision, or make and stick to a good decision, that’s better than dithering and changing the decision.

BTW: What are the exemptions for ADSB in the USA for e.g. unservicabilities in airline aircraft?

[Frank Arouet]

The financial support for GA had as much hope as 'Buckley's and would have been swallowed lock stock and barrel with 'the no carbon tax mantra' and excesses of the last dysfunctional minority government. It, (the concept), was 'mandatory'. We are talking about Dick being denied access to airspace above FL290. I believe today, not seven years ago B050.


It was a confidence trick aided and abetted by a sycophantic group of control freaks who would have us all micro chipped at birth. I doubt any government could afford to foot the Qantas bill let alone parachutists, ornithopters, ultralights and still keep an eye open all day for someone pranging in the circuit near the 'Coffee Royal' site.


Phased in, it had everybody's support. Isn't that the crux of this thread so far?


QUOTE Airservices cancelled the RFP late in the process after a noisy minority had successfully unnerved the Political leadership of Government. QUOTE.


Geez, I take it you are referring to 'the greens'. You give them too much credit and 'the drongo's' none. I guess 'the drongo's' are wasting their time with The Senate and the Truss Review?


Get a grip Jabba!


PS: How's 'Obamacare' getting on? He may have to print some more money.

[Old Akro]

What are the exemptions for ADSB in the USA

1. ADS-B is not required until 1 Jan 2020, which is Dick's whole point. Australia is requiring ADS-B now above F280, but there is no available products for many aircraft because the manufacturers are working to the US timeline.

2. My point is at all aircraft have an exemption below 10,000 ft in Class E and it is not required in Class G. Australia is on its own in the world in requiring ADS-B for IFR aircraft in all levels and all airspace types.

[Blockla]

But what is the motivation for ADS-B? Surveillance? What will surveillance mean, not so they can track you (tin foil hat style), but so they can separate you more efficiently and free up 'procedural tolerances' and route restrictions etc.

If there is airspace where better than procedural standards can be used because you can now 'see' all the aircraft it will lead to significant savings, free up many flight levels, and routing restrictions etc. ADS-B above FL290 in Oz will save the industry bucket loads when it is fully utilised.

How much will it save in the US? Bugger-all as they currently have surveillance. So there isn't the same rush there. They will eventually save by not needing to replace service all the radar heads; but the industry will virtually not benefit from reduced separation standards, routing efficiencies etc. The big debate in the US will be about turning off Primary Radar...

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Coffee Royale....Francis, luv it....but are you referring to the crash or the fake one? Did you know that little incident was the genesis for producing accurate maps for the Australian coastline?

Old Akro, maybe the argument should be couched in terms of understanding the numbers involved. So far, the strawman...the rule is set...but we were allowed to fly in this airspace the day before...rules allow for unserviceable aircraft to transit...controllers have said that they can handle individual non complying aircraft..There are ONLY 38 aircraft that do not comply... exemptions PRIOR to the deadline in another country(gotta love THAT one!)..hoping the argument changes to attacking the rule.

Misquoted data...versions of equipment not pertaining to this argument...airspace arrangements in other countries...security issues within the equipment...availability of equipment...regulations and orders relating to use, fitment and operation standards of equipment...

Outright lies..go and read other threads and work out the positions and who actually are truthful and who are defending a personal position.

Gentlemen, there is moss growing on you!

[underfire]

Here is the most comprehensicve page on ADSB that the FAA has.

Each committee has several working papers going. Intersting to note most of the versions now have a B or 2 designator, ie ADS-B2, Version 2 1090ES, Version 2 UAT, and MASPS was just re-written from 242A to 338

Transmitting and receiving subsystems compliant with DO-260B/ED-102A will use an ADS-B Version Number equal to two (2). In DO-260B/ED-102A the integrity level of the ADS-B source has been redefined and changes made to the definitions of the NIC and NAC parameters. Version 2 1090ES formats now include the transmission of selected altitude, selected heading, and barometric pressure setting in the target state and status messages. Version 2 1090ES formats also include the transmission of the Mode A (4096) code and the Register 3016 content of the TCAS/ACAS resolution advisory data.

and no where is there any encription.

RTCA SC-186 - Home Page – ADS-B Support (http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Underfire..why do you need encryption when-

1- The message length is 0.0002 seconds long and
2- It contains a unique 23bit identifier.

That 23bit identifier is worldwide unique. To be even seen by TAAATS your identifier has to be coded into the system...and this has exactly what to do with exemptions from mandatory carriage in Australia ABV FL290?

EDIT- Underfire, all the docs attributed, on your link, are dated around 2006...pretty up to date:hmm:

[underfire]

Perhaps if you took the time to read the document, intead of blindly commenting. This IS the latest from the FAA, this is where it is at.

There are many documents under each subcommittee. The committee documents are the working papers, everything is a working paper

Here is the ICAO take on security

http://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/edocs/CNSdocs/01gd_security_adsb.pdf