Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?

[Dick Smith]

In a paper issued in June 2008 for the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group ADS-B Implementation Team, an interesting summary is made. See here (http://astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/ABIT12_IP12_Radar_Life_Extension.pdf).

Airservices has signed a contract to ensure that RASPP sensors can remain operational for a contingency-transition period after the proposed 2012 mandate comes into effect. Enroute radar replacement timing has critical implications for an ATLAS decision.

Readers of PPRuNe will probably understand that the Airservices low level ADS-B project, and the planned removal of low level radars, is heading down the same route as the Super Seasprite helicopter purchase.

It is obvious that the decisions are made by those who never ask advice. For example, how can the “proposed 2012 mandate” ever come in now, as no decision has been made regarding the low level ADS-B project?

As I have pointed out numerous times, the FAA is keeping all of its secondary surveillance radar for airspace above FL180 for safety and other reasons. Why is it that Australia is to go it alone on a cheaper ADS-B only system?

More importantly, this life extension program is completely unsatisfactory. New Zealand has actually issued a contract to completely refurbish their secondary surveillance radar to give a life of at least 20 years. That is what we need here.

It is obvious that Airservices has not considered the situation where the low level ADS-B mandate does not come in, and we therefore will need to keep the secondary surveillance radars for a much longer period. Alternatively, as stated above, we should keep the secondary surveillance radars for high level operations for safety purposes as per the USA.

If you read the document (and the other documents on the site) it is obvious that there is no leadership here.

We have all seen the problems of selling off the secondary airports without any policy. I can assure you what is happening at Airservices in relation to the lack of decision making and leadership in relation to ADS-B and radar will be a greater catastrophe. It will put the lack of air traffic controllers and lack of pilots into the shadows.

Can anyone on this site post the names of people who are making these decisions so they can be held accountable?

[Kaptain_Kaos]

Yawn :bored: Yawn

[Chimbu chuckles]

Can anyone on this site post the names of people who are making these decisions so they can be held accountable?

You really are a bit thick, aren't you?.

[Bob Murphie]

Name the ABIT team and you may be getting somewhere Dick.

Greg Dunstone acknowledges authorship of the document. The ABIT team appear all enthusiastic supporters of the concept.

But then it is an "implementation team", not an investigative team.

[GaryGnu]

Dick,

I won't give you names but how about these titles.

CEO CASA
CEO Airservices Australia
Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (nee DOTARS).
Chief of Defence Force (CDF)

Together they form the Aviation Policy Group set up by the previous Minister to tin plate his backside from the likes of you and your medelsome counterproductive interference on issues like this.

They are the heads of the agencies that issued the Joint Consultation Paper on project ATLAS and where the ultimate decisions on low-level ADS-B will be made.

I'm sure their email adressess are publicly available. Why campaign here? Have you lost the ear of the minister.....or have you lost your minister:)

[Flying Binghi]

What happens to ADS-B when the civy GPS gets turned off ?

[Dick Smith]

It doesn't work! Now could that just be the reason the FAA is keeping all terminal radars and most en-route SSR,s when they put in ADSB?

[Spodman]

[hmmm! logged in to self-moderate my last post which in retrospect may have been a bit frooty and it has gorn. I'll try again...]Readers of PPRuNe will probably understand that the Airservices low level ADS-B project, and the planned removal of low level radars, is heading down the same route as the Super Seasprite helicopter purchase.Erm, really? Was ADS/B created for a patrol boat which was never built? Was ADS/B put into a paddock in the desert 30 years ago then painted up purty with added shiny bits and then flogged to the gullible? Was ADS/B bought off the shelf to an international standard like that nice dick smith bloke is always bleating about? No, no, no and yes.It is obvious that the decisions are made by those who never ask advice. For example, how can the “proposed 2012 mandate” ever come in now, as no decision has been made regarding the low level ADS-B project?You have your head in the sand there I believe, but regardless, it seems a good idea to get as much life as is reasonably available from the existing equipment to facilitate a delay in the final decision.As I have pointed out numerous times, the FAA is keeping all of its secondary surveillance radar for airspace above FL180 for safety and other reasons. Why is it that Australia is to go it alone on a cheaper ADS-B only system?Weren't you saying last week the FAA wanted to turn them off? I referred your comments to a US ATC of my acquaintance and this is her comment: "Okay, I want to bite your pinhead on the neck too. I see he's an authority on the FAA too, and talks as though he knows Pat Forrey personally." More importantly, this life extension program is completely unsatisfactory. New Zealand has actually issued a contract to completely refurbish their secondary surveillance radar to give a life of at least 20 years. That is what we need here.NO!:= No half-baked Frankenstein creation melding obsolete and unsupported gear with untried & internationally unique bits welded on thanks. That would be another Seasprite project if there ever was one. New radar or new ADS/B. Don't care which. If existing equipment can be maintained longer in the meantime that is good.It is obvious that Airservices has not considered the situation where the low level ADS-B mandate does not come in, and we therefore will need to keep the secondary surveillance radars for a much longer period. Well obviously they have, or they would have just ordered the new ADS/B.

[tail wheel]

Yes, it was "a bit frooty"!! :mad: :mad: You know better than that! :=

And removed for very good reason, as you well know!

When you fail to post your argument objectively and impersonally, you destroy your own credibility.

Tail Wheel

[Dick Smith]

Spodman, why doesn’t anyone from Airservices come on this site and put their name to the decision for the low level ADS-B and sell its advantages? You only post anonymously – presumably so when problems occur you can’t be held accountable in any way. In the meantime, millions of dollars will be spent that could be wasted.

In relation to your American air traffic controller friend, why doesn’t she answer the point rather than attack me personally? The FAA has stated that it will be keeping the secondary surveillance radars to provide a service above FL180 when ADS-B is installed. Surely she can come back and say if this is true or not. The reason she doesn’t is that she knows that it is!

I stated clearly on this site a number of weeks ago that the FAA has become as dysfunctional as Airservices, very much for the same reason. That is, in the past in both organisations had people in charge who had a good aviation background. About a decade ago the FAA Administrators were “de-skilled”, and no longer were people with professional aviation experience given the position – it was handed to bureaucrats from the transport department in Washington.

Look at what happened here in Australia. John Anderson put a farmer with absolutely no aviation background or knowledge in charge of Airservices.

BN APP 125.6, I’m not holding up the FAA “as an example of how things should be done”, I’m simply stating a basic fact. That is, when they plan to go to ADS-B, they are going to keep secondary surveillance radars to cover the airspace above FL180. This is obviously so they have a back up if the GPS system goes out.

In Australia, the whole basis for our low level GPS system is the money saving that can allegedly be obtained by turning off these enroute secondary surveillance radars.

I can assure everyone who reads this that our proposed ADS-B system, which is allegedly subsidised to the tune of $100 million to GA, has not been attempted anywhere else in the world. There is not even an inexpensive certified ADS-B ‘out’ or ‘in’ unit suitable for GA.

As I have said before, I’m a strong supporter of ADS-B – but not leading the world, and not going ahead without examining all the pros and cons, and communicating them to everyone involved.

[Roger Standby]

Dick,

You'll never get any official response from AsA on this "rumour" site. Same as you won't get a high ranking military official response or someone in management from CASA or the ATSB. It's not the appropriate place.

Having said that, you're asking for someone from AsA to be accountable.:rolleyes:

I can also assure you that although you don't know who SPODMAN is, he is well known by ATC's, and is regarded highly by us and management. His knowledge and opinions are well respected by those of us that know him(most of the time :}) and he is well aware of his accountability for the things he posts on this site.

I, on the other hand, probably have a lot less respect for my management these days so continue to loosely use an alias.:hmm:

[Dick Smith]

Kaptain Kaos, well may you say “yawn yawn.” No doubt some people were saying that when others were querying the Super Seasprite order 10 years ago. Now $1 billion later, it is no longer a yawning matter, it is a serious waste of resources.

I have recently been told that the decision in relation to the ADS-B project and the $100 million subsidy is going to be made by the Department. Now remember the Department is now called the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – and everything else! In my experience, they have no one left who has any expertise in this field. How would they ever be able to make such an important decision?

More to the point, why is the Department making this decision? Surely it should be Airservices proposing it to the industry and CASA, then making the decision in conjunction with all three – i.e. Airservices, CASA and the industry.

If it is the Department, don’t hold your breath.

[Spodman]

Spodman, why doesn’t anyone from Airservices come on this site and put their name to the decision for the low level ADS-B and sell its advantages?
I am from Airservices, but I am not a spokesperson for them. My name is in my profile if anybody is interested, if that is tecknikally beyhond your it is Mark Spedding. We have met, and spoken at the odd airshow. Most ATC & professional pilots seem to prefer anonymity as they believe other peoples careers have been affected by what they have posted here, and also believe management are as diligent in cracking user names as you are. I'm sure this has been explained to about a bazillion times, but I'm sure you still don't get it. Because my identity is readily accessible I don't always speak my mind or get involved here in industrial issues.

I don't propose to spruik for ADS/B or SSR, just don't want to see stuff posted here I think is misleading or untrue. I'm happy to keep ATC'ing with the tools I'm given, and the procedures mandated. I can see a huge benefit in efficiency with stage 2 ADS/B, enabling the sort of airspace arrangements that seem to give you a stiffy, and really don't get why you are fighting it. The easier option for me is business as usual with the gear we have now, but I don't object to exerting myself a bit for the system to improve. Bring it on!The FAA has stated that it will be keeping the secondary surveillance radars to provide a service above FL180 when ADS-B is installed.
It is misleading statements like this that get me steamed about you, and reassure me in my opinion that you really don't have a clue. The article you linked in your last rant on this subject has a quote from the boss of the group writing the new rules:

“ADS-B, as a replacement of radar separation for all aircraft, is a core element in ATC modernization that NBAA supports and is working to enhance through the ARC.”

[Dick Smith]

Spodman, you resort to personal attack again - i.e. you state that I “really don’t have a clue” but don’t come up with any facts.

I have stated that the FAA plans to keep all secondary surveillance radars right across the USA to provide a secondary surveillance radar back up service above FL180 when ADS-B is fully installed.

In response to this you state:

It is misleading statements like this that get me steamed about you

However you provide no evidence. I can assure you I have spoken to people at the FAA and their document makes it quite clear that they are going to keep the secondary surveillance radars to provide a radar service above FL180 after ADS-B is installed.

You say my statement is misleading. Where is your evidence? Are you actually stating that the FAA proposes to close down all its secondary surveillance enroute radars in a similar way to the Australian proposal? It is as if you know that I am stating a fact, and because it works against your belief system, you will simply personally attack me rather than address this important issue.

I can assure you that at the present time, I wouldn’t like to see an enroute system that is totally based on GPS, and if the GPS system goes out we have no surveillance at all. At the present time if one SSR head goes out we have others, and there is a portable unit which can be brought in to replace it. Everything else is backed up (i.e. power supplies, links etc).

The multilateration system which is being installed in Tasmania has backed up power supplies and multiple outlets so if one goes down, the system will still fundamentally work. The multilateration system is not based on the GPS system working.

Why isn’t Airservices telling us how that system is going and advising why they have spent such a fortune on the system, if they are not planning to take notice of its performance and compare it with ADS-B, which requires operation of the GPS constellation?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

:hmm: .. perhaps the FAA position on RADAR is 3 fold:-
.
1. Redundancy
2. Primary coverage in TMA areas
3. To cover off the potential 'disconnect' holes in a Dual band ADS-B system ;)
.
As for WAMLat ... who knows, more the point who cares, particularly if those operating the airspace (where GA conflict pairs mostly exist) will not see the surveillance data :hmm: :ugh:
.
Warren, you've really got a bee in yer bonnet eh := ... TOOL! :mad:

[PlankBlender]

Dick, the thing I don't get is why you don't work with Airservices to try to influence the solution in the direction you think will benefit the country's aviation industry, but instead resort to complaining about what seems like an honest attempt to bring aviation into the 21st century!?

With your money and influence I am sure you're well placed to nudge people and opinions in the best direction, and as a very successful businessman you will know that antagonism rarely advances any issue.. :confused:

As per the initiative itself, I can't see why there's such a big fuss. In my view (and maybe I'm being naive here, but I am sure someone can enlighten me in that case), the positives of this drive are overwhelming.

First and foremost from Joe C172 owner's point of view, we get our avionics upgraded FOR FREE!:eek: Every IFR and later VFR aircraft gets the gift of a HUGE improvement in situational awareness. Just peek into any given machine at a GA airport near you, and you'll see ancient, unreliable, twitching ADFs, VORs, and even older COMs. Now imagine how much safer and how much more attractive GA will be if every machine out there has a nice new colour moving map GPS like the Garmin 430 or something similar that displays traffic and possibly weather, combined with a crisp COM system..

And when it comes to the consulting process, compared to other countries around the world where I have seen similar things happen, I think AirServices are doing a pretty good job. Having read the submission document and the recently presented summary of responses (which was overwhelmingly positive, not surprisingly..), the biggest criticism I have of the process is that all the petty interest groups in this country are dragging out the day that I can present the $15,000 voucher to my avionics guru and tell him to upgrade my GPS and transponder.

Just briefly one quick response to all the "What If GPS Fails/The US Switch It Off" doomsdayers out there: Don't you think that by the time the world of aviation comes to rely exclusively on GPS, the techheads of this world wouldn't have figured out how to keep the system going by reference to the ground based WAAS stations alone in an emergency, for example?

Ducking for cover now :}

[bushy]

I agree we should try and work with the govt organisations as we are all part of a team.
But do you really believe what you are saying?
The indications so far are that you will get a box under the dash that tells everyone where you are like the transponder does, but which tells you NOTHING. It will be of great benefit to the airlines and Air services and a cost to GA.

[GaryGnu]

Surely no one is proposing that the US Government would turn off the GPS constellation intentionally. It is not US Government Policy (http://pnt.gov/policy/)to turn the GPS off.

That leaves the possibility of loss of signal due to system(s) malfunction.

I will leave it to the experts on how many simultaneous failures are required for a complete loss of signal. However, what is important is what is done if the signal is lost.

Widespread installaion of ADS-B need not result in a reduction of system safety in the event of a loss of GNSS signal. There will still be useable radio navaids and procedural ATC/Directed Traffic Information backed up by TCAS just as there is now.

[james michael]

Plank Bender

Now imagine how much safer and how much more attractive GA will be if every machine out there has a nice new colour moving map GPS like the Garmin 430 or something similar that displays traffic and possibly weather, combined with a crisp COM system

I might be incorrect but as I read the JCP and JCP CBA proposal the dashboard GPS only goes into IFR aircraft. VFR get a TSO 145 GPS engine that drives the ADS-B location data but does NOT give ANY NAV or COM information. Nothing on the dashboard at all.

If that's the case, what's in it for the average VFR owner? Most probably fly in G airspace and don't really desire ADS-B IN at their cost for normal CTAF operations.

Am I muddled?

[Dick Smith]

Scurvy.D.Dog, I think you are telling us that even after the millions of dollars have been spent on the Wide Area Multilateration system in Tasmania, that the controllers operating the airspace where most of the conflict pairs exist will not actually see the data on a screen. If this is so, it is yet another reflection of the total incompetence of your people in Canberra.

Why would you spend millions of dollars on a state of the art system and then not have the surveillance data available?

I can assure you that this situation does not happen in other leading aviation countries. Wherever there is radar coverage (or something equivalent like multilateration) the controller who is responsible for the airspace which is covered by the system is the same controller responsible for the aircraft, and is the person the pilot talks to.

Scurvy, you should get some competent people in Canberra.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Dick
.
For the first time, in a very long time, you and I agree (on your last post)!!
.
James
.
You are not muddled (entirely), the issue you raise is one that needs addressing for VFR.
.
145 (as I understand it) 'could' be used to drive raw data into a moving map type display whether the display is certified or not. It will NOT provide all the 'additional' nav data that the 146 unit provides!

[PlankBlender]

From the Joint Consultation Paper:


• A voucher with a maximum value of $15,000 would be issued for IFR
aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics and TSO-C146
GNSS navigation equipment. IFR status will be determined from the
aircraft’s latest maintenance release.
• A voucher with a maximum value of $10,000 would be issued for VFR
aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics driven by a
TSO-C145 GNSS engine.


The only assumption I am making here is that the "acceptable avionics" (page 21 JCP) would include Garmin GNS-430W/550W, the GTX330 transponder, and similar industry standard machines.

If you then hook up the mode-S transponder to your GPS, even as a VFR owner, you'd have a colour moving map GPS for enroute navigation with traffic on the screen.. or am I missing something?

[Dick Smith]

PlankBender, a most important post – thanks. You have said:

Dick, the thing I don't get is why you don't work with Airservices to try to influence … what seems like an honest attempt to bring aviation into the 21st century!?

You also state:

we get our avionics upgraded FOR FREE! … Now imagine how much safer and how much more attractive GA will be if every machine out there has a nice new colour moving map GPS like the Garmin 430 or something similar that displays traffic and possibly weather, combined with a crisp COM system.

The problem is that this isn’t what is proposed. As the post below by Bushy clearly states, what is proposed is simply:

a box under the dash that tells everyone where you are like the transponder does, but which tells you NOTHING.

PlankBender, the reason I am no longer attempting to work positively with these people is that they are unethical.

I will give you some examples. You believe you will get a $15,000 voucher to allow you to buy some pretty fantastic equipment. The truth is quite different. The cost benefit case which was prepared for the low level ADS-B proposal was flawed. For example, on the benefit side of the equation it showed ADS-B ‘in’ – i.e. the displays you are talking about which show traffic etc. However it only put in the cost of ADS-B ‘out’ – i.e. the box under the dash as described by Bushy – and that is all that was going to be subsidised.

The paper also showed a cost saving from removing the navigational aids, and used that as a benefit for ADS-B, when the two are quite separate.

When these flaws were pointed out to Airservices, rather than re-doing the cost benefit study, they did nothing. This is where the lack of ethics comes in. Many people thought that it was a simple mistake by those who prepared the cost benefit study. However the study has never been rectified, and Airservices allows people such as yourself (and others who gave “overwhelmingly” positive support for the low level ADS-B proposal) to believe the flawed study and that they will be provided with ADS-B ‘in’ and other flashy gizmos.

I believe you are in a similar position to the Naval aviators who were told a decade ago that they were going to get the best and most modern helicopters in the world. They were probably told they were going to have the best. In fact, after $1 billion of waste they got nothing. I believe the same will happen with the low level ADS-B project.

When an organisation goes down a dishonest path, nothing will save them – look at the Wheat Board.

Let me give you another example. Airservices prepared a safety case for the airspace changes which resulted in us having “upside down” airspace – i.e. high classifications where the risk is small, and low airspace classifications where the risk is high.

The Minister at the time was so disturbed he ordered CASA to obtain an independent consultant’s advice on the safety study. This study (called Report on analysis of NAS 2b conducted by Airservices Australia) was prepared by Professor Terry O’Neill, the Head of the School of Applied Statistics at ANU – possibly the most qualified person in Australia to advise on this issue. The report clearly showed that the Airservices study was so flawed that the real results could be the opposite of what the Airservices Board was told.

CASA was so concerned that they advised the Airservices Board to be briefed by Professor O’Neill. If you were an Airservices Board member, I feel sure you would jump at the chance of having a briefing – you would want to be properly informed. What happened in the intervening 4 years? Professor O’Neill has never been allowed near the Board, let alone to give a briefing.

There is an explanation for this. The advisers to the Airservices Board are unethical and would have made it clear that once the Board members became aware of the flaws in the safety study, they could be held accountable. In effect, “If you don’t get a briefing by Professor O’Neill you will be able to say when an accident occurs, “We never knew that the safety study was flawed.””

It should be pointed out that the safety study still remains, and now CASA’s Office of Airspace Regulation is using the same flawed basis for their safety studies.

A similar situation is occurring with the low level ADS-B system.

Fortunately there are some Board members who realise that although most of the industry believes (as you do, PlankBender) that a $15,000 voucher will cover some fancy equipment in the dashboard, this is not true.

Within the Airservices organisation, there is a cancerous code of dishonesty as part of the culture. It must lower the morale of everyone.

I have said before that I support ADS-B, but not a system of an “incompetent, never ask advice, go down a Seasprite route” catastrophe. That is what they are doing.

[james michael]

Plank

I feel we are both on the same track; a matter of definition being the issue.

For $10,000 you do not get a ES transponder and a GPS fitted, and most VFR aircraft don't have the luxury of a Garmin 430 or similar. At least a quarter get by with a handheld GPS.

