ADSB class E

[VH-XXX]

I'm a little confused... (It doesn't take much these days)

Reading the latest RA-Aus magazine last night and the new ops Manager has stated that for all RA-Aus aircraft to enter class E airspace from Feb 14th will need an ADSB transponder.

I didn't think that this was the case, am I wrong?

I *thought* it was IFR only and or over certain flight levels...

Edit: just found this http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/airspace/download/dp1102as-annexd.pdf Talks of 2020 !

[Jack Ranga]

Just stay out of it X alright :ugh: your type not welcome, flying around in IMC on your friggin' iPad :ugh:

[Tankengine]

As far as I can remember after a six month trial years ago:
All VFR aircraft entering class E need a transponder except gliders.:p

[Jack Ranga]

(For the culturally sensitive & easily offended that last post was a piss take and not abusive)

[Nautilus Blue]

No mention of it here ADS-B mandates 2014-2017 | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/ads-b/other-mandates-2014-2017/) either. No other aircraft require ADSB in E (I don't think we have any E above F280), so it seems strange.

I can see it being required when we eventually switch of the MSSR's, but thats not anytime soon surely?

[VH-XXX]

I was about to respond to a nice big informative post but it's gone, was it yours "clearedtoreenter?" I can't recall....

So it seems that new aircraft or newly fitted transponders need ADSB mode S but not for existing until possibly 2020, so indeed the article does seem to be correct.

[Jabawocky]

XXX

To clarify. Any new installs, must be an ADSB CAPABLE transponder. They do not need to be ADSB outputting as that requires a TSO146 GPS or a blind box.

[VH-XXX]

So Jabba, I buy a new RAA aircraft or any aircraft for that matter, then have to fit an ADSB out capable transponder to be able to legally fly into Class E however if I have an old aircraft I don't need to get one until 2020.

Going back to the article it says I need one to be able to fly into to class E however I won't be able to use it :eek: Seems pointless if I can't even use it yet.

[Old Akro]

XXX you should read the thread that Dick Smith started on ADS-B.

It starts with him complaining that he is currently locked out of airspace above F280 because he is not ADS-B equipped. The trouble is that the technical solution to allow him to be ADS-B equipped does not yet exist because the US based equipment manufacturers (which is basically all of them) are working to a 2020 implementation deadline, not the unique Australian 2014 deadline.

The thread then broadens to examine ADS-B, the cost to aircraft owners of implementation, the fact that Australia is implementing it 3 years + ahead the of the rest of the world and importantly that Australia is the ONLY country in the world to be mandating ADS-B for GA below 10,000 ft

This is another CASA Part 61 type stuff up.

[LeadSled]

This is another CASA Part 61 type stuff up.

Folks,
Actually, what it is, is the continued refusal of many players (not just CASA) to accept that aviation regulation should be risk based ( as in real risk, not the "perceived risk" beloved of the AFAP) and cost/benefit justified.

NONE of the Australian airspace rules have ever been properly risk managed ---- ICAO "alphabet soup" airspace, when you get into the ICAO "separation assurance" principles, has never been properly implemented in Australia.

Remember the huge resistance to NAS (not just CASA) --- there are lots of players in the Australian aviation scene who are very resistant to change ---- even when it is change that would clearly have benefits in both risk reduction (more "safety") and reduced costs.

For Nextgen, the FAA have done a lot of serious cost/benefit analysis, hence the various proposals for subsidizing fitment of advanced equipment, because FAA cannot show, even with US traffic levels, that their proposed post 2020 requirements can be cost/benefit justified.

A large proportion of the IFR traffic does not believe the FAA claimed benefits in time saving and increased traffic handling capability --- not the least because runway capacity, not in-air capacity, is the limiting factor.

So we see the good old "traditional" jackbooted Australian approach, "mandate it", so you either spend the $$$$$ for no benefit, or quit flying.

Even the "benefits" of the mandate above FL290 have been asserted, but never demonstrated, particularly post RVSM.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Do not bother bringing up the proposed subsidies in early days of "ADS-B" here in Australia, the money was to come from airlines, can you really seriously imagine the CASA Chairman or Mr. Joyce and the Qantas CFO agreeing to hand over $$MM to subsides GA, even if it was the RFDS.

[Creampuff]

+ 1.

The mooted subsidy was just that.

The selective exemptions are the dead-giveaway of the substantive basis for the current arrangements.

[dubbleyew eight]

leadsled the money was supposed to come from redirecting the maintenance costs of the old systems that adsb would replace.

yeah I suppose airservices is now primarily funded by airline fees so your argument wins.

when originally proposed the qangos were govt funded I think.

[Old Akro]

Even the "benefits" of the mandate above FL290 have been asserted

As far as I can see, this originated in a CASA white paper based on an informal estimate passed in conversation to CASA by one of the airlines. The figure used by CASA in its cost / benefit analysis was 5.5% flight time / fuel saving.

Does anyone really think this smells right?

The really funny thing (if it wasn't so tragic) is that CASA then used this same figure for GA.

[a320.sim.melb]

A little off-topic, but still about ADS-B.

Can the GPS signal source be TSO 129 or must it be TSO 146?