If you look closely at what you have quoted notice it states:
IFR = TSO-C146 GNSS navigation equipment, and,
VFR = TSO-C145 GNSS engine

That means to me that the VFR 'engine' is only exactly that - to only provide positional data to the ES transponder BUT nothing to the pilot.

I have read through both the JCP and JCP CBA and I find them very mixed up. Indeed much of the 'benefits' are with ADS-B IN but that's not provided. And, hooking up an ES transponder will not get you traffic - I read it that you need additional ADS-B IN equipment.

Which brings me back to my question - what's in it for VFR owners and pilots if they don't get a GPS? (Not trying to create an argument, but if you and I are confused about the owner 'benefits?' how many others are likewise)

[Dick Smith]

PlankBender, what you are missing is that it would not be possible to get a Garmin GNS-430, plus the GTX330 transponder, plus installation, plus the relevant drawings etc, for $15,000 – and the whole combination will not give traffic on the screen.

To get traffic on the screen you would have to purchase a TCAS unit, which would cost another $15,000 to $20,000 or so - say, $40,000 in total.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Dick
.
Part of what you have been 'fed' ;) and regurgitated :rolleyes: above is correct. How about regurgitating the rest of what is being fed to you on the subject. :p
.
Cancerous codes of dishonesty :D oh Dick .... there is a line there ... but I sharn't :oh:

[T28D]

James Michael, You are certainly not muddled, there is nothing in ADSB out for the VFR operator in G airspace.

If that's the case, what's in it for the average VFR owner? Most probably fly in G airspace and don't really desire ADS-B IN at their cost for normal CTAF operations.

Am I muddled?

An Auster at Parkes will become visible to the "system" the real question is why will that help anyone.

[Dick Smith]

Scurvy, I havn't been "fed" anything. My training and background is electronics-now for over 40 years - and I have been involved in hi tech ATC purchasing since 1990 when I was chairman of the CAA and we made the TAAATS decision to purchase proven equipment.

In my business career I have puchased hundreds of millions of dollars worth of high tech equipment without making an error that has incurred even $1 of loss.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

:D Geez that was a quick flush out :E
there is nothing in ADSB out for the VFR operator in G airspace. .. unless they want GPS data (which they might NOT currently have), and wish to drive a low cost display ;OR
.
Maybe VFR who want it, might prefer a 146 GNSS kit? :ooh:
An Auster at Parkes will become visible to the "system" the real question is why will that help anyone. ... it won't if YPKS is not within ADS coverage := .... and even if it is, there is no service to VFR in G ;)
.
Your turn for a tune :E .... will it be in E, C, D of G(R) :}

[Willoz269]

Dick,

I think you will find it hard not to get replies to your ranting that cannot be categorised as personal attacks.

Since you were removed as head of CASA you have become adept at throwing hand grenades at the establishment and generally going against anything they do, even if their initiative was originally yours when you were in charge!!!

Your absolute and total lack of understanding of certain areas of aviation, ATC specially, are downright embarassing....I quote you:

"the problem is that especially the professional air traffic controllers, they are
specifically trained to follow rules and not to ever change rules. And so they just
constantly run a campaign, they want to talk about this, very important, to stop any
change to the future, any move forward. "

Or this absolute pearl:

"the problem is that the professional air traffic controllers naturally have a
self interest in making sure there's as many air traffic controllers employed as possible.
So what's happened, for thirteen years, when the government's tried to move forward to
a modern air space system... And by the way, this one is not just the US system, it's the
system used in Canada, used in Europe, it's simply the most efficient in the world.
What's happened over the years, the air traffic controllers have run a very effective
industrial campaign to stop any move forward to a more efficient system."

A concept of a modern air space system appears to be one in which Dick Smith and his mates do not have to file a flight plan nor talk to anyone and they can do what they like while QF 747s turn to avoid them and have to do a friendly wave as they zoom past, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Australia has been leading the way in ATC for some years now, with the introduction of TAAATS which yes, it had its problems, as no other country in the world had integrated a system like this, with MSSR, TAR, Sat, GNSS and ADS feeds all integrated into one. I know a person with so much experience in this that he is constantly travelling to Europe to provide expertise in our system, the US? They constantly ask about it, but they can't afford to have anything similar, they still have sites running on vacuum tubes!!!

Early in the 1990s we run a strong petition to have an MSSR installed in Alice Springs as heavy traffic goes over it....it eventually got approved, only to be donated to PNG for installation outside Moresby...do we need to state who the chairman of the CAA was who authorised this??? We were left with procedural control which in your view should not enter calculations because nothing is better than an MSSR.

I believe ADS is the way forward, it will NOT be perfect now, nor in 5 years, but eventually it will be the way to go for safe and affordable aviation in the world, and again, we will be leading the world.

The one thing we lack in this country is managers/chairpersons with vision or leadership skills, people who are not afraid of change, to consider the opinions/ideas of people in the front line or afraid of serving people other than themselves or their egotistical self-interests.

[Flying Binghi]

..............DME(A) :hmm:

[Dick Smith]

Willoz269, stick to the facts. I was not removed as head of CASA. I resigned because I was not prepared to accept accountability without authority. It is well known that I had lost confidence in Mick Toller, the CEO, and wanted him to go, whilst the Minister John Anderson wanted him to stay.

I wasn’t going to stick around for another 6 years under John Anderson doing absolutely nothing – now that would have been hell on Earth.

The quotes you have made in relation to my comments on air traffic controllers are generally correct, however they are from long ago and my views have changed slightly since then.

The following statement is completely wrong in relation to me wanting an airspace system:

in which Dick Smith and his mates do not have to file a flight plan nor talk to anyone and they can do what they like while QF 747s turn to avoid them

I have always had a position that resources should be allocated dependent on risk. In some cases that means upgrading Class G airspace to controlled airspace. I was certainly against VFR aircraft having to file a full position IFR type flight plan for flights of over 50 miles. This was because it misallocated about $100 million per year which could have been spent (and has been) elsewhere on aviation safety. I’m glad I was involved in changing that one.

I’m sure you believe your claim that Australia and Europe are far ahead of the US (“They still have sites running on vacuum tubes!!!”), however it is generally a myth.

My view is to always copy the best. There are some things Australia does better, some things Europe does better, and some things that are done better in North America. Take the best ideas – that is the way to be successful.

Another myth is your claim that I was somehow involved in not approving a secondary surveillance radar for Alice Springs. That is complete codswallop. No wonder you post under a pseudonym and not under your own name.

Most importantly, why don’t you comment on the two issues I mentioned in my post above? That is, the flawed cost benefit study for ADS-B (that has not been corrected) and the flawed safety study and the report by Professor O’Neill? You attack me on other matters to try to diffuse the issue. Fortunately lots of intelligent people read this site so most won’t be fooled.

[T28D]

Scurvy, So if 95% of the Australian FIR is G airspace just why do VFR aircraft need ADSB out ??

Last I looked they need a compass and time piece for Navigation, no requirement for a GPS.

Don't even need a radio if they don't use CTAF (R)

So just what does ADSB out do for them ?????

[Bob Murphie]

It gives them things to fiddle with like Van5 DME.

BTW and risking going off topic, why was the quadrantal rule changed for the hemispherical. Happened about the same time as accepting International DME from memory? I could be wrong in a perverse roundabout way.

[james michael]

Mr Smith

Now I am muddled.

To get traffic on the screen you would have to purchase a TCAS unit

When I read through the very complex JCP I thought you could get traffic on an ADS-B IN screen and that was some of the claims being made about safety?

Has Airservices dropped out the technical ability to enable that facility? If so it is deplorable as only the airlines can afford TCAS and I think they need to review the options for the non-airline people. Is that a safety issue you can apply pressure?

[Dick Smith]

In a previous post on this thread, I stated:

It should be pointed out that the safety study still remains, and now CASA’s Office of Airspace Regulation is using the same flawed basis for their safety studies.

This was referring to the flawed Airservices report on the analysis of NAS 2b.

I have now had my legal advisers write directly to the CEO of CASA in relation to this important issue. See here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Letter_to_Byron_25_June_08.php).

[PlankBlender]

Hmm, I am not sure I want to get involved in the argument about ethics and so forth, my first hand experiences with aviation officials in this country have been good ones.

Here's the relevant blurb from the Garmin GTX330 transponder manual, I would say I'll get traffic on my 430/530 with that one:


Traffic Information Service
The GTX 330 Mode S transponder provides a data link for Traffic Information Service (TIS). TIS is derived through a Mode S transponder data link and viewed on a multifunction display. ATC radar sends a traffic picture within a radius of 55 miles from select sites. The TIS protected area is a cylinder of 7-mile radius, extending 3500’ above and 3000’ below your aircraft. Refer to the AIM Chapter 1 for more details.
TIS provides a graphic display of traffic information in the cockpit for non-TCAS equipped aircraft. Transponder-equipped aircraft can be displayed within the coverage volume within range of your position on indicators such as a Garmin GNS 430 or GNS 530, GNS 480, and GMX 200. Aircraft without an operating transponder are invisible to TIS. Refer to 400/500 series, GNS 480 or GMX 200 pilot literature for details.


Let me make up two relatively realistic cases for the subsidy here:

1. IFR: 15k will buy you an installed GNS430W/GTX330 combo methinks. Avionix.com quote 10k US for an installed 430, for example, and I would think a local avionics shop wanting your business will get you there with the GTX330 in close proximity of 15k. Let's not forget that for that kind of money you also get a NAV/COM, so you're really getting quite a bit more than a GPS and transponder.

2. VFR: 10K will most likely get you an installed GPS400W/GTX330 combo (the 400W being the GNS430W minus the NAV/COM - let's face it, how many VFR pilots ever use a VOR or NDB for navigation if they have a GPS??). Avionics-laf.com advertise the 400W for just under 6400 bucks..

Am I still dreaming? :8

[Dick Smith]

James, it was their claim but it was a con to get genuine people like yourself and thousands of others to support their low level ADSB proposal.

[Dick Smith]

Plank, Airservices radars in Australia do not provide a TIS service and there are no plans to spend the millions required to offer such a service here.

As stated before it's all and intentional misleading con' by these people in Canberra.

You may not want to get involved in the ethics of the issue but you will certainly be effected by it!

[PlankBlender]

Well, Dick, are you saying the JCP is simply factually incorrect when listing as one of the three key benefits this (page 29):


A long term reduction in the risk of mid air collisions, especially those
involving small VFR GA aircraft, through fitment of traffic displays
and using aircraft position data from the ADS-B broadcasts, which will
enable aircraft-to-aircraft collision avoidance.


AFAIK, what is called "ADS-B broadcasts" above is what the Garmin manual calls "ATC radar transmission".

[Dick Smith]

Plank, it's very astutely written to mislead!

If you purchase an ADSB "in" display unit you will have these features however no certified unit exists and the cost isn't factored into the subsidy anyway.

[PlankBlender]

..but with the GTX330 accepting the ADS-B broadcast data and the 400W/500W/430W/530W series accepting traffic input from the GTX330, why wouldn't I get traffic information with such a combo?

:confused:

[Quokka]

The following statement is completely wrong in relation to me wanting an airspace system:

Quote:in which Dick Smith and his mates do not have to file a flight plan nor talk to anyone and they can do what they like while QF 747s turn to avoid them

This was exactly what I, and other controllers, experienced immediately following the introduction of Class E steps into Capitol City airports that infringed on the profile of heavy jets descending into those airports. Replace QF B747 with QF A330 and imagine the A330 inbound to Perth from the East, on descent below FL150. This was my Day 1 scenario. The A330 diverted 20NM to the North of track after receiving traffic information on an unidentified VFR. A perfect example of effective Class E airspace separation... except for the fact that it completely disrupted the arrival sequence into Perth that the Flow Controller and myself had, up until then, achieved with much effort. A complete waste of time and an increase in workload for myself and the crew of the A330.

With respect Dick, you wanted Class E and your argument has focused on issues of visual separation and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Not once have I read a discussion in which you have addressed the issue of Traffic Management and the impact on the other industry participants.

[Dick Smith]

Plank, you are not thick

It doesn't work in the way you would like it to because the necessary and expensive design has not been done by Garmin-sorry!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Dick is mostly right here guys.

You won't get traffic displayed on a G430/530 (W or not) + Mode S via TIS unless AsA transmit the data. TIS is a service provided in the US by the FAA, thus equipment exists to display it, like XM weather.

We are also not getting WAAS so there won't be any GPS precision approaches out in the Boonies either.

From a GA owners point of view this is looking more like a con job.

[Dick Smith]

Quokka,Qantas flies through Class E everyday into LAX and JFK without being moved 20 miles of track.

Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of these airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed?

In Australia we let RPT's and light aircraft get within 500' feet of each other(if your lucky) at places like Hornsby without even a transponder requirement where as in the USA there's a mandatory transponder veil and RPT's and lighties never are allowed by ATC to get within 500' of each other.

[phew_they_missed!]

Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of thes airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed?

Just like that huh? Should be easy to get time for that...what with all the excess staff we have around here.

[Willoz269]

Dick,

You are one of the first advocates of the amount it costs to run GA in this country...in the US small GAs are better equipped than they are here, it is very different.

You advocate your E Airspace, and we know who the first person to cry foul if there is an accident in Class E will be, and of course it will not be the airspace's fault, it will probably be the controllers, who had their powers of positive control removed in this airspace.

Didn't you call this Affordable Safety?

[PlankBlender]

This sheds light on the traffic info display issue:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/projects/adsb/news/whatiscompatible.pdf

Published by AirServices, Dick :}

[mjbow2]

Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of thes airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed?


Just like that huh? Should be easy to get time for that...what with all the excess staff we have around here.

I have previously publicly committed myself to donating $1100 to a program that will send controllers to the US to observe how it is done over there. I am sure Dick Smith would support such a program, as he did when he was on the board of the CAA.

[Dick Smith]

Planky, I note that the displays are "expected" to become available.

No date or price is given.

Earlier in this thread you had been misled into believing that Garmin could provide the units now at a price that would be covered by the subsidy.

Thousands of GA pilots are not as informed as you are now.

[Dick Smith]

Mjbow2, I instigated the system when I was Chairman of CAA and it was dumped almost immediately after I had finished my term-as were many other of my innitiatives.

Of course I would support it's re-introduction.

[Jabawocky]

OK....in my opinion this is what should be implimented.

ADSB upper level as is moving ahead. Definite benefits enroute.

ADSB Lower level;
- original radio sites etc asa per original proposal.
- all GA from Ultralights to charter to have a minimum combination ADSB/Mode C transponder (ADSB OUT ONLY). Supplied FOC.
- ADSB in is a nice option for RPT or anyone wanting to spend the $$$ to fit it.

The benefits of this is ATC have vastly more coverage. Everyone is in the system, allowing IFR to have better traffic seperation / information. All the non transponder fitted a/c then have a transponder, thus providing TCAS alerts for RPT (or anyone fitted with TCAS) & protection that they do not have at so many regional aerodromes. Examples are Hervey Bay or Ballina.....and dozens more! When a B737/A320 cleans up a Piper Cub and 180 people die, these words will make more sense!

VFR lighties do not need to gain anything for day to day use, however the benefits when needing help, be it weather, navigation or emergencies will be there and over a greater proportion of the country.

And the diverted expenditure on En-Route Radar would allegedly pay for it.

And for the negative mided folk, terminal radar will always remain.

J

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Mode S

The following link to a good article explaining the various evolutions of mode S (including 1090ES ADS-B)

Mode S technology (http://rfdesign.com/military_defense_electronics/radio_understanding_mode_technology/index.html)

The following is an interesting and pertinent article to this discussion. Note the complexities of that which is proposed in the US. Largely as a result of the mix of technologies they are interfacing such as Mode S RADAR (1090ES) with TIS display equipped aircraft, then retransmission of that traffic data on separate ground based TIS-B via ADS-R to ADS-B (UAT) aircraft.

Mixing up TIS and TIS-B.(READBACK)(Letter to the editor) Industry & Business Article - Research, News, Information, Contacts, Divisions, Subsidiaries, Business Associations (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6949919/Mixing-up-TIS-and-TIS.html#abstract)

Publication: IFR
Publication Date: 01-APR-07
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Grappel, Robert D.
Full Article:
"Life After Capstone" in the February 2007 issue of IFR has a few technical errors that need correcting.

The article states that Mode S ADS-B transmissions can't contain both latitude and longitude in the same message. In fact, Mode S ADSB transmissions for aircraft in flight contain a full position report (latitude/longitude/altitude) in a singlemessage. A separate Mode S ADS-B message is used for the airborne velocity data.

I was one of the engineers who worked on Mode S ADS-B. We worked hard to fit all the required ADS-B functionality into the Mode S broadcast 56-bit data payload!

The article implies that Traffic Information System--Broadcast (TIS-B) is only supported via UAT. This is not so. Both Mode S and UAT support the TIS-B application.

TIS-B often gets confused with "Traffic Information Service" (TIS). TIS is a part of the Mode S sensor-network of the FAA. It transmits traffic data to aircraft equipped with a Mode S transponder and the right display. (I'm one of the principal designers of TIS.) TIS-B, however, is a bridge for the transition of our airspace to ADS-B. It is not intended to be an equivalent service to TIS or TCAS.

For Mode S ADS-B aircraft to see non-ADS-B aircraft, the FAA will build a network of ground transmitters (TIS-B stations) that receive surveillance (probably from existing radars). These TIS-B ground installations detect the non-ADS-B-aircraft, convert the surveillance data to ADS-B format, and transmit the ADS-B data themselves.

The fact that the FAA is supporting two ADS-B links (Mode S and UAT) complicates things. A given aircraft will probably only equip with one of the two links. So, how does it find out about aircraft equipped with the alternate link? Again, the FAA must build a network of ground equipment that receives data from each link and re-transmits it (after reformatting) on the other link. This function is termed "ADS-B Rebroadcast" (ADS-R). The FAA's ground stations will combine ADS-B, TIS-B, and Flight Information Service--Broadcast (FIS-B) functionality.

Mode S cannot support FIS-B efficiently using only broadcast operations because of its message length limitation (56 bits) for a single broadcast message. Mode S demonstrated "Flight Information Service" operation in the 1990s using a request-reply protocol (I was one of the designers back then). UAT has a longer message packet, so it has been chosen by the FAA to support FIS-B operations independently from ADS-B and TIS-B, which are supported by both links.

Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues. I read your magazine avidly, and appreciate the effort required to assimilate and describe much highly-technical material.

Robert D. Grappel

Concord, Mass.

Thanks for your clarifications. Our information on the ADS-13 position report came from a government source who either had it wrong or we misunderstood what had to be split. The point is the same, however: The limited data capabilities of Mode-S was a driver in the UAT link decision.

We stand by our comments on the problems with a two-link system, though. As you so clearly pointed out, it will require extensive ground infrastructure for everyone to see everyone else. All over the center of this country, commuter airlines are shooting approaches to airports below radar coverage.

Unless the FAA intends to put a UAT at every FAR Part 139 airport in the country, there will be lots of gaps where 1090ES airplanes will not see UAT airplanes. Aircraft that fly both high and rural, such as the coming crop of light jets, will have to choose which system to adopt or pony up for both.

And if the UAT doesn't relieve the Mode-C requirement, then the whole effort is likely to be derailed.

On other 1090ES ADS-B stuff

Airbus team tests in-trail surveillance INTRODUCTION: Airframer links with avionics provider ACSS to provide ADS-B system allowing pilots to optimise altitudes and routes (http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/news/2008/06/09/3487510.htm)

ACSS is now developing similar capabilities for Airbus as part of the T3CAS integrated surveillance and safety system that the airframer will certificate for its entire A320, A330 and A340 aircraft models in late 2009. The ADS-B information will be displayed on each pilot's navigation screen.

T3CSS includes traffic alert collision avoidance, terrain awareness and a Mode S transponder with ADS-B capabilities. ACSS plans to deliver T3CAS with ADS-B "In" software applications that include in-trail procedures, vertical separation on approach a surface position and traffic awareness programme. Each software application will be activated through Airbus service bulletins, says Salazar.

Whilst there are obviously many more Avionics companies ready to jump on ADS-B (1090 and UAT) IN and OUT systems (judging from the patent jockeying), Tis only a matter of time.

http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/1090_Light_EN_LR1.pdf

Not sure how much

And another

http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/1090_Receiver_EN_LR1.pdf

But then again, Chuck and Richard may well be right to say it’s a con …. So what to do??

- Forget about it, and stick with what we have and buy more MSSR?
- WAM Lat, without subsidy and a long timeframe ADS mandate (such as the US)??
- Or go with subsidised 1090ES ADS-B?

I could spend some time hypothesizing on the implications of each as far as CTA/OCTA and costs to industry, but then I am 'assured' by Richards protestations that he has all that taken care of!

Irrespective of the ‘surveillance’ part of this, the GNSS vice Navaid replacement part (which is not reliant on the ADS bit) should go ahead irrespective IMHO!

‘ASTRA LA VISTA’ ….. no pun intended!! :E

[james michael]

Mr Smith

I apologise if this seems contradictory but yesterday you told me ADS-B IN is an Airservices con.

I googled to check what happened overseas in trials and by fluke found this unit I can purchase in Australia that plugs into a basic computer.

Track Mode-S / ADS-B equipped aircraft in real time, for under $1000 (freight free to anywhere in Australia)

I realise this is not certified for aircraft but surely if GA goes ahead with ADS-B here is a market opportunity for someone to churn out similar suitable for aircraft?

The difficulty I'm having trying to follow all this is the conflicting advice I am reading often unsupported by any publication or paper.

Mr Dog

More of these links etc please - for a researcher like myself thses are a more concrete aspect of the debate, thank you.

[Flying Binghi]

Theres still one big problem with ADS-B... What happens when the civy GPS signal is lost ?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Binghi et al

Here is some bedtime reading on Space Weather and GPS. It is focused on the scientific atmospheric aspects, but provides some good info on ‘down in the weeds’ specifics on current and future GPS constellations and DGPS systems (terminal area/landing protection)

Space Weather :: Free Articles - Space Weather and the Global Positioning System (http://www.agu.org/journals/sw/swa/free/newarticle/?id=2008SW000400)

As far as ‘switching off’ GPS goes :rolleyes:

GPS, The War And You - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2003/03/25/cx_ah_0325gps.html)

Perhaps someone with more ‘tech’ knowledge might be able to explain the link (if there is one) between the GPS III constellation and TSO 145/6 :E

[Flying Binghi]

Thanks for the links scurvy, You probably havnt read my previous posts on 'why' the GPS signal maybe turned off, I tend to remove the posts fairly quikly. They were about UA-Vehicles and the miss-use off.

The Forbes article you quote goes a little vague when it talks of terrorist miss-use of the GPS signal (good reasons I guess) suffice to say that when GPS is eventualy miss-used it will likely be the end of the civy system for a while.

Also, probably not a good idea for Oz to spend money on an airnav system when we dont own or control a core component of the system.

From the Forbes article -

"We are not planning to degrade GPS, and there are no plans to degrade GPS," says Jason Kim, a GPS board spokesman. "The decision to turn off SA was a serious national policy decision. Obviously it could be overruled, but no one is seriously contemplating that right now."

And why Oz should not rely on a system that can be switched of at the whim of others.... Forbes again -

and re signal loss ... And a signal change could make an already weak economy worse. "Collectively it could have a substantial effect on industries as diverse as aviation, agriculture and municipal transportation," says Frost & Sullivan's Stearns.

Quotes via - GPS, The War And You - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2003/03/25/cx_ah_0325gps.html)

(I have bolded and underlined parts of the article)

[PlankBlender]

Here's the answer from Garmin in the states about ADS-B IN:


The GTX 330ES supports ADS-B Out capabilities. In order to support ADS-B In capabilities a 1090 MHz receiver would need to be added to the transponder. This would be a major change and would involve a new product development effort. Garmin has no plans to add a 1090-receive capability to the 330ES. It is possible to add a separate receiver box that would support ADS-B In functions. We do not have a development under way to add the 1090 receive capability at this time. We are closely monitoring the proposed ADS-B mandate in the States and the Lower Airspace Program in Australia, and will make a decision on future ADS-B product offerings when the final decisions are made.

The GNS 530 will display traffic and will support ADS-B In display of traffic information. No future modifications should be required of the GNS 530 to support the display of ADS-B traffic. In the unlikely event that mods are required they would involve a field upgradeable software revision.

[james michael]

Plank Bender

In a commercial world the Garmin approach is not a surprise. I read into it that they are watching what happens here in Australia as a determinant to manufacture of 1090ES ADS-B IN.

The reason is surely that if the USA goes to the other ADS-B (UAT) then Garmin will make UAT ADS-B IN a higher priority as the airlines will use far more sophisticated equipment and the 1090ES ADS-B IN market will be small.

Flying Binghi

I have followed the UAV progress and I believe GPS is useful to UAV but not necessarily necessary to mission completion.

On another related technical topic, I find the debate on WAAS of interest, particularly the arguments to use a Japanese satellite. I think the argumant you are putting forward is probably counter to WAAS also.

(I think I will soon need a dictionary of aviation acronyms.)

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Binghi

Yes, troublesome ain’t it …. without the rest of the article for context that is := :E

There are no export restrictions on civilian GPS technology, so potential U.S. enemies could easily buy the equipment and attempt to use it to their advantage. Still, it makes little sense for the U.S. to revert to the fuzzy civilian signal. Even under dire military emergencies, doing so would give U.S. forces no advantage. Terrorist attacks don't call for much navigation precision. The military has it own highly accurate tamper-proof encrypted signal that civilian equipment can't receive.

And a signal change could make an already weak economy worse. "Collectively it could have a substantial effect on industries as diverse as aviation, agriculture and municipal transportation," says Frost & Sullivan's Stearns.

And

And if the U.S. needs to deny GPS use to Iraqi forces, it is understood to have the ability to do so. Glen Gibbons, a GPS analyst who also edits a technical magazine on the technology, says the Air Force can send false GPS-like signals over selected areas that would prompt civilian equipment to show incorrect position data. Says Gibbons of the military: "Their plans involve doing something in the area of operations, but not to the satellites themselves."

Plank

In order to support ADS-B In capabilities a 1090 MHz receiver would need to be added to the transponder. This would be a major change and would involve a new product development effort. Garmin has no plans to add a 1090-receive capability to the 330ES. It is possible to add a separate receiver box that would support ADS-B In functions. We do not have a development under way to add the 1090 receive capability at this time. …. Hmmm

OK then, lets look local

http://www.microair.com.au/admin/uploads/T2000ACSStransponderspecification01R1.pdf

The T2000ACS series transponders include the T2000ACS-S with serial GPS interface and the T2000ACS-A with an ARINC429 GPS interface. All T2000ACS series transponders feature mode 3A/C, mode S, and ADS-B in/out functions. A serial data interface to CDTI equipment and external altitude encoders is also standard.

Microair has designed the T2000ACS to be the smallest possible package, and low weight. Installation was designed to be as simple as possible, to allow the T2000ACS to be used in a wide range of aircraft types.

So techo types out there, If Microair HAVE a TXPDR that will interface with Serial and ARINC429 GPS inputs (thinking TSO 145 engines and 146 GPS NAV’s), and provide ADS-B OUT AND IN for CDTI’s ….. errrm .. what’s the issue??
From the MICROAIR document also (remembering that their GPS is a separate unit form the ADS-B TXPDR)

The T2000GPS is a low cost GPS sensor which is compliant to requirements of TSO C129a. The T2000GPS also features FDE and RAIM functions and outputs the Horizontal Protection Limit (HPL). The T2000GPS currently assumes SA is ON in the calculation of HPL.

A planned WAAS upgrade will bring the T2000GPS into compliance with TSO C145a class beta 1 equipment. The upgrade will also configure the GPS to not assume Selective Availability (SA) ON for any navigation or integrity monitoring functions.

There are other ADS-B TXPDR manufacturers doing this also.

CLR (http://www.zweefportaal.nl/luchtruim/txpr3.htm)

To recap

Richard says

If you purchase an ADSB "in" display unit you will have these features however no certified unit exists and the cost isn't factored into the subsidy anyway. .... really :hmm:

Yup .. it’s a con! :rolleyes:

[Flying Binghi]

I have followed the UAV progress and I believe GPS is useful to UAV but not necessarily necessary to mission completion.



james michael, what is the mission profile you are describing ?

[Flying Binghi]

Errr... Scurvy, I was quoteing from an article you referenced.

Looks like we will have to do it your way -

Terrorist attacks don't call for much navigation precision.

I assume then that the 9eleven attackers just flew into the first building they seen :rolleyes: (and no, I'm not relating the 9II events to GPS)

The military has it own highly accurate tamper-proof encrypted signal that civilian equipment can't receive

No dispute here. I will note the Forbes article is vague at best :hmm:

the Air Force can send false GPS-like signals over selected areas that would prompt civilian equipment to show incorrect position data

Oz has a long coast line with the majority of the population within 50 miles of the coast. Will we permantly need to send false signals from the coast line outwards ? as james michael pionted out, UAVs can fly without GPS. A simple computer programme will take the UAV through this ring of false signals, then once receiving the GPS again, resume mission.

[james michael]

Flying Binghi

I believe you summed up the UAV answer in your later reply to Mr Dog.

Even the simple ones are fitted with an emergency loiter capability (I believe was used in the Kingaroy trial to stay clear of urgent aircraft traffic but no proof thereof). There is also manual over-ride facility and I believe at West Sale this can be used.

In full military regalia I have no doubt the larger units would include INS equivalent and terrain recognition capability to complete mission - as they would expect GPS jamming and spoofing as likely countermeasures already.

(As an aside, there were several near misses in the war zone between UAV and combat aircraft near landing sites - they could have used ADS-B IN at the time no doubt)

[Pera]

The argument to reject ADSB because GPS may be turned off won't stack up in any risk analysis. The risk is low.

At the moment GPS is turned off, all aircraft being separated by ADSB will still be separated. An alternate method will have to be put in place, and procedural separation applied. There will be delays to civilian aircraft in controlled airspace, but the safety factors are minimal.

If the signal is downgraded, then the risk is even less.

I don't see how industry could reject ADSB because of this risk factor, especially considering the advantages of radar like coverage.

[Chimbu chuckles]

SDD is the microair unit certified or homebuilt types only?

There is a LOT of great gear produced for the homebuilt market...REALLY good gear...autopilots/EFIS PFDs, etc but none can be installed in my Bonanza as primary because it is not certified.

If CASA relaxed the rules for piston private ops (at least) the world would really open up for aircraft owners in terms of what gear they can install.

All this good gear is a fraction of the cost of the certified gear, between 10 -25%.

Look at the gear Jaba is putting in his RV10, in terms of primary flight instruments and autopilots, and he will be legally allowed to fly IFR. Those of us with certified aircraft are restricted to gear that is no more capable but costs 5-10 times as much.

Dynon Avionics - Home (http://www.DynonAvionics.com/)

CASA are so far behind the curve in this area as to simply beggar belief. Private ops should be private ops and I should not need to pay a 500% premium for gear that is self evidently better and SAFER than what was installed in 1970.

I'd bet folding money this situation will not change soon.

Are we to be required to match AsA's $ out of our pockets, because the C^*ts Against Safe Aviation are 30 years behind the times, for a system that does no more than my mode C transponder/big end of town's TCAS does now so the thieving Govt (who takes several thousand $/annum GST off me now for aviation activities for precisely zero return) can save more of my tax money to be wasted on sundry bonuses and handouts?

FTDK has purchased a handheld TCAD unit recently that provides TA (no RA) just from the signals received from proximate transponders.

ADS-B will give him more what, exactly?

'Low level ADS-B' is not going to be that low anyway without a LOT more ground stations so the SAR savings part of the cost/benefit case is a bit of spin too.

MSSR around the capital city primary airports (all 8:rolleyes:) is to remain in place..not that we are welcomed there anyway...but transitioning no issue from an ATC management point of view...and if you are prepared to pay the $ you can land at them.

There is no remote area IAL advantages conferred by ADS-B...more spin.

In fact that is the ONE thing the Govt could do that would REALLY impact air safety immediately...WAAS based LPV approaches...and they are not doing it. The one thing that would VERY likely have broken the chain at Lockhart River and they are not doing it.

But we'll get satellite based approaches at YBBN apparently:ugh:

CASA/AsA have absolutely no interest in GA. That is a direct result of corporatisation.

I very, VERY rarely agree with Dick on any subject but I find myself agreeing with him now...I believe you need to view anything uttered by CASA/AsA through the prism of my penultimate paragraph.

[PlankBlender]

Chimbu, how is IFR in a homebuilt/experimental/not fully IFR registered aeroplane legal?

[james michael]

Mr Chimbu

I'm confused about FTDK has purchased a handheld TCAD unit recently that provides TA (no RA) just from the signals received from proximate transponders

I felt such equipment only responded to such nearby trabsponders when within radar coverage and did not work outside radar coverage.

Could you please check and let us know. If it only works in radar cover areas, then ADS-B is a much more efficient mitigator as it would work on direct ADS-B OUT to ADS-B IN anywhere even away from ADS-B ground stations.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I was surprised too but an RV10 can apparently be flown IFR with non certified Dynon PFDs and certified navcom stuff. His RV10 is going to have Dynon PFDs and factory OHC G340/G530W/GTX330.

We've discussed this stuff at length, he has researched it in depth and unless I have misunderstood him the RV10 will be IFR.

On a practical level I have no issue with this at all. What is better/safer, a steam driven A/H, T&B, ASI, ALT, compass, a wrist watch, a vacuum gage and an ADF (absolute minimal legal private IFR) or a Dynon D100, D10a backup, Dynon autopilot (total cost installed less than a certified mechanical slaved HSI) and a Garmin stack?

My issue is why it's ok in an RV10 but not in a C172.

Edit for James Michael.

I don't need to check I fly Boeings with TCAS for a living...TCAS does not rely on ATC radar coverage.

[PlankBlender]

This calls for a new thread, I am sure lots of people would be very interested to hear how this is possible -- it could dramatically reduce the cost of flying for private IFR pilots!

[Flying Binghi]

I've got an Avidyne TAS600 in my spam can - it will pick up transponders outside radar coverage. I have heard that some of the uncertified TAS systems need the radar ping.


An alternate method will have to be put in place


Pera, what do you mean by an alternate method ?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

and procedural separation applied

sums it up, Bingi:ok:

[james michael]

Mr Chimbu

I apologise, your advice does not clarify for me.

I understand TCAS is a very expensive item fitted to big aircraft.

My knowledge of PCAD / TCAD is limited but I understood they were cheap unsophisticated items that did not have TCAS capability.

I believe most require a radar pulse to work - ATC ground stations and active TCAS systems transmit interrogation pulses on an uplink frequency of 1030 Megahertz. Aircraft transponders reply on a downlink frequency of 1090 Megahertz. PCAS devices detect these transponder responses, then analyze and display conflict information.

It is for this reson I ask your advice to determine if new TCAD as has your firend are more capable than the past ones. It also then relates to what i have thought about ADS-B being superlative as not needing MSSR pulses to trigger target advice.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

james-Michael ADS-B transmits or squits a sentence stream containing data. Rego, position in space, direction and speed. this information is available to any receiver, be it ground based or airbourne. If the airbourne device has "IN" capabilities then a target will be depicted showing position relative to your target with a velocity vector. This information is accurate and precise to allow the pilot to plot a course fully relative to that target, That is to say if a converging target is identified a pilot has sufficient information to allow a course deviation around the target without the need to climb or descend as is dictated by a TCAS. This facility is available to any equipped aircraft within range of another equipped aircraft regardless if within range of an airservices ground station. TCAS or TCAD will never have accurate azimuth information. That information is a relative bearing, position derived from a timed return pulse and accurate modeC derived altitude.

TCAS was never designed to do this. It is the last line of defence to avoid a collision. ADS-B is. ATC wouldn't like the idea of pilots self separating. Regardless, the information depicted in an ADS-B equipped visual display is every bit as accurate and real time as what is showing to the ATC on the ground.

The argument is that dumb as dirt GA pilots would spend to much time inside the cockpit looking at the display rather than performing the primary function of seeing and avoiding. Heaven forbid:eek:

[Jabawocky]

James

PCAS or the unsophistcated devices that CC refers to are receivers only, so in a non radar environment, will only pick up the transponders around it if they are pinged by another TCAS equipped aircraft. You would be surprised how many pings I receive while flying outside radar coverage. All from TCAS equipment in RPT's in the flight levels.

OZ....:D mate nobody in GA needs the ADSB in....even the smart ones!

PlankBlender

I have reproduced this article which is a plain english version of what is and is not required to be TSO'd for Experimental aircraft. Any experimental for that matter be it a RV10, Lancair or a Boeing! If it is in the Exp category this is what you are allowed to do.

Some folk might recognise the author as someone who should know......I believe he worked for the regulator.

This might save you starting a whole new thread!:ok:

J:ok:

IFR Equipment Guidelines
Principle.
A home built experimental aircraft does not have to meet any specified airworthiness standard. It just has to be safe, but must comply with the VFR or the IFR. IFR requirements mainly affect landing lights, pitot heat, mandatory instruments, power sources, GPS, transponder, comm radios and nav radios.
Perspectives
To fly IFR the pilot, the plane and the destination need to be appropriately equipped. The pilot has choice of private IFR or command instrument rating, the choice can influence the equipment you choose for your plane (ADF is a requirement to keep a command instrument rating). The airport needs runway lighting, standby power and means to turn lights on, plus a ground based navaid in weather below VFR criteria. ADF is the standard country airport navaid, which is a shame. All these operational matters influence the choice of equipment you may need to fit to your plane.
IFR flying is demanding and you will need a failure tolerant design to enable any flight to be completed safely following any system failure. Following the law of physics that says "you get what you pay for" the IFR environment is no place for cheap solutions. They will let you down sometime soon.
The SAAA recommends that you generally buy new equipment that conforms to TSO's. We also advise that where testing is required that you seek the services of a qualified aviation electrical, avionic or instrument technician with properly calibrated test equipment. Without properly tested altimeter, transponder and navigation systems your aircraft will represent a hazard to other airspace users and your AP will be obliged to mitigate the public risk by imposing operational restrictions.
Regulations.
AC 21.4(2) says that an SAAA approved person can issue a special airworthines certificate for operations with any limitations thought prudent. These can be significant limitations for the life of the aircraft such as; not allowed in controlled airspace, congested airspace, built-up areas.
Expect your flight test period to be for VFR ops by day only. At the end of a successful test period your AP may assess the aircraft for VFR by day, NVFR or IFR ops according to the equipment fit.
After your Special Certificate of Airworthines is issued you may fly IFR if properly equipped. The IFR requirements apply according to the type of operation (private, charter, RPT) and are the same regardless of the category of aircraft certification. Published requirements are listed in the rest of this document.
Equipment Standards
CAO 108.34 and CAO 108.32 detail the installation and testing standards for IFR equipment.
The SAAA recommends that you consider the following:
a. Your altimeter/transponder combination is critical to collision avoidance and must be tested, by properly calibrated test equipment, by a competent operator. Accordingly we strongly recommend you consider at TSO compliant altimeter and transponder and get an aviation professional to test it for you. Compulsory instrument and radio Airworthiness Directives are listed towards the end of this document.
b. Your GPS must be TSO – compliant. There is no choice in the matter.
c. Communication radios and radio navigation systems TSO are advisory, but reduce the risk of inadequate performance. Just about all new radios are TSO compliant and we recommend them to you. Any testing of equipment should by properly calibrated test equipment that is operated by a properly qualified test person.
d. Flight instruments (except altimeter – as discussed above) do not have to meet TSO requirements but do have to work to the manufacturers specifications.
e. Your equipment must not only work itself, but in combination with all other equipment. Interference/cross talk between equipment should not be evident at any stage of flight.
See see references below for test requirements.