The GPS in my plane is only TSO 129, and while I could handle upgrading my ancient Transponder, it would be a real pain to upgrade my KLN-94 GPS.

[LeadSled]

the money was supposed to come from redirecting the maintenance costs of the old systems that adsb would replace.UU8,
I suggest you refer to some of the historic pprune threads of the time, they contained information from people very closely connected to the actual proposals being debated.

(1) No proposal was ever presented to the AsA Board about the subsidy proposal, let alone further up the food chain. What some of us do know, is that the Dept. of Finance quashed informal policy proposals for subsidy, long before it got to a policy position. Ask T-28D

(2) The airlines made it very very clear that any cost savings -, such as SSR non-replacement (they were replaced, at costs far below the figures being hurled around by the protagonists of "mandating" ADS-B), would flow to the airlines in reduced airways charges.

As I said in a previous post post, there was no way the airlines were going to subsidies GA --- by accepting higher airways charges or any other form of money transfer. Remember, the airlines have long term contracts with AsA, and it is all about pricing.

In any event, the quantum of the proposed subsidies were way short of the real costs --- as Qantas found out with its -8 upgrades ---- the QF cost was about what FAA used in its cost/benefit analysis, and about 20+ times the AsA/CASA figure quoted for that type of aircraft.

Owners are now finding out, the hard way, that the realist figures of the time were correct --- all for zilch real and quantified benefit --- and a warm and fuzzy feeling does not qualify as a quantified benefit.

Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

Can the GPS signal source be TSO 129 or must it be TSO 146?


C146a is mandatory. This is a major upgrade cost that is not recognised in the AsA economic justification.

There are 2 or 3 threads covering this. I reckon the cheapest upgrade using a secondhand Garmin 430W will be $18,000. Using a new WAAS GPS will be toward $25,000. This is because ADS-B also requires a grey code altitude encoder and WAAS requires a new antennae & cabling. The new antennae & Altitude encoder will almost certainly require engineering orders also.

For IFR pilots flying under 10,000 ft (ie nearly all GA pilots), there is zero safety or efficiency benefit since we still need to be separated from VFR traffic that does not have ADS-B

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Despite all the nonsense talked here, (see my comment about "perceived risks") FAA analysis completely discount ADS-BIN as a serious contributor to the issue of reduced in-flight collision risk.

For those who will immediately doubt this, have a look at the plans to incorporate ADS-B signals into ACAS/TCAS ---- as in none. The present generation of ACAS/TCAS works fine, ADS-B adds nothing.

FAA are treating ADS-B (or C) as an ATC datalink (whether it is 1090ES or UAT), and discount any benefit for air to air.

After all, for TCAS to see a light aircraft, all the light aircraft needs is a transponder Mode A/C, and no light GA aircraft is going to be carrying a TCAS.

The really funny thing (if it wasn't so tragic) is that CASA then used this same figure for GA.

Actually, it was much worse than that.

In the original CASA CBA, there was the famous case of the misplaced "daycemal" point, which inflated the benefits to airlines by a little matter of a factor of 10.

Once the arithmetic was corrected, the benefits to airlines disappeared, and the second CBA conjured up all sort of ludicrous "benefits" to GA that had been "missed" the first time around ---- on the basis of the first CBA was so good for airlines that GA could "get stuffed" ---- the actual words of one CASA staffer, now long gone, when we first protested to unjustified impositions on GA.

Tootle pip!!

[a320.sim.melb]

No light aircraft will be able to afford TCAS, but I think the combination if OzRunways on an iPad, Rasberry Pi and a DTV dongle will be the poor man's TCAS.

Actually, on further searching it appears I can use my KLN-94 GPS for the ADS-B out signal:

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Frules%2F1998casr%2F021%2F 021c45.pdf&ei=olD4UuvLEIiWkgX1joC4Bg&usg=AFQjCNEHuXO8eI79-rbgytX48DWwIHqBdw&sig2=gN_V-jKOasB4kuFc0DfVnA&bvm=bv.60983673,d.dGI

Not recommended, but it will do me. I'm VFR only anyway.

Looks like I just need a Bendix King KT74 Transponder, an Engineering order and a friendly Avionics LAMA and I'm set. The big problem will be finding a friendly Avionics LAME, they all seem pretty grumpy.

[dubbleyew eight]

and no light GA aircraft is going to be carrying a TCAS.

but plenty would carry a flarm just like the gliders do.

btw my son's raspberry pi with the american dongle is proving to be dead reliable.
interfacing it into oz runways is possible but he hasnt tackled it yet.

[VH-XXX]

and no light GA aircraft is going to be carrying a TCAS.

That's good.... because it won't be working any more !

[LeadSled]

but plenty would carry a flarm just like the gliders do. Which is nothing like TCAS ---- and many in the glider fraternity ( particularly those who understand risk management) will tell you that FLARM has the propensity to seriously degrade "see and be seen", and gliders circling on one thermal are far too close together for FLARM to prevent a collision.

Despite its popularity amongst a small section of the glider fraternity, all that proves is that section is seriously misguided about what will minimise collisions in the particular operating environment of gliders.

Not recommended, but it will do me. I'm VFR only anyway.

You cannot broadcast an ADS-B out signal, unless it meets the CASA TSO specifications.

Tootle pip!!