Engine and Prop. ABAA aircraft had a requirement for a certified engine and prop for IFR. This does not apply to Experimental aircraft. But beware AP limitations that “radical” engines might attract.
Two stroke engines and auto conversions might attract VFR limitations such as “no flight over built up areas”, as deemed prudent via a risk analysis buy the AP. Engines specifically designed for aircraft use (Jabiru, Rotax, Lycoming clones) may not attract VFR limitations provided their pedigree is well known, that is, well documented.
Experimental engines cannot be later installed in certified aircraft.
Compulsory Requirements
Lights, see CAR 177, CAR 196, for nav lights and red (maybe white) all round beacon.
Instruments CAO 20.18 dictates compulsory instruments, pitot heat, lights, ELT, and GPS installations. The requirements below are for private operations, higher requirements apply for charter and RPT, neither of which apply to home built aircraft.
The paragraphs below are a summary of CAO 20.18 only, it is important that you read the CAO itself to pick up on important detail in the CAO that has been omitted here for simplicity.
VFR Instruments CAO 20.18 Appdx I

ASI
Altimeter, with milibar scale.
Compass, direct reading, or remote with standby direct reading compass, or alternate power source for the remote unit.
Clock or wrist watch.
Turn and slip indicator (optional for private VFR by day, required by night).
OAT.
IFR Instruments CAO 20.18 Appdx IV & V

VFR instruments plus:
Assigned Altitude indicator (above 15000 an altitude alerting system is required).
Pitot heat protection for ASI.
Clock indicating down to seconds.
VSI
AH
Heading indicator (DG or equivalent).
Turn & slip, or just a slip indicator if a second AH is fitted.
A means of indicating the power supply to the gyros is satisfactory (eg. vacuum gauge or voltage warning).
Static port, either balanced flush pair or main and alternate.
Duplicated or split sources of power for AH, DG, turn and slip.
Instrument lights, with an alternate source, plus dimmer.
Minimum of one landing light.
Map light.
Passenger compartment light.
External lights iaw CAR 177 & CAR196.
Torch for each crew member.
Note that none of these instruments need to be an approved item for private IFR. Charter and above do need some approved instruments. Hence builders are largely free to choose the instruments (including efis) that they like, however once installed they are to be maintained to AD/INST/9, amendments 5 and 6. This AD is effectively the accuracy standard for IFR compliant instruments. Note that the accuracy requirement for an IFR altimeter is stringent.
Instrument Maintenance Standards.
This is a short summary of maintenance standards from AD/INST/9, these are effectively the accuracy standards for IFR instruments: Read the AD for the full picture.
IFR maintenance intervals – altimeters, every 2 years. Other instruments, no requirement if you so choose. See AD/INST/9 front page for the choices. Warning: While there is no legal requirement to maintain more than your altimeter, be aware that IFR is demanding and you would be very wise to stick with the manufacturers test and maintenance regimes for the flight instruments you depend on. SAAA sstrongly recomemends that you adopt the standards in AD/INST/9 Amendment 5 (not 6).
Below are the requirements for test accuracy. These are most important for your first flight, and for any subsequent inspection you may choose to conduct.
Altimeter – See AD/INST/9, test as stated in FAR Part 43 Appendix E.
Compass – as stated in CAO 108.6
ASI, VSI, OAT, mandatory engine instruments – as stated in manufacturer published data provided tolerances in CAO 108.56 are met. The AD wording is ambiguous, presumably you test to the makers accuracy or the CAO tolerance if higher, restore performance if deficient.
Fuel quantity instruments – test to manufacturers accuracy requirements provided the accuracy lower limits stated in CAO 108.56 is not exceeded.
Gyro instruments – if a pilot in command sees no anomalies in flight when maintenance is due then, then only necessary maintenance only is required (implies manufacturer specified maintenance only, probably clean and lubricate). If an anomaly is identified then the item must be returned to the manufacturers specified performance level. See AD/INST/9
All other instruments – a test to ensure that it meets the manufacturers accuracy requirements.
Static system – check for deterioration, conduct leak test to manufacturers requirement provided minimum of 1 inch of mercury pressure is applied for 1 minute with altitude loss of less than 101 feet.
Pitot system – leak test, apply 1 inch of mercury (= 100kts), no loss of pressure for 10 seconds.
Navigation Systems
GPS See AIP Gen section 1.5. GPS for IFR use must comply with TSO. A GPS compliant with TSO C129a2 can be used for enroute and terminal area navigation. C129a1 can conduct non-precision approaches. However to take advantage of lower weather minima a VOR or ADF need to be onboard and at the destination. See the AIP for details of operational and weather requirements for destinations and alternate airports with and without ground aids.
GPS compliant with the new TSO C146a are WAAS upgradeable and are expected to be approved for sole means of navigation for enroute navigation and also (in future) for precision approaches. CASA staff have confirmed that the US WAAS correction signal does cover Australia, and they will progressively introduce precision GPS approaches in the future.
Transponder For entry into controlled airspace, and VFR aircraft transiting Class E airspace, a transponder is required. Transponder and altimeter require a system test every two years. See AD/RAD/43 and also AD/RAD/47. These two AD's are mandatory and should only be completed by a qualified aviation professional who has the necessary calibrated test equipment. Expect your AP to have a strong interest in your transponder/altimeter test results.
VOR/ADF/DME CAO 108.34 lays down airborne radio system performance accuracy standards. Most ADF and VOR equipment meet TSOs. Some older equipment does not. If you can identify another aircraft carrying your chosen equipment then a refusal by the AP is unlikely. Even if you install TSO equipment conducting the flight tests in CAO 108.34 is a sensible way to gain confidence in your installation.
Communications See CAO 108.34 for radio performance standards. For IFR flights you need sufficient radios to maintain continuous two way communications. Its hard to find a VHF that does not comply with TSOs.
Other Australian references;
AD/GEN/7 ASI and Altimeters markings
AD/GEN/39 Generator warnings.
AD/INST/9 Instrument test requirements/ 2 yearly altimeter test, other instruments 3 yearly maintenance.
CAAP 35-1 GPS installation guidelines
AD/RAD/43/47
USA Regulations

CASA rules are closely modelled upon the US FAR. Australian guidance for experimental aircraft are under-developed. A useful technique is to become familiar with the clear US documents, and reverse engineer into the Australian guidance.
Useful FAA references, some called up by CASA are:
AC 20.27 Special Airworthiness Certificates
Order 8130.2, limitations on experimentals
FAR part 91.205, esp d. mandatory instruments.
AC 90.94 para 3c, GPS and nav systems.
FAR Part 23.1303 US IFR instruments.
23.1321 instrument layout
23.1322 ASI systems
23.1325 static pressure systems
23.1326 pitot heat indicator
23.1327 magnetic direction indicator
23.1331 instrument power sources
23.1337 engine instrument system
23.1545 airspeed indicator
23.1547 compass placard
23.1549 powerplant instrument arcs
FAR 91.411 Altimeter test procedures
FAR 43 Appdx E Altimeter test procedures
FAR 43 Appdx D Annual Inspection
AC90.89A Flight Testing Handbook
TSO References
TSO-C91 is for ELT transmitters
TSO-C74b is for Transponders (mode a/c)
TSO-C112 is for Transponders (mode S)
TSO-C10b is for Encoding Altimeters
TSO-C88 is for blind encoders
TSO-C151 is for Terrain Avoidance equipment
The above list was gleaned from a search of FARs 21,23,25 and 91 with
most of them comming from FAR91. The only mention of TSO in Part 25
refers to brakes. There is no mention of TSO in Part 23.
Other references to TSO documents were found with some simple
searches on the 'net.
VOR receivers: TSO C40c
Localizer receivers: TSO C36e
Glideslope receivers: TSO C34e
Marker Beacon: TSO C35d
GPS: TSO C129a
VHF COM: TSO C37d
IFR TEST MATRIX
Explanations of Requirements.

Flight instruments.
CAO 20.18 defines mandatory instruments, lights and pitot systems.
CAO 108.56 defines the applicable test standards for VFR aircraft, day and night.
AD/INST/9 defines the applicable test standards for IFR aircraft. Most maintenance required is in fact a test, with correction of defects if the test is failed. Read both amendment 5 and 6.Item
Compliance
Short Test Description
External lights
CAR 177, 196
Landing, wingtip & tail lights, plus rotating beacon/strobe.
Power source warning
CAO 20.18
Warning that power source to gyros is operating – vacuum pressure gauge or voltage warning.
Internal lights
CAO 20.18
Instrument lights, dimable, plus map and pax compartment lights.
Heated pitot
CAO 20.18
Gets hot.
Altimeter
CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9, AD/RAD/43, CAO 108.56
As required in FAR Part 43 Appendix E. Test equipment required, best done in conjunction with transponder tests.
Compass
CAO 20.18, CAO 108.6
Compass swing.
ASI, VSI, OAT, mandatory engine instruments
CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9,
CAO 108.56.
As stated in manufacturer published data.
Fuel quantity instruments
CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9, CAO 108.56
Test to manufacturers accuracy requirements provided tolerances stated in CAO 108.56 are not exceeded.
Gyro instruments
CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9
If a pilot in command sees no anomalies in flight when maintenance is due then, then necessary maintenance only is required. If an anomaly is identified then the item must be returned to the manufacturers specified performance level.
Static system
CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9
Simple leak/pressure tests iaw AD/INST/9, amdt 5.
Pitot system.
CAO 20.18, AN/INST/9
Simple leak/pressure tests iaw AD/INST/9, amdt 5.

Radio and Navigation Systems
AIP section 1.5 provides guidance on what communication and navaids are required for IFR flight.
CAO 108.34 defines the installation standards and required performance testing.
CAO 108.37 describes how CASA will provide approvals for IFR equipment. This basically says if a home builder buys TSO compliant systems, and it passes the necessary performance test, then he has an approved installation. TSO are not mentioned in this CAO because TSO are in the background.Item
Compliance
Short Test Description
GPS
AIP 1.5, TSO C129 or TSO C146
GPS will self test on start-up.
VHF Comm
AIP 1.5. CAO 108.34
Ground and taxi functional test.
ADF
AIP 1.5, CAO 108.34, CAO 100.37
Flight test for accuracy.
VOR/ILS/Marker
AIP 1.5, CAO 108.34
Test equipment required.
Transponder/Encoder
AIP 1.5, CAO 108.34 AD/RAD/43, AD/RAD/47
Test equipment required, for integrated system tests with altimeter, iaw FAR 43, Appdx E, para b, and FAR 43, Appdx F



















David A Francis
28Sep06
VH-ZEE

[james michael]

Mr Jabawocky and Busdiver

Thank you for confirming my limited understandings.

It seems then that these portable devices are only of value to the owner where monopulse radar or TCAS monopulse emulation exists.

This is still beneficial but really only value in radar airspace or against the big TCAS equiped aircraft, not for other GA or RA Aus aircraft on potential course of collision.

To myself I think my read of ADS-B is meritorious in comparison as it works from/to all equipped aircraft (as long as is 1090ES, as I read there is extreme omplication in USA plans for mixed system of 1090ES and UAT).

This debate is very informative to researchers.

[phew_they_missed!]

ATC wouldn't like the idea of pilots self separating

er....wrong....

[Flying Binghi]

my read of ADS-B is meritorious in comparison as it works from/to all equipped aircraft


james michael, are you suggesting that all ADS-B equiped aircraft will be able to use the inforemation ? If you are, you are wrong.

[james michael]

Flying Binghi

Please elucidate for I am uncertain of your question.

I have seen photo of ADS-B IN on screen of Airbus.

For GA, I believe equipment will quickly be available at reasonable cost. Market drivers will create.

But, I doubt it will be value at busy airport as too much information to absorb and fly aircraft and look out window.

I comprehend TCAS does not now generally show ADS-B IN. But, in technology, software fix is easier than making new equipment. TCAS equipment uses computer to show transponder information. So, logic says existing data stream can be melded with incoming ADS-B OUT information to gain equivalence on display.

If you can plese advise specific, I will try and investigate.

[Flying Binghi]

I believe equipment will quickly be available at reasonable cost.

james michael, I'm sure Airservices will be releived to know that.

Before we get too carried away with aircraft equipment we better make sure it will work.

In the proposed GPS/ADS-B dependant airways, what will be the back-up system for the ADS-B unit when the GPS system fails, for whatever reason ??? Has it been planned for ???

And remember Airservices do not own the GPS system and the 'guarantees' of continued access are vague at best.

In my little four seat aircraft I already have a traffic aviodance system (TAS) that works off other aircraft transponders. There is no requirement for an unreliable third party input via GPS to make my TAS work.

Many Australian aircraft already have transponders, and most of the light aircraft that mix it with the big jets have transponders (Those pesky Tiger moth drivers) Near all of the pax jets have transponder reading TAS. (There are some pax jets that dont have TAS which is covered in another thread) It probably wouldnt cost much to supply transponders to the very few aircraft that operate around pax-jet airports.

To qoute again from Scurvys reference re NO GPS signal -
..."a signal change could make an already weak economy worse. Collectively it could have a substantial effect on industries as diverse as aviation, agriculture and municipal transportation," says Frost & Sullivan's Stearns...

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Chuckles

SDD is the microair unit certified or homebuilt types only?

http://www.microair.com.au/admin/uploads/T2000ACSStransponderspecification01R1.pdf

Read the linked (again) document Chuck! :ok:

The GPS engine unit

The FFS1201 is a TSO C145a (Beta 1) approved product,

The TXPDR

10.0 SPECIFICATIONS

Compliance

ATSO

C1004 Class 1A pending (ADS-B)
1C74c Class 1A pending (mode 3A/C)
1C112 Class 2A pending (mode S)
C88a pending (altitude encoder)

RTCA

DO-144 (mode A/C)
DO-181c (mode S)
DO-260A (ADS-B)
DO-160E (environmental)
DO-178B level C (Software)

SAE

AS8003 (altitude encoder)

Re: installation and maintenance

For non-certified (amateur-built) aircraft, it is possible for the owner / operator who is responsible for the aircraft maintenance to do the physical installation.

For certified aircraft types, an avionics LAME (CAR-30 / Part 145 organisation) must be responsible for the installation. Microair Avionics estimates the installation to take one man one day to complete using the Microair Avionics harness.

In all installation cases, the installed system must be calibrated in accordance with applicable avionics maintenance requirements set down by CASA (eg FAR 43). The T2000ACS and T2000GPS can be calibrated in accordance with published maintenance requirements (FAR 43 – appendix E, & F), without the need to remove any items of equipment from their mountings. All required adjustments for calibration can be inputted from the T2000ACS front display.

STC <5700kg

7.1 STC

Microair Avionics as part of the ATSO approval process, is seeking an STC to cover the installation of the T2000ACS-S in all aircraft types <5700Kg.

Larger aircraft will require specific STC approvals for installation. These STC shall be the responsibility of the aircraft owner / operator.

For non-certified airframes such as ultralights will not require STC approval. Installation can be carried out by the builder of the airframe, or the person responsible for the maintenance of that airframe. :ok:

Now, for those that want the nice NAV ... plug a 430W or 530W into the T2000ACS-S .... voila .... 146a NAV, A,C,S,ADS-B TXPDR and CDTI 'IN' to a/the display

If a VFR owner wanted the good NAV and 'in' could it be packaged (similar to the above) to fit within 10K?? or does the subsidy need some tweeking?

The only way to really know is to start trying out some of the combinations of gear, preferably before the 'mandate' decision is taken in Canberra!?

Thoughts :ooh:

Edit to add:

It is logical to assume Microair will (at some point) certify a 146a unit similar to their 129a Navigator. Those two compact units driving a map (either PDA or installed), well isn't that the end state folks are looking for?

As far as audible 'traffic' alerts, anyone care to bet folding stuff that someone won't be flogging that too (bit like Binghi's TAS system :E) before too long!

Binghi

Re: GPS and AsA not owning it ... mate what does that matter ... or are you suggesting that GPS use for IFR in lieu of DME (which happens now, and has done for some time) should be canned because AsA does not own the GPS constellation??? :hmm:

[Quokka]

Dick,

I'm not sure why you think that I need an FAA lesson on E Airspace...

Your statement that I vectored the QF A330 20NM off track is false. The A330 was given a traffic statement on the VFR aircraft and requested it's callsign. The VFR aircraft did not respond to VHF calls from myself and the A330 because it was on "the appropriate frequency", a frequency that was not know to anyone. The absence of monitoring and broadcasting on a control frequency was exactly as per your desire that VFR aircraft in Class E airspace do not monitor or make calls on VHF... something you have suggested on a number of occasions. The A330 then requested to divert "up to 20NM right of track". I approved the diversion in accordance with the procedures published and the training provided.

Dick, could you please publish from your lawyers a legal opinion as to what my reply to the A330 should have been... in your lawyers opinion... under Australian law... Was I correct to comply with the published procedures and training provided? Or, should I have acted contrary to the published procedures and training provided?

Then a statement as to whether you consider it acceptable that the arrivals sequence into Perth is disrupted as a result of an IFR aircraft diverting to avoid an unidentified VFR aircraft...

...and by the way Dick, I don't have a closed mind in respect of E Airspace. In fact, I have been quite happy to provide the service anywhere that it doesn't infringe on the descent profiles of IFR aircraft into Primary Airports where a FLOW control service is required, and is being provided. The effect of IFR/VFR separation on FLOW control in Class E Airspace is a subject that you consistently avoid. Perhaps now would be a good opportunity for you to state whether it is acceptable or not?

[james michael]

Flying Binghi

I am still uncertain of this 4 seater TCAS.

You tell me I already have a traffic aviodance system (TAS) that works off other aircraft transponders

Can you please advise make and model. As already I have said on here, I am unaware of cheap systems that work off other aircraft transponders WITHOUT monopulse radar ping or equivalent. My understanding that aircraft transponders are passive and only respond to MSSR or equivalent pulse. I understand full airline TCAS works because it pings other aircrafts transpondrs.

I have read JCP. In event of GPS failure there is backup by ADF/VOR/DME navaids retained and primary radar in terminal areas of major airport.

If GPS turned off, I suspect mushroom cloud more to my worry than GPS.

[CaptainMidnight]

when the GPS system fails

Chicken Little, and still sounding like a broken record.

If the GPS system did ever fail or a proposal is made to turn it off, I dare say amongst others the American public would have something to say about it. All those street navigators, vehicle trackers, time check systems etc. etc all affected?

Do we not get pay TV (or terrestrial TV for that matter) in case a satellite fails or someone turns one off?

[Dick Smith]

I ask everyone to look at my first post again. The Airservices ADSB project is clearly another Seasprite in the making -but with a far greater downside.

I have just read again the Transports Dept, "JCP" on this proposal. It's undoubtly one of the most dishonest missives from a Government Department of all times.

Look at the way it just spruiks the positives without mentioning the downsides.

There is no way I and others will allow the removal of the en-route SSR network until the ADSB system is totally operational and proven.This will then throw the "subsidy" figures on the scrap heap!

They won't take any notice of us? Don't you believe it -watch the media.

And despite misleading statements from others, the FAA is keeping all SSR's to provide a service above FL180 after their planned ADSB introduction date of 2020.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

http://www.routertech.org/images/smiles/dummyspit.gif
They won't take any notice of us? Don't you believe it -watch the media.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/grinser/grinning-smiley-010.gif
.
.
.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/grinser/grinning-smiley-044.gif ah dear ... tis like a 'fire side' with Sir Murray Rivers :}

[james michael]

Mr Dick Smith

I have read you first post as you suggest to us all, and will await your media release.

This issue is very clouded by our many comments and distractions herein.

Could you pleas advise what is your hoped outcome if you intervene, and what the benefits and/or expenses may accrue due to intervention or non-intervention? Or is this matter to complex?

[GaryGnu]

There is no way I and others will allow the removal of the en-route SSR network until the ADSB system is totally operational and proven.This will then throw the "subsidy" figures on the scrap heap!

Dick, ADS-B has already been proven. The trial at Bundaberg (or thereabouts) led to the approval of 5nm lateral separation standard using ADS-B alone.

The only reason the standard is not being applied with other ground stations is a lack of comms infrastructure.

Now you're just being obstructionist.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ummm Dick, the time for commenting on that JCP has long passed.(31OCT07) was the reply date)

The transition from the old system to TAAATS didn't happen overnight so why would ADS-B be any different. AirServices is going to have a tleast six years of data on how the system works BEFORE any ADS-B transition starts today plus 4 years time. The last SSR will be decommissioned six years after that time.

Dick I am sure you read pageiii of the intro of the JCP-
Should the proposal not be adopted or be delayed. It will be necessary to begin replacing existing ground-based systems at the end of their life. It is likely that this would reduce the funding available to assist light aircraft to transition, and erode the operational and commercial benefits offered by transition to satellite technolgy

Is this your aim, Mr Smith?

[Flying Binghi]

Re: GPS and AsA not owning it ... mate what does that matter ... or are you suggesting that GPS use for IFR in lieu of DME (which happens now, and has done for some time) should be canned because AsA does not own the GPS constellation???

Scurvy.D.Dog, I've made no comment on GPS us apart from re ADS-B.

I would ask what would happen if GPS was turned off today ? probably not too trumatic compared to if our entire airspace system was reliant on the GPS system as it would be under ADS-B :hmm: And yes, I use GPS - I have a garmin 530 and 430 in my aircraft.


I am still uncertain of this 4 seater TCAS.


james michael, The unit is an Avidyne TAS600. It is at the low end of the certified transponder reading Traffic Aviodance Systems (TAS). The four seats I mentioned has nothing to do with the TAS, just the size of the aircraft -i.e. small. To pre-emt the question - No, I am NOT sugesting all aircraft have one fitted. For a full discription of the unit and what it can, or can-not do, please visit www.avidyne.com (http://www.avidyne.com)
(please note, I have NO financial interest in any avionics sales or manufacturer)

[Flying Binghi]

If the GPS system did ever fail or a proposal is made to turn it off, I dare say amongst others the American public would have something to say about it. All those street navigators, vehicle trackers, time check systems etc. etc all affected?


CaptainMidnight, you've not made any reference to terrorist miss-us of the system...:hmm: whats your thoughts there ?

[Plazbot]

My thoughts are you should take off your tin foil hat:rolleyes:

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... one thing I've noted, is that nobody has come up with a serious rebuttal to my terrorist miss-us of GPS scenario :hmm:

[james michael]

Flying Binghi

I admire your unit as it is active not passive. You are obviously a cautious pilot and to be commended.

Without acting derogatory to your effort, this unit must be $10,000 plus and is range limited in comparison to ADS-B IN (but one accepts that the range of your unit is more than adequate for avoidance).

In analysis, if $15,000 enables a GPS and ADS-B IN, I feel is a good alternative for many owners.

I am intrigued at this terroruist misuse of GPS. Spoofing is not restricted to GPS. Turn off transponder, spoof MSSR radar - and primary radar when beyond range. If GPS is turn off, we are probably at war.

With ADS-B spread around, surely ADS-B is more protected than radar - one shoulder launch misile takes out radar aerial more easily than takes out ADS-B multiple stations. Can you be specific of your concerns?

[CaptainMidnight]

nobody has come up with a serious rebuttal to my terrorist miss-us of GPS scenario

Terrorists can make use of the mobile phone network to detonate IED’s – do we turn it off?

They make use of the satphone network & internet - do we turn it off?

In Cold War times, the Ruskies could (and no doubt did on Oz overflights) make use of the VOR NDB & Omega networks – did we turn them off?

Criminals use cars to commit crimes – do we ban cars?

No. The greater good outweighs those who will attempt to misuse them, and measures are taken to mitigate or prevent the misuse.

In the case of aviation, measures are taken to address GPS & ADS-B outage & degradation, as they are when other navaids are off. Spoofing is addressed in the Airservices system. ‘nuf said on that.

Sleep safely in your bed.

[Dick Smith]

Gary, Was the Bundaberg trial certified by CASA? Need I say any more! They don't appear to have the skills to monitor a small airline let alone the skills and expertise to certify the worlds first stand alone ADSB system.

I understand even the airborne equipment was never fully certified as it consisted of boxes from different companies strung together with a few wires. And of course, it didn't include the ADSB "in" part.

The Bundaberg trial was as proven as the Super Seasprites were in 2001. That is to say a demonstation of a few experimental units is totally different to a fully certified safe operational system.

James, the media release will not be comming from me.

Commonsense alone is all that is necessary to know that the system as proposed will not go ahead- I bet the two systems- existing SSR and the completed ADSB system- will co-exist for at least 5 years before a properly informed Minister would allow even one SSR to be de-commissioned.

This means that a major SSR refurbishment or replacement decision will need to be made and this has the implication of tens of millions of dollars of unplanned Airservices expenditure.

This of course means the $100 mil. will not be available for the subsidy for GA.-which then means the whole proposal will need to be looked at again.

Hopefully they will involve competent people next time.

[Pera]

Hmmm... one thing I've noted, is that nobody has come up with a serious rebuttal to my terrorist miss-us of GPS scenario

You've rebutted it yourself. You are saying that shutting off GPS will cause havok. That's precisely the argument that others are using to say that it won't be shut off...(even in the event of terrorist use) because it would cause havok, and not only to aviation.

You have raised a valid point, but the risk is low and the safety consequences to aircraft are not major.

Using Dick's affordable safety argument, it appears that the cost benefit of shutting off secondary radar and using ADSB is compelling. It's already being used in areas that previously had no radar like coverage.

To answer your question, if the GPS signal is interupted,(which is unlikely), then we will revert to procedural separation where ADSB is being used to separate. Aircraft will be delayed but safety will not be compromised. There is certainly no doomsday argument to be made here.

I am not in favour or against replacing secondary radar with ADSB, but I don't find your argument a compelling reason to stop ADSB introduction.

[Flying Binghi]

Terrorists can make use of the mobile phone network to detonate IED’s – do we turn it off?

They make use of the satphone network & internet - do we turn it off?

In Cold War times, the Ruskies could (and no doubt did on Oz overflights) make use of the VOR NDB & Omega networks – did we turn them off?

Criminals use cars to commit crimes – do we ban cars?

No. The greater good outweighs those who will attempt to misuse them, and measures are taken to mitigate or prevent the misuse.

In the case of aviation, measures are taken to address GPS & ADS-B outage & degradation, as they are when other navaids are off. Spoofing is addressed in the Airservices system. ‘nuf said on that.


All valid pionts you raise CaptainMidnight. I agree with you on the banning of cars, phones etc, will not stop an 'in-house' event. Unforetunatly, the scenarios you raise are all 'in house', or within Australia.

My scenario 'starts' outside Oz, outside of the control of our 'people' who work to stop terrorist threats.

Re Spoofing, I will leave that to Dick Smith.

[Flying Binghi]

I admire your unit as it is active not passive. You are obviously a cautious pilot and to be commended

james michael, After near 25 years of successfully flying without a TAS, I just got the unit so I could speak with at least some personal experience of these systems.

[Dick Smith]

Flying Binghi, re spoofing,if you run the two systems in parallel(ie SSR and ADSB) for 5 or preferably 10 years you would be able to see what the problems are.

Yes, it will cost a few dollars but safety will not be compromised.

[Flying Binghi]

Pera, think WW2 London... Think buzz bombs (Hitlers UAV) ... Think about the then public concerns with these 'dumb' bombs.......................

...think about the publics concerns with a Buzz bomb with a delivery accuracy of 30 metres...................................................... .... :(


These modern 'buzz bombs' i.e. UAVs could be manufactured for a couple of hundred dollars. Thats one scenario any way...

[Dick Smith]

Quokka, it's not your fault that you were not trained in the proper procedures for class E or that the proper procedures were never introduced in Australia.

This situation existed because your bosses at Airservices never bothered to ask the FAA how class E worked.

And now 6+ years since class E was introduced in Australia they are still ignorant.

Qantas fly in class E everyday in other parts of the world and never ask ATC the callsign of a VFR aircraft they have been given traffic on.

Why is this so? I suggest you talk to Qantas or any FAA ATC as I am sure you will not accept my explanation.

[max1]

Flying Binghi,
What is your reasoning behind installing a TAS unit?
Surely everyone is using See and Avoid.

[Flying Binghi]

Flying Binghi,
What is your reasoning behind installing a TAS unit?
Surely everyone is using See and Avoid.

Errrr..... max1, didnt you read my previous post ? here it is again -
After near 25 years of successfully flying without a TAS, I just got the unit so I could speak with at least some personal experience of these systems.

[Pera]

ok, now we're in never never land

[Flying Binghi]

ok, now we're in never never land

Yes Pera, I know Australia is much like the U.S...

.....and who would off thought TWO jets would of been flown into the world trade centre towers :hmm: ... fairy tale stuff

.........and Bushs reaction (and little johny and blair) ...invade Iraq :eek:

... mind altering stuff eh :ooh:



............time for another beer.

[Dick Smith]

OZBUSDRIVER,Sorry for the delay in replying to your post.

My aim is simple- to prevent Australia from rushing ahead with an ADSB proposal which fails and wastes millions of dollars.

Why do I believe it could fail? Because it's been driven by people who appear to have a similar culture to those who lost us over one billion dollars on the seasprite order.

This culture is one of never asking advice, never copying the success of others and never allowing a broad range of capable experienced experts to be involved.

It's also a culture of believing it's own "spin" ie that everything is positive and beneficial about the project and there is no risk or downside.

It's a culture of never answering a critic- even when the criticisms are valid.

It's a culture of rushing ahead to be "first" rather than being conservative and following a proven system where others have already lost a fortune in finalising and perfecting the design!

[GaryGnu]

Was the Bundaberg trial certified by CASA?

I am not quite sure what you mean by that question.

Airservices ran the trial and the data acquired enabled CASA to approve the 5nm lateral separation standard. See CASR Part 172 MOS 10.5.5.2 (http://casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/172/172m10.pdf)

As to certified ADS-B Out equiement. The current list of approved equipment for use in Australia is here (http://casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c45eqptlist.pdf). CAR 207 and CAO 20.18 Section 9B and Appendix XI give the regulatory head of power for this approval.

AC 21-45 contains the guidance needed to gain airwothiness approval the equipment.

ICAO Anex 10 and the RTCA DO - 260 document series also define the performance standards required for 1090ES ADS-B.

I don't think the properly constructed and "certified" ADS-B out equipment is as far fetched as you wish to portray it. In fact it is a reality, here and now.

The safety of traffic separation using only ADS-B information has been demonstrated and approved for operational use. Why does the En-route SSR network need to be maintained when this is so?

As to the contingency arrangments in the event of a loss of GNSS and therfore ADS-B signal, well what do we do now when there is a SSR failure? We revert to procedural. No big deal. Sure it will be inconvenient if you're in the air/at the console at the time but it can be done.

You are correct in that no ADS-B IN units have been "certified" however at this stage there are no procedures fully developed or approved that require ADS-B IN avionics. This is still no reason to delay decommissioning the En-route SSR facilities

The value of ADS-B IN will be in providing situational awareness to RPT/PTO crews when operating in Class E/F/G airspace. However, that value will only be realised when there is fleetwide (or close to it) equippage in much the same way that TCAS is only really useful when there is widespread/universal transponder equippage and use.

[Pera]

and who would off thought TWO jets would of been flown into the world trade centre towers ... fairy tale stuff

did they turn off GPS when this happenned!

I'm not discounting terrorist threats, but you haven't made an a clear case for your point of view. You are raising an extreme possibility but you are not applying risk assessment to your point of view.

[Dick Smith]

Gary,what are the costs?

I wanted to get ADSB "out" certified equipment for my 2006 Cessna CJ3 and the quote from Collins was over $100,000.

Now this is for a modern aircraft and is I fear a little more than the $15,000 subsidy for smaller IFR aircraft.

If we in Australia are first in with mandated ADSB we will be ripped off by the rest of the world for sure.

There is no hurry- there is no immediate safety issue to be addressed by rushing into ADSB. It's all being driven by boffins wanting to be first and Airservices wanting to maximise profits.

Do you know of any aircraft owner who has actually installed a certified ADSB unit in an Australian aircraft and what the cost was?

[james michael]

Mr Dick Smith

Is not the Garmin GTX 330ES that was mentioned earlier compliant?

If so, it is nowhere near this $100,000 you quote. One suspects $5000?

You suggest there may be a little extra cost in running dual systems - I question who will pay that cost - does not Airservices raise its operating capital from fees to users?

It is of interest that this 1090ES is considered by you to be somehow at risk of reliability or expense yet is apparently the accepted standard at airline altitudes? Is it not now appearing on ATC screens around the world already?

It seems to me that this ADS-B is a technological development that provides radar equvalence at cheaper cost due to technology. Is not radar over 60 years old? Will we still be keeping our old mobile telefone each time we get a new one (at our cost) to ensure the new one works OK? How much 60 year old technology did you keep in your electronics shops?

I remain very puzzled about this opposition to this technology. On this debate there is much emotion and diversion.

[Dick Smith]

James, the Garmin unit does not include a GPS.

Airservices imply that you just run a wire to a certified GPS and everything is approved.

This is not so.

If ADSB is so simple and proven and risk free why are Airservices spending millions of dollars of our industries money on a totally different system in Tasmania?

It's called "Multilateration" and works with standard transponders and keeps working if the GPS system has a fault.

Try and get that question answered!

More importantly' Airservices are having problems with the high level ADSB system with delays and cost overuns.

They can't even get the data transfer between the ADSB transceivers going without problems and I understand in mid-stream they have been forced to change contractors.

A similar situation occurred with the Seasprite contract before the Government stepped in and cancelled the project.

Their ADSB plan is totally based on the financial saving made by the early removal of the existing SSR units -and thats where the risk is. By not entering a contract now to refurbish or replace the radars(which is their stated plan) they have all their eggs in one basket. If the ADSB contract does not go as planned we are completely stuffed in Australia.

[Dick Smith]

Remember when Australia led the world with the Microwave Landing System (MLS)?

Tens of millions of dollars were spent by the industry(mainly AWA) and the Government.

It was claimed that our country was leading the world and a fortune was going to be made.

Unfortunately not so.

The problem was that enough critical questions were not asked at the time. Those involved got carried away with their own B-S. I am afraid and all the money was lost

I totally support the concept of ADSB however I see substantial risk in moving too quickly without honestly looking at all of the complex issues in a totally open way.

And James, it's not just me that Airservices have kept out of the loop for the last 5 years- it appears to be anyone who may have a different view.

[Flying Binghi]

did they turn off GPS when this happenned!


No Pera, they invaded Iraq.

I'm not discounting terrorist threats, but you haven't made an a clear case for your point of view. You are raising an extreme possibility but you are not applying risk assessment to your point of view.

Pera, I'm not going to make the scenario any clearer then I have. Perhaps you want me to write up a 'How To' manual ?

I guess you dont want a $500 bombed up UAV launched from a boat to interfere with Airservices implementing ADS-B. ...Talking it away does not make it go away.

[james michael]

Mr Dick Smith

My confusion is still with me.

I find re garmin that they say, as one example:

GTX 33 Mode S Remote Mount
• Solid state design, remote squawk entry via G1000 and GNS480
• Voltage 11 - 33VDC
• Transmit power 250 watts
• Dimensions: 6.92”W x 1.78”H x 11.05D, weight 4.3 lbs
• TSO C166a
• GTX 33 ES, prelim price $5,195 $US


I put emphasis in red - this shows wire can be connect, and with market push perhaps bulk price be below $5000 USA?

I comprehend concern about unique Australian systems. But is not your quote about sole Australian system AWA MLS, but of ADS-B we speak of system already in use in many ICAO country and international aircraft?

Is there obstacle to Airservices moving to ADS-B soon without dismantle radar so radar is backup?

[Capn Bloggs]

I see in my latest Flight mag that the USA is pushing ahead with ADS-B: flight testing of three stations in the Miami region has commenced, with a fully operational service in southern Florida by August. By late 2010, they'll have 40 stations running across the country, and 793 (!) ground stations by 2013.

[Pera]

I'm not going to make the scenario any clearer then I have

Your scenario is quite clear, but your argument is a little murky. :ugh:

[max1]

So Flying Binghi, in that case, is having the unit so you can speak with some personal experience of TAS units changing your perceptions at all.
Did it really cost $10K?

[phew_they_missed!]

There is no hurry- there is no immediate safety issue to be addressed by rushing into ADSB. It's all being driven by boffins wanting to be first and Airservices wanting to maximise profits.You've got to be kidding? Have you even looked at the traffic being dealt with outside of radar coverage across WA, SA and probably QLD?

Speaking from personal experience, the mining boom is making the WA mining traffic busier and busier. I've worked shifts over summer where it has taken 2 experienced controllers to run ONE sector....without weather diversions! How long do we go on increasing traffic numbers without surveillance being implemented? We work like crazy trying to get everyone a clearance and when it doesn't work they get stuck OCTA. From experience, the average Ba146 pilot does NOT like being stuck below F180 for long...let alone the F100/B717's.

Close calls? About 1 air-prox outside of controlled airspace every 6 months, that we know of.

Sure WAARP and 7nm cross track tolerances will help, but only so much.

Personally i don't give a crap if it's ADS-B or SSR, but i don't see anyone volunteering to pay for the 3+ SSR's it would take to cover the peak areas of WA alone.

You may see the "boffins" pushing this for "profits", i see a vast amount of our airspace lacking surveillance, and a long term alternative to radar being pissed on by the "chicken littlers" and conspiracy theorists!

[Flying Binghi]

you haven't made an a clear case for your point of view. You are raising an extreme possibility but you are not applying risk assessment to your point of view.

Pera, if you look at the just the monertary cost alone, to set up the 9eleven type attack would of cost millions. On the other hand, bombed up UAVs (GPS guided buzz bombs) could probably be made for a grand or two, so you get thousands of buzz bombs for the cost of one 9eleven event.

If, before 9II, you were thinking about what had the highest probability of occuring - what would be your answer ?

[Flying Binghi]

So Flying Binghi, in that case, is having the unit so you can speak with some personal experience of TAS units changing your perceptions at all.
Did it really cost $10K?

max1, probably not far off with instalation.

I was being a little flipant with my replys last night - playing along with james michael. I got the unit for IFR and NGT flight.

VFR in a high traffic area with randomly tracking flights I think it is more dangerous to focus on the TAS then look out side (sole pilot ops)

If I only flew VFR, I wouldnt buy it.

[Flying Binghi]

Close calls? About 1 air-prox outside of controlled airspace every 6 months, that we know of.


phew_they_missed!,

These aircraft involved in the claimed air-prox. Do they have any form of TAS installed ??

[phew_they_missed!]

Not sure what you mean by "claimed" there. The incidents were all reported and therefore (i assume) can be looked up.

To answer your question, I don't know off the top of my head :hmm:

AFAIK the aircraft involved were all turbo-props doing FIFO from PH, so the usual types would be Metro, Bras, Conquest etc etc

[Flying Binghi]

Not sure what you mean by "claimed" there. The incidents were all reported and therefore (i assume) can be looked up.

phew_they_missed!, I just say claimed because you did'nt provide a reference :)

... still be interested to know if these aircraft you say were involved in airprox incidents had a TAS fitted or not ? If as you say there is an issue there, I would asume they have, and if not, Why-not.

[phew_they_missed!]

I'm not sure where to find the data i'm afraid. I can look it up at work through the ESIR database, but that's the only way i'm aware of.

I was shown the data only as a summary of incidents for a given segment of airspace, although i do have some personal recollection of at least one event. It may be selfish...but i prefer not to be the one plugged in when the !!!! hits the fan :hmm:

[Pera]

You are raising an extreme possibility but you are not applying risk assessment to your point of view

The extreme possibility is GPS being turned off. You haven't made a clear case for this happenning, which is why noone has had to refute it.

[max1]

Flying Binghi cheers for the answer.:)

[Flying Binghi]

You haven't made a clear case for this happenning

Well then Pera, I guess I loose the debate (re terrorist miss-use of GPS) as I have no intention of expanding my argument to increase clarity :(


Flying Binghi cheers for the answer

Glad to help max1, I just hope you dont miss-interpret my answer though :)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

PTM, glad to hear you guys aren't too worried about self separation. I always looked at it as pilots trying to second guess ATC in controlled airspace and causing all sorts of bother.

Gaunty et al put up a good argument for accelerating ADS-B rollout up in the WA mineral provinces in Scurvy's thread from a couple of months ago.

Hoping to hear a fresh argument some time soon.

[phew_they_missed!]

PTM, glad to hear you guys aren't too worried about self separation. I always looked at it as pilots trying to second guess ATC in controlled airspace and causing all sorts of bother.

Well, i guess it's it situational. There are times when self-sep works, times where it doesn't. The problem is that a pilot response to one separation issue could just create other issues down the track. They don't/can't have the same overall picture as the controller.

[Flying Binghi]

Soooo.... I get the impression that some of the West Oz carriers dont have an in-aircraft TAS, and we have posters on pprune saying a TAS (either via radar or ADS-B) is an urgent requirement :hmm: What I see here is a suggestion that every aircraft owner in Oz is expected to subsidise a TAS system (ADS-B) for a handfull of WA operators.

Doing a "Reductio ad adsurdum" would suggest these carriers ground themselves immediately until they have an in-aircraft TAS - the sort of system that has been around for many years.

I seem to recall Dick Smith had some comments re some pax carriers not having any in-aircraft TAS.

[Flying Binghi]

...and taking a slightly different approch -

Well, i guess it's it situational. There are times when self-sep works, times where it doesn't. The problem is that a pilot response to one separation issue could just create other issues down the track. They don't/can't have the same overall picture as the controller.

phew_they_missed!, if its such a major requirement, why dont the WA operators pay for a radar themselves ??? :hmm:

[peuce]

Probably because it's the responsibility of the Service Provider to provide the infrastructure and services .... when warranted.

[james michael]

Mr Phew, Flying Binghi, and Peuce

One must question about this risk and how genuine is the concern.

In case of genuine concern aircraft should have fitted TCAS, as has Mr Binghi, if traffic in West Australia is of risk. In my read of Avalon Study I find Sharp do not use TCAS - is this common for small operators?

By reading past and present Airservices study of Unicom and NAS I find noone wants to pay for Unicom as mitigation. And, facts of analysis also from NAS PIR and Airservices studies read that problems are shared in cause by all users and particularly poor procedure on radio and in circuit.

Much talk until money required.

This leads to Peuce point. Services where warranted. In ICAO Aisrapce G class what services warranted? Is it not to the users to supplement system in Class G?

To my reading, ADS-B may be good mitigator in West Australia.

[Dick Smith]

James Michael, just because Garmin has a remote squawk entry via the G1000 and GNS480, it doesn’t mean that the unit transmits certified ADS-B data. In fact it doesn’t.

My suggestion is that you place a phone call to Garmin (or their representative in Australia) and ask if they have a certified ADS-B unit that can be installed in your aircraft. Get the price of the unit and the price of the installation, then post the result here.

Capn Bloggs, the ADS-B flight testing which is being undertaken in Florida is a completely different system to the one Airservices is planning here. This is my very point. Wouldn’t it be better to be a little conservative, wait a little while, and install the system which the majority of the world goes to? Then the prices will be substantially lower and the support for the system will be substantially higher.

Phew they missed!, if there is a measurable safety problem – or an efficiency problem where aircraft are delayed in the WA mining area – surely that will be substantially solved by the high level ADS-B project. These high level transceivers are already being installed and will give coverage in the higher level controlled airspace in WA. If this is so there will be a substantial reduction in cost compared with spending over $100 million in subsidising aircraft in the east – where there is no measurable safety problem.

More importantly, why not use the multilateration transceivers – similar to those being installed in Tasmania – in the west? Then the whole system will work with standard transponders with incredible accuracy, without reliance on GPS, and at far lower cost.

[max1]

Dick,

'Phew they missed!, if there is a measurable safety problem – or an efficiency problem where aircraft are delayed in the WA mining area – surely that will be substantially solved by the high level ADS-B project. These high level transceivers are already being installed and will give coverage in the higher level controlled airspace in WA. If this is so there will be a substantial reduction in cost compared with spending over $100 million in subsidising aircraft in the east – where there is no measurable safety problem.'

I think you'll find the problem is actually getting them up high in the first place.

[phew_they_missed!]

I think you'll find the problem is actually getting them up high in the first place.

Bingo. Well....up or down. If the buggers would just all stay at their cruise levels then all would be well :ugh:

[james michael]

Mr Dick Smith

This from Garmin
GTX 330 ES Mode S Panel Mount – Available Q3 2008

Because my iphone is not yet in shop does nopt stop my believing in same.

Why would Garmin make such unit unless they have belief in 1090ES technology? Are you saying this unit will not send out ADS-B signal?

[bushy]

Then go ahead and put it in. But do not make it compulsory for people who do not wish to go there. Don't try to con GA people by giving false information about proposed subsidies, and the benefits thereof, and what the equipment will do. Do not legislate to give a monopoly to any particular company.
Most GA aircraft have been fitted with transponders, and many have never been anywhere near controlled airspace. These and other owners/operators are wary about further mandatory expense that is only there to benefit ATC and the airlines. Who will service ADSB out in the bush.? The transponders we fitted were a maintenance problem, and hardly ever were of any benefit to us in Alice Springs. Mostly we could not even tell if they were working properly.
I think ADSB is the way of the future but unfortunately it is necessary to make lots of noise to get some reasonable behaviour from our aviation authorities. GA aircraft (below 5700 kg) outnumber airliners by about ten to one, and must be given proper consideration.

[Creampuff]

JM - what's the answer to the second part of Dick's question? How much to buy and install?

[james michael]

Mr Creampuff

This I know not. I await the release in the third quartile at which we arrive tomorrow.

But I wait with interest as such data will enable better assessment of subsidy quotes in JCP.

It is in my mind that Airservices needs take say 10 volunteer aircraft of different style and have fitment when material available, and report on result. Buyer confidence would rise.

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... all and good until the terrorists cause GPS to be turned off - as it seems nobody really wants to address that issue :hmm: ....onto the...

...Next question - If we get all-in ADS-B, how much will Oz aircraft owners be asked to pay to use the GPS system ??? :)
(please note I wrote GPS not ADS-B)

[GaryGnu]

FB,

See here (http://pnt.gov/policy/) for the US Governement Position Navigation and Timing (PNT) policy.

There are several interesting quotes for you from it.

the United States Government shall:
......

Provide on a continuous, worldwide basis civil space-based, positioning, navigation, and timing services free of direct user fees for civil, commercial, and scientific uses, and for homeland security through the Global Positioning System and its augmentations, and provide open, free access to information necessary to develop and build equipment to use these services;

My bolding.

Also,

In addition, whether designed for military capabilities or not, all positioning, navigation, and timing signals from space and their augmentations provide inherent capabilities that can be used by adversaries, including enemy military forces and terrorist groups.

Don't think the US Government are not aware of the threat you describe. After reading this policy my guess is that they would be very reluctant to "switch off" the GPS signal because the mayhem that would cause might be worse than anything terrorists could pull off.

Methinks that you might be just a tad paranoid about this.

[Flying Binghi]

US Governement Position Navigation and Timing (PNT) policy.



Government 'Policy' ? :suspect: ............................................................ ........


...........Hmmm............................................. ......think, think, think....


............................... Thats where it is government policy to invade Iraq.. BUT, after the next election it is Government policy NOT to invade Iraq - i.e. get the hell out of the place :ouch:



After reading this policy my guess is...


Unforetunatly GaryGnu, I place no reliability on 'Government policy' Personally I would want a legaly binding document that states civy GPS will be available, and FREE, come hell or high water - i.e. I can sue them if they fail to provide said service. Do Airservices have such a document ???

[Dick Smith]

JM, following the question from Creampuff and I, have you found out how much it costs to buy and install a Garmin ADS-B ‘out’ system that is certified? Surely you have made a phone call. What was the answer? I have a feeling no price can be quoted because no system is available.

[james michael]

Mr Dick Smith

I have stated as I found. Details July - Sept was advised. Today is 1 July, first day of 92 and only at 10:00 - certainly no system is available.

Do we wait in life for box to arrive before plan and move? If I use logic you give me then no-one builds house because nothing is there to begin with, no evidence of expense to trust at plan stage. Billions spent on JSF without certify or fly.

[Creampuff]

JM: Unadulterated twaddle!

[GaryGnu]

FB,

If you choose not to believe stated US Government policy there is not much I can do to change your mind.

However, if the GNSS (not just GPS) signal is completely lost, for whatever reason, aircraft will not fall out of the sky. The laws of physics will still apply to keep them airborne, there will be a back up network of radio navaids by which to navigate and although there may be no surveillance in some ADS-B only areas procedural separation standards will still apply. At worst there will be some delays outside of the remaining SSR/PSR network.

I think you are overstating the risk here. Remember Risk=Probability x Consequence. The probability is low and there are measures in place to mitigate the consequence.

[GaryGnu]

Dick,

It is a very legitimate question on the price of the avionics. I also cannot provide the answers. However, if price is your concern just say so. Don't try and shroud it in unfounded tehcnical or regulatory concerns.

The JCP has attempted to address the cost issue by identifying savings from retiring the En-route SSR network and funding a subsidy, hence the "hurry".

[james michael]

Mr Creampuff

Sir, I am not mocking of you and your comment is unkind.

In front of me I have following from Garmin:

GTX 330 ES Mode S Panel Mount – Available Q3 2008
• Solid state design, digital display
• Voltage 11 - 33VDC
• Transmit power 250 watts
• OAT display, pressure altitude, density altitude, altitude monitor
• Dimensions: 6.25”W x 1.65”H x 11.25D, weight 4.2 lbs
• TSO C166a
• GTX 330 ES, prelim price $5,995 $US
• GTX 330 D (diversity) with ES, prelim price $10,995 $US
• Upgrade price for non ES models to ES is $1,200 $US
• Compatible with GNS 400/500 and 48

Is from Garmin, with Garmin authority. Has TSO.

Who do I believe in this debate - Mr Garmin in writing, or Mr Dick Smith hypothesis, or you making insult?

Unit NOT available, but like house or JSF position of trust exists and I take Garmin as personal authority.

[Creampuff]

JM: Unadulterated twaddle!

[james michael]

Mr Creampuff

I enjoy reading you and Clapton; much information.

In regards Garmin I soon twiddle with GTX 330ES, while you twaddle twice. Perhaps better you tell Garmin their error direct?

Words of Sun Tzu - You cannot stop innovation

ADS-B coming - just when and how.

[Creampuff]

JM: your pretend syntax mean you confuse info on Garmin website for justify this unadulterated twaddle:Do we wait in life for box to arrive before plan and move? If I use logic you give me then no-one builds house because nothing is there to begin with, no evidence of expense to trust at plan stage. Billions spent on JSF without certify or fly.

If we decide going to pay someone to build house, there no 'trust' involved. If clever, we enter contract, at specified price, with builder with substantial assets, and we relieve builder of those assets if builder breaches contract. We know we going walk away with house at contracted price, or a bucket of money in damages - we not fussed either way.

JSF not good example - might end up precisely where Seasprite did.

That Dick's point.

Get it, Confucious?

[james michael]

Mr Creampuff

You post like lawyer and we know who win money when lawyers arrive. Many people lose money to fraud through builders without laywer success.

Fact - ADS-B already exist, technology exist, aircraft flying through Australian FIR appear on ATC screens.

Move to ADS-B at GA level is simple technology shift if market driven.

Further information is here from informant - I have spoken at length to Microair Avionics about concerns raised. He advised me that the subsidies $10,000.00 for VFR and $15,000.00, were not plucked out of the air, but resulted from Airservices consultation with Avionics suppliers and installers including Hawker Pacific and Microair. He said this will more than cover acquisition and install costs for ADS-B out, however Microair are building in a 1090 Squitter receiver into their units for VFR and IFR giving In capability, a glass display in the cockpit is not included, but this can be displayed on later Garmin units, various MFD's or even on a PDA, their VFR unit will be under $10,000.00. They are building one box for VFR, two for IFR, these will be remote mount units and will not disturb any existing panel installations, or require any panel space.

Racial humour remain your twaddle. Garmin and Microair plan and move on box!

[Creampuff]

How much will it cost to buy and install a Garmin ADS-B ‘out’ system that is certified?

[james michael]

Creamie

I'm not your runner; suggest address your query to Garmin.

You have a comment from Microair - take it up with Phil if you doubt it.

Agreed there can be no move forward on the subsidy without manufacturer pricing. That is irrelevant to most of the arguments on here about spoofing, orphan technology, 1090ES versus UAT etc.

[peuce]

I know this is supposed to be serious stuff .... but I'm gunna frame this page:ok:

You two have made my day:D

[Jabawocky]

Regarding the Microair ADSB it was headed for about $6-7K from memory, including the GPS engine.

The figures ASA used were very conservative.

Dont ask why I have formed this opinion......I can't tell you! Just trust me!

J

[james michael]

Jabbawok

I trust you. I have long suspected that the sweetener Airservices intended to trot out was to throw in ADS-B IN in the Microair package at the subsidy value. (I doubt several local frumious bandersnatches will believe you though.)

Peuce

Glad you enjoyed. In case of wonderment, my English is now meticulous because I am now CASA ICAO English Language qualified Level 4 so no more twaddle needed over honkonese "confucious-sion".

[Flying Binghi]

Sooo... looks like some posters here urgently want the $15,000 'Beta' system, Jaba wants the $7,000 'VHS' system, and Dick Smith would prefere to wait 5 odd years and get the $300 'DVD' system :hmm:


If you choose not to believe stated US Government policy there is not much I can do to change your mind.

GaryGnu, to relate it to Oz, what was the original Oz government policy re airport sales - Did it help Oz aviation and has the policy changed at all ?

there will be a back up network of radio navaids by which to navigate...

GaryGnu, Is that suggesting we will need to retain all our current nav aids and radars when we have GPS failure and/or permanent loss ?
Will the U.S. keep LORAN as a back-up ? thats the 'other' ADS-B system.

I have spoken at length to Microair Avionics...

james michael, sounds like you have no way of challenging the couple of scenarios I offered :hmm:

...and you've spoken to Microair and its all doozie eh :hmm: :E

[james michael]

FB

I comprehend the scenarios you offer but I restate what I believe.

GPS is here except in the event of major war. Turning it off is improbable otherwise, too much dependency. Although, to be fair, in the WAAS/GBAS debate I understand some sovereignty issues with MSAT. Different argument.

GPS already has failures, thus the removal of TSO129a from the ADS-B platform. I was uncertain re this, the data are persuasive.

Yes, GPS can be used by terrorists. I use a knife with my steak, the same knife can be used to terminate me. Tools have various uses, do we allow the 1% factor to overcome the good.

ADS-B is a surveillance mode resulting from technological advance that allows ATC efficiencies and aircraft-aircraft efficiencies. I don't believe the arguments against overrule those for.

What is needed is rational debate on the inevitable and how to best manage it.

[Jabawocky]

I trust you. I have long suspected that the sweetener Airservices intended to trot out was to throw in ADS-B IN in the Microair package at the subsidy value. (I doubt several local frumious bandersnatches will believe you though.)


Don't get too carried away there......ADSB in is a possibility....BUT and I stress..... ADSB IN is really not for GA....its not needed and could be a distraction.

Maybe its useful to IFR GA but that is the limit IMHO. And that should not be subsidised.

Subsidy is for OUT only, thats to have the targets in the ATC system and to ensure RPT get TCAS from the combined ADSB/Mode C fitted lighties.

J

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Subsidy is for OUT only, thats to have the targets in the ATC system and to ensure RPT get TCAS from the combined ADSB/Mode C fitted lighties.

Exactly, Jaba! Anything more than that should be at owner's expense. For VFR GA ADS-B "IN" is eye candy. Personally, I would fit it in a heartbeat considering my turf is fairly busy around the ML basin.

Creampuff, the gear IS available, it just doesn't come from the US. Check out SELEX and Funkwerk for TSO gear for GA aircraft.

1090ES is the world-wide standard! Not UAT or WAMLAT or VDL4 or....

[PlankBlender]

Why would you guys say that having traffic on your moving map is only "eyecandy" and "not needed for GA"?

Surely anything that improves situational awareness and traffic separation would be welcomed? In Alaska there has been a 40% reduction in aviation accidents since ADS-B was introduced. Certainly no coincidence!

I will definitely get myself an ADS-B IN box once the system is up and running. Any mid-air collision is one too many, especially when my own a** is on the line..

[Chimbu chuckles]

there has been a 40% reduction in aviation accidents since ADS-B was introduced. Certainly no coincidence!


40% reduction in 'midairs' or 'accidents'?

No coincidence...none...no possible unrelated contributors?

Rubbish!

Justify that statement.

[Creampuff]

the gear IS available, it just doesn't come from the US. Check out SELEX and Funkwerk for TSO gear for GA aircraft.Thanks Oz.

Serious questions: How much would that gear cost to buy and fit to an average VH-registered bugsmasha? Does that gear satisfy current Australian regulatory requirements for ASDB-out?

[james michael]

Jabby and Oz

You are being altruistic. Why should the normal VFR owner want his aircraft downtimed and stuffed around with to provide a surveillance system that offers him no benefits beyond the present? Answer, Airservices needs to provide some BENEFIT.

The benefit is NOT that of being able to operate in airspace as usual. If Airservices want to shift goal posts then forget the deal and let them keep the radar going. GA and particularly VFR stand to be more airspace restricted by ADS-B. Read the Airservices written NAS DP V1.4 about the Class E veils, and note the ADS-B Phase 2 mandatory ADS-B at CTAF R.

Therefore, Airservices needs to offer a sweetener. If Microair can include IN in the package, and that's a possibility, what a sweetener that would be. For VFR, if there can be a dashboard display display of the GPS data (admittedly the 145 display would not be to 146 standard) then that's a sweetener even if VFR pays for the display.

Creampuff

Ah so, that was a bit of fun, back to business. I doubt anyone in GA would accept the proposals without Airservices taking exactly the step you suggest and trotting out a list of TSO approved units and their cost. This is real caveat emptor stuff.

But it's also a circular argument until agreement in principle is reached as no manufacturer is going to gear up for an Australian mandate until there is some substance. We have seen the Airservices RFP withdrawn, Defence is perhaps an unwilling bride, and now Dick Smith is going to stop the deal - would you be investing money on that basis?

But, if we were to approach this as an unemotive business deal with Airservices the seller and everyone below FL180 a buyer, what would be the buyers specification and purchase motivation, that's the question.

[PlankBlender]

Chimbu, here's the justification:

The Anchorage conference marked the commencement of Capstone II in the Juneau/Ketchikan region in southeast Alaska. It will involve a further 200 aircraft. Capstone I already has been hailed a success. Once the part of Alaska with the highest aircraft accident rate -- in a state that already had a much higher accident rate than any of the other 49 states -- the Bethel region has seen a 40 percent reduction in accidents. It now is the Alaska region with the lowest accident rate.

From here: Avionics Magazine :: ADS-B&rsquo;s Global Advance (http://www.avtoday.com/av/categories/commercial/1023.html)

There are plenty of other references to that and other trials out there.

It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. See and avoid. We know how bad humans are at looking out the window and spotting other aircraft in the big blue yonder, especially when we add student pilots and super busy GAAP airspaces into the mix. See on the display to improve situational awareness, of course not to replace looking out, I don't know how we can't be for it!

Let's be constructive and help each other in the aviation industry to move from WWI technology to 21st century, there's no way we won't benefit from it!!!

[Jabawocky]

Gents / Ladies too,

The issue in Aalaska is not about a massive reduction in midair collissions, it was accidents all round. The reason for this as I understand it is with the ADSB they now have the surveillence of RADAR.....without the expense and infrastructure of RADAR.

I may be wrong, I just do not have the time to spend rereading it all again.

As for a sweetener JM, you do not need one. Better ATC coverage and some safety improvements for you and RPT and if YOU want ADSB IN, you can have it for a small extra fee. What more can you expect. Thats enough as it is.

J

[Creampuff]

It all comes flooding back to me now. I've been so busy I'd forgotten that this was all debated to death a while ago.

It was about Australia 'going it alone' rather than waiting to see what the rest of the world, or at least a substantial part of it, is going to do.

I see no point in Australia spearheading a technology that may turn out to be a unique and therefore unnecessarily expensive orphan. The imperatives that resulted in an Australia-unique DME system do not exist in respect of the functionality that ADSB is intended to deliver.

I remain with Dick on this one.

[james michael]

Jabba and Creampuff

It's not about Australia going alone. 1090ES is already there for RPT. A visit to a TAAATS centre demonstrates the marriage of ADS-B and MSSR information.

Safety improvements and for RPT? Jabba, if you closely read the relevant studies the issues are behavioural (and include RPT, increasingly so with fuel prices) and are not fixed by ADS-B IN. Although, it is of interest that the airlines always call for safety - as long as they are not paying. Have a read of the Avalon Study - what TCAS on one local short haul carrier?

Jabba, don't confuse surveillance with safety - first you need 'active' surveillance. What ATC surveillance of code 1200 in Class G? And what at CTAF where is the highest risk? Lots of paints on the screen - forget it - if you look at the Armidale study you will find the paints were masked to ATC because of the clutter.

I'm partly with Dick - on facts, not emotion - and Creampuff re this. If you study the purported benefits of the JCP, smoke and mirrors emerge. Take SAR as one example. Track the last ADS-B data to save us. Perhaps handy where ADS-B exists but whether or not it does one would far better initiate their 406 PLB for an instant SAR alert with one's details updated 3 times per hour and accurate to about 40 metres.

Having said that, if Airservices want to save $100M on radar etc - what's really in it for GA?

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

This is not a case of Australia going it alone with ADSB. Europe is roaring ahead with its implementation because it is a nobrainer to install a widespread ADSB network to in the long term replace an expensive radar network. We in the Middle East have just started using a new system that has a seamless ADSB display so that when we switch off our radar inputs (which we have done in the test environment) all ADSB equipped aircraft continue to blip along as usual updating every 3.2 seconds. Currently we have between 20 and 30 % of all aircraft equipped but that will quickly increase considering the rate of new aircraft deliveries here in the UAE.

I have spent a lot of time at one of the main manufacturers in Europe of the ADSB ground units and it is amazing to see the little 20 cm long fibreglass stick with the mobile phone size battery running it, and when they explain that a small solar panel could run the unit in a remote location with little maintenance you realise the potential for full radar like coverage not only across all of Australia but also across much of the world oceans and remote areas.

This technology is the future and Australia is highly respected internationally for being one of the countries leading the way. Every day in the majority of Australia, aircraft are subject to procedural separation, and people are worried about what happens if GPS is lost????

Embrace the technology, realise what it will do for pilots, controllers and the travelling public alike, and stop a bunch of panic merchants who are resistant to change when we finally get a change that deserves to be supported (unlike the debacle called NAS, hmmm 500 mile an hour jets in the same bit of non-radar airspace with non-communicating lighties, yeh that sounds like a great idea, and who cares what the USA does, if an idea is stupid it is stupid regardless of who else is stupid enough to do it).

[ferris]

Creampuff, I don't have time to write a proper response (especially to Dick) now, however, I see no point in Australia spearheading a technology that may turn out to be a unique and therefore unnecessarily expensive orphan Given that the money for this technology is going to be pissed away anyway (maintaining/replacing old radars), why not accept the 'experiment'? If the world goes another way (ala DME) then change in the future- but the world will be learning from us and the benfits flow immediately to oz aviation in having ADS-B NOW. If the problem is that; if, in future, a system change is required, owners fear that AsA wont pay for it, then just have that rider put in now. With the pace of technological change, trying to go with "what's best" appears to be a futile exercise in naval gazing and procrastination.

[Jabawocky]

appears to be a futile exercise in naval gazing and procrastination

Courtesy of a friends daughter who included this in a school project:eek:

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

Teenagers............what next!:uhoh:

J

[Flying Binghi]

Courtesy of a friends daughter who included this in a school project:eek:

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

Teenagers............what next!


Jaba, thats a well thought out contribution :rolleyes:

...perhaps an appropriate analogy though - Dont protect your self and go with the wrong 'system' and we could be paying for it for the next 20 odd years ;) ... and the cost of the inevitable 'divorce' when Osama getts his end in :(



.

[Flying Binghi]

Quick question - Why have the Europeans put up their own GPS satellites when the US GPS system already covers Europe ? :hmm:

[sierraoscar595]

Mr Smith has made a lot of noise about the cost-blow out and eventual scrapping of the Sea Sprite helicopter program (interestingly he has never made any mention of the $1 billion required to get the Collins Class submarine into shape...a new Government, means old sins are forgiven apparently), but has anyone ever heard him explain the over-run of the TAAATs system?

TAAATs was Mr Smith's CAA baby and it ran at least $77 million over budget. And that's before the cost of the legal wrangling over contracts in included.

Applyiong Mr Smith's `Sea Sprite' logic you owe the taxpayer more than $77 million. I'm sure the tax commissioner will be happy to accept a cheque or money order.

[PlankBlender]

AirNoServicesAustralia and ferris, you hit the nail on the head, well said! :D

[Jabawocky]

Binghi

The thread needed a little comic relief:rolleyes:

J

[james michael]

Jabby

Now I have undone the wing nuts and come out of the asiatic closet, you may take over the humour baton from Creamie and me :D

Back on ADS-B there's really only three I believe. VDL 4, 1090ES, and UAT. Australia is unlikely to sustain UAT and why run two systems anyway. Don't know anything of VDL 4 but do know 1090ES is going well according to the two recent ATC contributions.

So what's our options. And, if we don't go with the subsidy is the risk we do go later - with user pays?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Imagine this in another time-

ELV Dubbo, ELV IFR C402 for Narromine time 10, NPA rwy29, request traffic
DUBBO FSU ELV standby one FSO flicks his ADS-B screen to Narromine area waits five seconds for the screen to refresh.
DUBBO FSU ELV, I show two aircraft doing circuits rwy 36 and an IFR from Broken Hill arriving time 12, currently at 65nm and passing FL180 on descent. No other traffic.

ELV ELV copies traffic and many thanks
DUBBO FSU ELV and flicks screen back to area and continues to make his cuppa

Better than a CAGRO, better than UNICOM, it would have been the best system in the world. And for bugger all extra cost. Dick, if you wanted to change the world you should have started by making FSOs more versatile by giving them the gear and the coverage to look after OCTA properly. ATC looking after all CONTROLLED AIRSPACE where all the big guys fly and FS looking after everything else. ADS-B the common system looking out for everyone.

OH, I like to dream a lot:zzz:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Gee 'OZ',

THAT certainly brought a tear to these 'old eyes'....Just the thought of it.

Think I'll have to go and get a 'cold cuppa' to compensate.....

Thanks for the thought.:ok::ok:

FSO's cost too much anyway. I've heard THAT so much I'm [SIZE="1"]almost[SIZE="3"]ready to actually believe it.

We did 'trial' a thing called 'FISADS' for a while...must have cost $MMM's...and it didn't do much at all either....:}

Cheers:ok::ok:

[Quokka]

The thread needed a little comic relief

...it did and thank you for that.

ANSA is correct. Further more, it could be argued that Australia has already fallen behind the leaders of ADS-B and that Europe now is technologically and operationally in front of the pack. We both work in Aviation in the Northern Hemisphere and can assure you that 1090ES is in use globally. It is not DME-A as Mr Smith would have you believe... it is in fact the equivalent of DME-I, because it is now, by default, the International Standard for ADS-B.

Mr Smith et al should be proud of their achievement in delaying/stalling ADS-B in Australia. The danger now is not falling behind, but being left behind... and that, my Antipodean friends, is your choice.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Quokka, how true!

Dick thinks that as Australians we are incapable of invention, innovation modification and adaptation of anything more complex than a lawnmower without bringing in foreign "Experts" from America.

History says otherwise, thank heavens.

[Flying Binghi]

Mr Smith et al should be proud of their achievement in delaying/stalling ADS-B in Australia

...and yet, still no idea just what will happen to GPS when the first GPS guided Buzz Bombs fly over the Australian coast line - Have Airservices planned for such an eventuality ???
(and this is only one scenario)

Australia currently has a very robust air traffic control system run by a bunch of very dedicated, albeit understaffed and overworked, airtraffic controllers. Any terrorist threats to the current radar based ATC system would have minimal to nil impact.

Apart from any terrorist threat, we also have no real guarantees that civy GPS will be available in the future. There appears to be a 'cargo culture' mentality amongst some posters that the GPS signals will forever continue to rain down FREE and unimpeded upon their glorious ADS-B recievers. :hmm: ... where is the contract guaranteeing ongoing supply ???

If we get ADS-B fully implemented, Airservices will be able to sack many of the airtraffic controllers and close nav-aids and radars.
When ADS-B fails, there will most likely be no real backup what-so-ever :(

[james michael]

I continue to research:


Statistics for all flights in Australia the month of
April 2008 show that:
–

54.5 % of all international flights in Australia were by ADS-B approved aircraft.
–

20.5% of all domestic scheduled flights were by ADS-B approved aircraft.
– 16.6% of ALL FLIGHTS in Australia were by ADS-B approved aircraft.

And Cathay, Army, RFDS, Rex, UPS all have ADS-B applications in progress.

This "unproven orphan technology that Australia is going to lead at its risk" seems to be ...... catching up with Australia :rolleyes:

[james michael]

Binghi

More research:

The ATLAS Proposal envisages a Backup Network of ground based radio navigation aids which would provide an alternative navigation capability for GNSS capable aircraft should GNSS fail.

2.2 The composition of the Backup Network was chosen by considering operational factors such as navigation requirements, the regulatory structure, current aircraft avionics fitment, geographic position of aids to airports and the capabilities of airports. Based on these factors, a list of 103 NDBs, 45 VOR and 58 DMEs was established which was designated the “Backup Network”. It should be noted that the Backup Network was not chosen based on equipment condition but rather on the factors listed above.

ATC staff reductions? Why would having more aircraft in the system, showing on the same TAAATS screens, reduce staff. And, was not TAAATS going to do that like all you beaut new systems :rolleyes:

[Flying Binghi]

The ATLAS Proposal envisages a Backup Network of ground based radio navigation aids which would provide an alternative navigation capability for GNSS capable aircraft should GNSS fail.


Ah, finally, an admission that ADS-B NEEDS a back-up for the entire system.

Our existing very robust airnav system does not need a back-up for the entire system. There are parts that can fail, though no failure of one component will stop the entire air-nav system.

And I will repeat this - Apart from any terrorist threat, we also have no real guarantees that civy GPS will be available in the future. There appears to be a 'cargo culture' mentality amongst some posters that the GPS signals will forever continue to rain down FREE and unimpeded upon their glorious ADS-B recievers ... where is the contract guaranteeing ongoing supply ???

[Flying Binghi]

Why would having more aircraft in the system, showing on the same TAAATS screens, reduce staff.

james michael, is that an admission that all of the of aircraft flying in Oz will be receiving an account for their 'air' time ??? ... plus the on going maintenance costs of the ADS-B unit.

[werbil]

The US may turn off the GPS system / make it unusable. On the same token they may also ban flight by non military aircraft and enforce it in another country (eg parts of Australia as opposed to parts of Iraq). Given the dependency of the US's economy on GPS the second option would be far more palatable to the US public.

If the GPS signal is not available procedural separation could be used. It is no where near as efficient (or dare I say it as safe) as a radar / ADSB environment. A fire, a bomb, a failure of both primary and secondary power supplies, a SSR failure at either ML centre or BN centre would be far more disruptive than the loss of the GPS signal. If the GPS signal is jammed locally for war like or terrorist reasons I don't think any civilian aircraft would be allowed to take off (at least initially, and then ADIZ procedures would apply with extremely limited aircraft movements) so it becomes a task of getting the flying aircraft down safely. The ATC's out there should be able to give us an indication of whether the controllers on a shift would be able to cope with the additional workload by effectively halving the number of aircraft to be dealt with (hang on a sec most of them seem to be in on the conspiracy).

FB - Are you suggesting that I should throw away my 406 GPS equipped PLB on the remote chance the US disrupts the GPS signal in case I ever need to use it?

SSR is not spoof proof either. I've been in command of two different aircraft (about 15 years apart) where the indicated altitude to ATC is nothing like the actual altitude. A clever electronics engineer could easily alter the returned distance and / or altitude (multilateration would be able to be programmed to detect distance spoofing). Jamming primary radar would be quite straightforward as well.

It doesn't take much technology to upset ground aids either - I would be extremely surprised if even our military doesn't have the necessary equipment to do so - most electronic engineers could design and build gear to upset individual navigation aids in their sleep mainly using gear that can be brought off the shelf - and if they wanted to build from scratch even DSE would sell all the necessary components.

The necessary information to spoof these systems is publically available - probably not all on the internet but it could be found. No I am NOT going to say how on PPRUNE - that would make it too easy for a terrorist.

Have to go - more to add.

[Dick Smith]

Quokka, what a load of codswallop!

Tell me one country in Europe that has 1090ES ADS-B fitted in GA aircraft. You won’t be able to name one, because there isn’t one.

I’m concerned about the $100 million subsidy here to fit ADS-B in small GA aircraft. I want to know which safety issue is being addressed for the $100 million. It could be that more and more airline aircraft are gradually being fitted with 1090ES ADS-B, however it will be over a decade before the entire airline fleet is so fitted.

The only European country that I know of which is experimenting with ADS-B is Sweden, and I understand they are going with VDL 4.

I’ll say it again. I totally support ADS-B, however I believe we should be conservative, watch the fallout as other countries make huge errors costing billions of dollars, and then follow the best.

There is simply no reason that we should lead the world – especially when we do not have competent people here doing the “leading.”

[Dick Smith]

Sierraoscar595, that is the first I’ve heard that TAAATS ran over budget. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, because as you know the final order was placed after I completed my term as Chairman of CAA. The last I heard was that Airservices won special awards for TAAATS because it was based on proven equipment – rather than designing a system and being first, which was the Hughes proposal.

Was there any announcement about your claimed $77 million overrun? Could you dig out a copy?

[SM4 Pirate]

Why would having more aircraft in the system, showing on the same TAAATS screens, reduce staff.There is a perceptions that this is the way it will work; the amount of controllers currently needed for the current non surveillance 'sectors' will reduce with full ADS-B coverage.

But then there are technical issues. Such as the size of the displays and the ability of one set of eyes to effectively scan it all. If you are able to use a 5NM ADS-B standard why would you monitor a display of 1000NM or more; it's not terribly practicable.

Other trials have proved that much more traffic is displayed, as such the 'duty of care' of the ATCs involved increases, so whilst the 'conflicts' require less workload because you can use radar like separation instead of procedural standards; the workload associated with 'extra traffic' is significantly increased particularly close to busy aerodromes.

ADS-B will have significant ability to increase safety, but will it reduce ATCs? My best guess is not likely; particularly given we are the best part of 100 short now, from full compliment, and there are significant retirement pressures coming.

I too like Dick Smith, would like to see the 'business cases' with all the options laid out openly so they can be publicly critiqued before the decisions are made. "ASA has form, none of it good".

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate, a good post, however you do say:

ADS-B will have significant ability to increase safety

I am wondering what you actually mean. Considering the only airline midair collision that we have had in Australia was at Sydney Airport in what is now known as Class C airspace, I just wonder what safety increase we are looking for.

The ADS-B “safety case” linked ADS-B with Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems, which are quite separate.

The fact that – as you point out – an air traffic controller will not be able to offer a separation service to airline aircraft at, say, a dozen different airports within the sector, will mean that collision avoidance close to the airport (where the risk is greater) will still be by radio, visual alertness, and TCAS Resolution Advisories. None of these need ADS-B.

So many people have got carried away with this newfangled ADS-B, saying it will dramatically improve safety, but hardly anyone actually gives the scenario of what particular accidents we are going to reduce.

[peuce]

Dick,



Risk Management is all about ... reducing the likelihood and consequence of a bad thing.

Would you not agree that having the extended situational awareness that ADS-B surveillance provides ... would reduce the likelihood of a bad thing happening.

You appear to be saying that we haven't had a bad thing, so we don't need to be trying to prevent them.

[bushy]

I cannot help but wonder if the plan is to automate the ATC system, using ADSB, more aircraft and less (only a few) controllers.
We seem to have had quite a few instances of TIBA lately.
Funny that. Should get everyone used to the idea.

[Quokka]

Tell me one country in Europe that has 1090ES ADS-B fitted in GA aircraft. You won’t be able to name one, because there isn’t one.

Followed by...

The only European country that I know of which is experimenting with ADS-B is Sweden

[Quokka]

1090ES and European Air Traffic Control (http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/public/news/ground_station.html)

1090ES Ground Station Procurement

03/08/2005

The call for tender for the procurement of 1090 Extender Squitter Ground Station (1090ES GS) for CASCADE trials has been completed. The contract was awarded to Thales ATM that will furnish five systems (one procured, four leased).

These systems will support:

ADS-B reception and TIS-B transmission over extended squitter,

Interoperability with both DO-260 and DO-260A,
ASTERIX cat 21 for ADS-B reports,
ASTERIX cat 62 for TIS-B reports,
ASTERIX cat 22 and 23 for management and monitoring,
Multiple transmission and reception channels (for operation with multiple sector antennas),
Squitter logging and replay facilities.


CASCADE will receive four systems immediately. These will be identical to the systems used in Australia. Upgrades to the above functionalities will occur in two steps with delivery in January (for ADS-B) and June 2006 (for TIS-B).

The planned locations for the five systems are: Brétigny (EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre), Italy, Athens, Cyprus and Portugal. CASCADE is also leasing another four ADS-B 1090ES GS from Raytheon Systems Ltd. These will go to London, Frankfurt, Schiphol and Shannon.

[Bob Murphie]

OZBUSDRIVER;

Do you own a GA aircraft or a bus?

Do you operate a GA aircraft or a bus? (in the sense that the operator is responsible for the maintenance)?

If you are a positive subject to the two questions, how will the mandatory impost of any ADSB impact upon your bottom line if the aircraft/ bus, is/are operated below mainly AO10?

Are you prepared for the cost possibility of having two transponders (mode C and Mode S), so that TCAS can work for those folk who have, or need the "IN" capability?

If you don't own an aircraft/ bus, do you hire one assuming the owner will supply the equipment you fancy?

Do you believe that Private GA and mostly including owners/ operators should be allowed to operate without unnecessary restrictions and costs in Class G airspace?

Do you work for Airservices or a bus company?

Quokka;

I think Dick was challenging you to find something different to what you have supplied.

[SM4 Pirate]

I just wonder what safety increase we are looking for. You jest right? Dumping aircraft OCTA and getting another in so the conflict happens in G; this happens everyday in the GAFA, outside radar coverage; that would be a massive safety increase. The 'gold-fields' overloads; the levels restricted from use because of 'blockers' nearby; despite the icing/weather/turbulence that's effecting the current level. Having been in ATC for many years now, I have no doubt that increased surveillance will increase safety. The extra surveillance for the gold-fields is coming be it turning head or stationary box; so why not explore the stationary box option if it costs less and 'delivers' more? So it's not simply about replacement of the MSSR 'enroute' radar.

If we use ADS-B right; we could have your alphabet airspace without 'fear' that has accompanied the change in the past; simply because of the increased surveillance; also we could use it for better use of low level airspace management in terms of vectoring aircraft onto radials, localisers etc and for terrain avoidance advice too; if we staff it correctly (which I have no confidence).

If you are a positive subject to the two questions, how will the mandatory impost of any ADSB impact upon your bottom line if the aircraft/ bus, is/are operated below mainly AO10?Bob, perhaps we need to ask the big questions? What do we want it for, then who should have it? If the perception is to protect passenger carrying aircraft from everything else, then perhaps we need to have ADS-B veils like they have transponder veils in the states but what to do with those that ignore the 'veil' areas; in the states the primary radar gives them knowledge which will be not evident here at all.

So in our system, want to go in class A/B/C/D then you need ADS-B, want to operate in the vicinity of a "passenger" CTAF (lets call them CTAF(R)'s) need ADS-B. The big question is class E and class G? If we get to Class E to A007 or A012 then we need to have it universally.

But can WAM do what we want ADS-B to do? Without the airborne expense?

WAM is more expensive than ADS-B in terms of ground infrastructure, but overall probably significantly cheaper; particularly for the East Coast and where infrastructure is available.

The big issue is the GAFA in terms of coverage, WAM works on 'triangulation' so you need to be in range of three or more WAM receivers for it to work; then there are the combined ADS-B WAM boxes, which is another story.

Do we need (it) what ever it is for the GAFA? Can we just have veils at certain 'higher risk' locations?

Remember though, getting GPS into every aircraft effectively means that the old 'radio navaid' network can be decommissioned. How many rusting radio towers are out there needing urgent repair? Some of ASA sights whilst still 'operational' are 'hazardous hard hat safety areas' only, with reports suggesting that a strong wind could blow some of them over.

So there is more to it than one source of costs alone. Hence show us the business cases, why the "secret squirrel" stuff? What other hidden agendas are linked to this project. TiNR etc.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

hardly anyone actually gives the scenario of what particular accidents we are going to reduce.

That’s what "a few uninformed and closed minded" (from your CTAF post; thanks) "experts" think. Get onto 133.5, 133.8, 127.0 and the Low matching freqs (the Pilbara and Goldfields for those of you in the East) one day and listen. Nose to nose jets, off-track diversion radials, fuel wastage, blocked comms, not to mention 30 minutes traffic holding at Perth, and more. Open your mind and ears, listen to what people are saying and perhaps you may see that ADS-B would be a god-send in some parts. Perhaps not in Terry Hills, but for other places it would be a huge benefit.

[phew_they_missed!]

Get onto 133.5, 133.8, 127.0 and the Low matching freqs (the Pilbara and Goldfields for those of you in the East)Noooo...don't encourage them! Got enough to do as it is thanks!
;)

[james michael]

Binghi

To answer your question, why does ADS-B need a backup network? Because any system may fail (eg a massive sunspot interference).

We DO backup the current navaid network actually - have a look at your IFR alternates.

Account for GA air time? - my understanding from the association I contacted is that they have a submission to Airservices about LESS accounts for GA airtime.

Bob Murphie

Not two transponders. You throw away your tired old existing one and start afresh with a new one with probable minimal maintenance.

There are probably many VFR and IFR owners who will take the subsidy and either include extra upgrade in the deal or pocket the surplus $. The subsidy was based on a $10,000 or $15,000 one off payment not related to actual expenditure but merely to the aircraft being VFR/working txpdr or IFR on the maintenance release.

Dick Smith

You state I’m concerned about the $100 million subsidy here to fit ADS-B in small GA aircraft. I want to know which safety issue is being addressed for the $100 million.

Do the aircraft owners care about the safety issue? If one has a VFR aircraft and can put ADS-B plus a TSO 146 GPS in for an outlay of $3,000 to $5,000 - that answers the 'what's in it for me' as far as I'm concerned. Or do I go along with you and find it later mandated by CASA and me having to pay $10,000 without a GPS on my dash?

I comprehend your concerns - mine are that it's going to be bulldozed in and it's no skin off my nose to get it for free plus some extra GPS capability instead of my handheld.

What can you offer if I hang out?

[sierraoscar595]

Sure Dick, happy to oblige (see story below). I'm sure the tax office will be happy with a deferred payment program if you can't get your hands on $77 million straight away.

AAP General News (Australia)
08-16-1999
FED: Air radar system $77m and four years over target: Dems

CANBERRA, Aug 16 AAP - Australia's new air traffic control system's budget had blown out by $77 million and was four years behind schedule, the Australian Democrats said today.

The Advanced Australian Air Traffic System (TAAATS), which uses software and satellite-based technologies, was expected to be completed by December 1995 for $300 million.

It will now be finished at the end of this year for $377 million.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Dick,

-"Considering the only airline midair collision that we have had in Australia was at Sydney Airport in what is now known as Class C airspace...."-

Gee Dick, I thought that one was on the runway, because the two aircraft were both on the active rwy at the same time, and one started his T/O run before the other had vacated.
Didn't the fin of the (Canadian?) aircraft taxying, cut the underbelly of the departing 727 as it 'lifted off' in an endeavour to avoid the (DC8?) ?

Rainy night - poor vis - lotsa lights / reflections - hard to see the just landed acft still on the rwy in the distance...

Forgive the question marks, but the memory is a little hazy - and it was a fair while back...
Hardly 'midair' though - one was firmly on the deck - and the class of 'airspace' hardly the issue....or do I have the wrong incident?

Cheers

[Dick Smith]

Ex FSO GRIFFO, one aircraft was certainly in the air. The point I am clearly making is that the highest risk is closest to the runway.

Further to this important scientific fact is the issue that the most likely airline accident we will have in the near future will be a runway (or close to runway) collision at an airport like Avalon – not a midair that ADS-B could have prevented in the high level airspace over Bourke or Birdsville.

The reason everyone seems to be obsessed with mandatory radio and ADS-B above 5,000 feet is because that is where (in the old days) Flight Service Officers could provide a service to both IFR and VFR with their existing staffing levels. Of course, where the risk increased at lower levels at airline airports such as Taree, there was no requirement for the VFR aircraft to be in the system – therefore traffic was not given by Flight Service.

This led to some people believing that the higher risk is above 5,000 feet, not below. Why else would the second stage of the ADS-B mandate for GA aircraft be talking about requirements above 5,000 feet, but not at lots of higher traffic density areas close to the ground?

[Dick Smith]

Sierraoscar595, well of course I should have known. It was a claim made by politicians – and we always believe them, don’t we?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

The reason everyone seems to be obsessed with mandatory radio and ADS-B above 5,000 feet is because that is where (in the old days) Flight Service Officers could provide a service to both IFR and VFR with their existing staffing levels.

... simple question Richard, do YOU want VFR involved below A050?

Of course, where the risk increased at lower levels at airline airports such as Taree, there was no requirement for the VFR aircraft to be in the system – therefore traffic was not given by Flight Service. ... errm are you referring to before or after your dismantling of the Flight Service system?

It was a claim made by politicians – and we always believe them, don’t we? .... people with half a brain might ... and errm what would you (and your involvement in issues such as this one) classify yourself as?

.. this should be good viewing :E

[max1]

Dick,
TAAATS was years late and overbudget, its a fact. It was a worlds first and most projects like this do tend to go this way. It is a huge improvement on what we used to have, and was worth the extra time and expense.

It was cobbled together from proven systems, and it was the ATC and the Techs of Australia, together with the mostly French suppliers who did it.

Someone has to prove the systems in the first place though.

Australia , due to its large and diverse area, and lack of sovereignty issues, is probably the foremost area in the world to develop new ideas in ATC. We have the advantage of a busy Eastern seaboard, with some of the busiest city-pair air routes in the world. Combined with a huge expanse of basically nothing. We can be busy USA, or the backblocks of Siberia, and most places in between.

We have robust discussions here, so imagine what it must be like in Europe. The politics, potential suppliers, and sovereignty issues must make us look like a love-in.

ADS-B is up and working in areas of Australia, the trial has been going on for years and it is being implemented. It is evidence that we can do it, it will be a huge boost to those areas in the West, the discussion about GA costs will continue. Have you thought that there are probably "other countries Dick Smiths" pointing to Australia and saying they are using it, it is a proven system and what the hell are we doing wasting money.

As for the Hughes system in NZ, it had alot of teething problems, but having seen and played on both systems in the last couple of years, I believe that for outside of radar coverage that the Hughes system, at the moment, is a better piece of kit.We have some improvements, that are due to go on, that will bring us up to speed and allow User Preferred Routing, that are only being held up due to our staffing problems.

[SM4 Pirate]

As for the Hughes system in NZ, it had alot of teething problems, but having seen and played on both systems in the last couple of years, I believe that for outside of radar coverage that the Hughes system, at the moment, is a better piece of kit.Rumour has it that Qantas wants NZ to take over the Australian Pacific Airspace sector(s), because they can deliver UPRs now not by late 2010 (at the earliest).

I hear that managers at ASA 'can't believe how unpatriotic Qantas is' for even suggesting such a thing.; like they care, under delivering and over promising; that's ASA style.

Having observed the NZ system in action; if that's what we could have had here, then we made a massive mistake taking that french crap 'off the shelf'. I know which is better; and it isn't on this side of the Tasman.

[james michael]

Dick Smith

Somehow I feel you have not answered my question of last night. Was it too hard?

But, turning to today, you state Why else would the second stage of the ADS-B mandate for GA aircraft be talking about requirements above 5,000 feet, but not at lots of higher traffic density areas close to the ground

Have I misread something here? By my reading: -
Stage 1 of the ADS-B mandate related to the transponder category.
Stage 2 related to the radio category.

I felt matters below 5000' were extremely well covered and even to the extent where claims were made about safety benefits in CTAF.

Just to ensure we are talking apples and apples, this from the JCP:

(Stage 1)
From 28 June 2012, ADS-B avionics would be required for all civilian IFR operations, and for all civilian Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations that currently require carriage and use of a transponder.

(Stage 2)
From 26 June 2014, ADS-B avionics would also be required for all civilian
VFR operations that currently require carriage and use of a VHF radio

I'm not sure where you are coming on with the 5000' matter - are we reading the same paper?

[Dick Smith]

Max1, a good post, but you (like others) seem to mix two completely separate issues. High level ADS-B (which is working now in Australia) is actually operating in parallel with the existing procedural system.

It is an incredibly conservative approach. An aircraft can fly in all of the so-called ADS-B airspace without ADS-B, and will be separated safely.

A quantum leap is the proposed low level ADS-B system and the $100 million subsidy to bring small aircraft into it. It is a quantum leap because the subsidy is based on closing down the SSR network at a date that relies on the low level ADS-B system being installed and operating correctly.

I will say it again. I totally support ADS-B – especially if it is operated in parallel with existing systems for 5 years to so.

In relation to the $100 million subsidy, no one has been able to explain what actual risk is being addressed, and whether that is an effective way of spending $100 million. Having small VFR aircraft flying low level at Birdsville appearing on an air traffic controller’s screen in Brisbane sounds really fantastic. However what is the air traffic controller going to do? Is he actually going to separate the traffic (as per Class C) or is the air traffic controller going to just give a traffic service? If so, how can an air traffic controller reliably give a traffic service when there may be a dozen or so airports in the sector?

Most importantly, won’t the traffic that is being given by the air traffic controller have already appeared on the airline aircraft’s TCAS as a Traffic Advisory, and won’t the pilots have already alerted each other by radio?

These issues have never been properly discussed. It is a classic example of boffins saying that they can “invent” something and it will lead the world, so we should go ahead with it.

In business I have always been conservative. That is why I have had some success.

[Bob Murphie]

Can someone tell me again where this $100 million is coming from.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Dick,
Your Quote;

...........(in the old days) Flight Service Officers could provide a service to both IFR and VFR with their existing staffing levels. ....................:{:{:{:{

A V E R Y S A F E system...............IMHO!!

A 'Not quite so safe system' was the post 'VFR' period.....was that
11/11/93?? .... its that 'memory thing' again.... when the service was confined to IFR only about other IFR.

Imagine now, if we still had the FSO situation, using ADSB to give a full traffic service to ALL acft OCTA.....at our 'then, minimum staffing levels'...

Easier now - not so many PVT acft around - and the 10-15 seaters have now been replaced largely by the fewer-in-number 40 to 100 or so seaters.

Affordable and 'Safe'........Assuming that everybody had access to ADSB of course.

(No Dick, not trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted...
- thanks again for the redundo........:ok::ok:)

[Quokka]

Imagine now, if we still had the FSO situation, using ADSB to give a full traffic service to ALL acft OCTA.....at our 'then, minimum staffing levels'...

Imagine post '93 with ADS-B... the close proximity between the opposite-direction jet and the turbo-prop outside controlled airspace on the SCR - KG track would never have happened... displayed on the screen and alerted to both the controller and FSO with a big bright red STCA alert.

No See-&-Avoid in that one... no avoiding action at all. It was another See-As-We-Miss-By-Sheer-Blind-Luck.

But then, Mr Smith is still not convinced that a single collision between two aircraft outside controlled airspace will be saved by ADS-B.

[james michael]

Dick Smith

Could you please assist me by prefacing your posts "transmitting blind".

Early in the piece I thought you were here to debate and share and gather information.

Now I realise you are here to spruik and not comment on any posts too hard to answer. Obviously mine are in that category. Not agro, not personal, just asking you for some answers.

Bob Murphie

Cross industry subsidy. But, why look a gift horse in the mouth. Does not matter how the money is derived, for you and I if you are an aircraft owner (?) why question fate. However, we have an option - if Dick answers my question of yesterday, HE may have alternative funding for the GPS I am going to get cheap out of this deal.

[Bob Murphie]

james michael;

I do own aircraft and I have been told of this "cross industry subsidy" before, but nobody has yet told me who actually signs the cheque. Is it Airservices, DOTARS, Qantas, Dept Finance or who?

Last time I listened to the Airservices presentation (and the two times before), "THEY" were paying for it from the savings made out of the "redundant" radar and navaid installations.

[sierraoscar595]

Dick - you claim credit for TAAATS on your website CV. Are you saying that it was delivered on time and on budget? If so this will be quite a story.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This will prolong the life of all the en route radars to preserve the ADS-B contingency period to support the transition.

Sounds like prudent planning to me.

Dick, where IS the comparison between ADS-B and the SeaSprite "Fiasco"?

Bob, I care not what you think about subsidy or fitment or maintainence. I do care that history doesn't repeat itself with transponder fitment. Did you get one red cent to fit a modeA then fork out for a modeC and then have your mate get it mandated for use above 5000ft?

Just because GARMIN hasn't produced a 1090ES unit doesn't mean non-availabilty. Lets have a look at Garmin for a sec. The producer of THE most expensive extensive avionics suite ever installed in a GA lightie yet the GPS that drives it is only TSO129????? If you bought one of the first aircraft equipped with this unit, How ripped off would you feel?

Garmin G1000 systems installed before 1/2007 are not WAAS capable. Garmin has left it up to the individual airframe vendors to offer the WAAS upgrade to this system. As of this date, there is no program through Garmin to upgrade the existing G1000 systems to WAAS.

No WAAS upgrade no TSO146 no interface to ADS-B

Quite shocked to learn that, all that money and still you will have to fork out more to upgrade to TSO146.($14,795US, Cessna. SB 07-34-07) The American way. Thank heavens for the Japanese.

1090ES is 1090ES! The message is standard, the format is standard. The receiver is standard. It is the same here, it is the same in US airspace...note that! It is the same in Europe. IT is the SAME!

I have sat in the same room as Murphie and Leadsled and I still cannot understand their patholgical hate of "Big Brother" This is what it is all about-

BIG BROTHER CAN WATCH YOU!

It's quite pathetic!

[james michael]

Bob Murphie

I'm not sure of your concern? here's how I feel:
1. Airservices has openly declared they can save some money (by the way I suspect the navaids save more than the radar in the ultimate).
2. Both VFR and IFR are being offered a carrot. The thought of picking up a 146 GPS and a brand new transponder for an extra outlay of $5000 appeals to me, rather than just the new transponder and a blind GPS.
3. So I'm going to worry about whose name is on the cheque as the 'payer'?

What I'm motivated by is receiving the subsidy. If it's from Airservices, DOTARS, Freddo Frog, or Dick Smith (you'll note my query to him about that remains unanswered) I just don't care - as long as it does not bounce. Something about never looking down the throat of the horse, yes?

My research, and reading of this thread, makes me feel the benefits to me outweigh the (whatever?) negatives.

OzBus

I agree with you. I have no concern about being on an ATC screen. Just might save my life someday.

[peuce]

James Michael, you said:

"Could you please assist me by prefacing your posts "transmitting blind"."

You've picked it up quicker than a lot of prior posters here. Dick is certainly an intelligent and tricky customer. If he can see an opportunity to re-state his case, then he might reply to you .. however, if there's nothing in it for him ... silence. Most of us know that, and we just accept it and work around it. A very clever debating ploy.

Not a dig, just an observation.

[james michael]

Peuce

I certainly appreciate and value your comment.

My concern was I had somehow offended Mr Simth, which was not the intent of these aspects of my research.

There has been much good information and debate on here of great value to a newbie as myself. But, it is difficult to seek information when one's hard questions do not get an answer.

This 5000' matter made me feel I had somehow missed or overlooked something. But I again read the JCB last night and I still only come up with Phase 1 = transponder equivalence and Phase 2 = radio equivalence, and the revised proposal is only Phase 1 because of objections needing to be further explored and consulted re Phase 2.

This process strikes me as admirable and your advice reassures me that I should continue to participate on the basis that 'no answer' is probebly an answer in itself :)

[GaryGnu]

and the revised proposal is only Phase 1 because of objections needing to be further explored and consulted re Phase 2

JM,

Could you direct a curios reader to the revised proposal please?

[james michael]

Gary

I apologise but I have no paper to direct you toward as I believe this must go from the recent ASTRA meeting back to the other key parties to re-start the amended JCP.

The association I joined to further my aviation pursuit gave me the advice on request. I understand it is from the latest meeting they attended and is a proposal put forward to ASTRA to re-start ADS-B now or move to the radar replacement program which puts the next subsidy chance at 2028.

I reproduce here extract of what I was sent, and I take it in good faith:

"(Notes from today's meeting) The Atlas and Radar replacement/life extension program has run its course, a decision has to be made to transition to satellite technology for enroute surveillance by September. Failure to do so will require replacement of 8 terminal and 11 enroute radars, as these are nearing the end of their useful life, this will also mean replacing and continuing with ground base navaids. Airservices has recently signed a contract to extend the life of current enroute radars, to preserve a contingency (transition) period between the proposed mid-2012 ATLAS mandate and radar decommissioning.


ADS-B implementation is proposed to replace the enroute radars and navaids, by 2012. The timeline of September is critical for decision making, delays beyond this point will necessitate replacing radars and navaids as they have already been extended beyond their useful life, once this occurs then subsidy funding of ADS-B installation in VH registered aircraft will not be available. This does not mean ADS-B will not go ahead, the airlines are equipping existing aircraft and new aircraft will be ADS-B capable.


The ABIT meeting today discussed a proposal to introduce a Phase 1 introduction i.e.. ADS-B for transponder equivalence, subsidies for installation and purchase of equipment along with a back up network of navaids during the transition period.

Phase 11 will continue to be worked on and debated to try and resolve and where necessary elliminate some of the concerns and problems that have bogged down the debate so far.


This I believe is a step forward and was recognised as such by the attendees. The meeting was unanimous in accepting this approach. Phase 1 allows us to utilise the advantages of the technology, take advantage of the subsidy and still continue to debate and resist the onerous issues.


Although the meeting endorsed the proposal, this does not necessarily mean the Minister will give it the go ahead. This process was initiated by the previous government about 8 years ago, a gentleman from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport etc etc made this clear that it would have to be put to the Minister for a final decision."

[GaryGnu]

JM,

Thankyou I shall await the publication of the minutes from the ABIT/GIT meeting then.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, if you are going to defame me (ie Dick is a "tricky" customer) have the guts to phone me on 0408 640221 and say it to my face -or at least put your real name on your posts so we have a fair playing field.

To readers of this thread, I am happy to answer any question on any matter but this depends on time available!

James, I will answer all of your questions on Monday, in the meantime I dare you to phone me this weekend for even more important information. If you don't it could mean that you have a more complex agenda than what appears here.

Just why posters have to keep their names hidden when discussing an important technical issue is extraordinary.

I will look forward to the calls.

[Dick Smith]

James, you have been told that the ADSB subsidy decision must be made by September because- "failure to do so will require replacement of 8 terminal and 11 enroute radars-"

This is not the truth-these units can be continuously be updated and refurbished at very reasonable cost to keep operating "like new".

That's one of the reasons no one from Airservices ever actually publically answers my statements or comes on this site under their own name!

The truth would come out!

And the subsidy decision will have to be made by parliament -no individual has the authority to take money from Mum and Dad air fare buyers and hand it to private aircraft owners.

[james michael]

Dick Smith

I entered this debate as a public forum and anything I say will be public on here accordingly.

If you have information to share, don't make me privy by fone call - share here.

I take exception to your very rude uncalled for comment about agendas. You shoot at Peuce for "defaming" you, then you do exactly that to me:
James, I will answer all of your questions on Monday, in the meantime I dare you to phone me this weekend for even more important information. If you don't it could mean that you have a more complex agenda than what appears here.

Just why posters have to keep their names hidden when discussing an important technical issue is extraordinary.


Please practice what you preach. I am proud of my name James Michael, has been mine for many years. But, if you expect me to exchange matters with you here, kindly do unto others as you demand for yourself otherwise I will ignore you - as you have ignored my recent questions until prodded by Peuce. And his comments about you are in no way defamatory - a 'tricky' customer could be noted as a shrewd and canny operator. I await your proof of that.

Now, turning to radars, I said to you recently (awaiting Monday answer) I don't care how or why the cheque arrives. I find an apparent nett benefit in this for me, I don't intend to tell Airservices how to run their business and lose the benefit.

Surely no-one is naive enough to believe that the Airservices claim of the radar replacement would not be soundly examined by DOTARS, Defence, the Minister, Senate Hearings, etc. I intend to leave those experts to debate that matter rather than being guided by anecdote and conspiracy theory.

[Bob Murphie]

I think Dick is onto what my question re who signs the cheque for this low level ADSB subsidy.

Airservices is a Corporation, (albeit a quango). Their duty is to their shareholder, (s), not as a benevolent fund to subsidise what is now mandated.

We have a new Government that to date has given no indication to subsidising basic social justice measures let alone subsidising "silvertails" flitting in the GAFA.

Qantas already has ADSB as do all other Airlines and the RAAF operating Internationally, (in the flight levels).

OZBUSDRIVER and others by omission admit they don't own aircraft and my guess is the hire one for 20 to 60 hours per annum.

There appears only three now who can possibly benefit from this impost, they being Airservices, the private pilot, who hires an aeroplane, and the regionals who are !!!! scared of somebody appearing in their windscreen in a CTAF because they are ingrained into looking at dials and not the real world outside. A CTAF is VFR not IFR (is it not?).

I believe the gift horse is a tactical ploy, nothing else. Being a pessimist makes you enjoy the result if it goes the other way. Optimistics are very usually dissappionted.

I have potentially more to loose financially than anyone who hires a weekend 182 and wants to feel safer than his/ her own aviation skills can give them with technology that doesn't do anything more than what is currently in my aircraft at this date and time.

Perhaps one should push to mandate duplicate seatbelts.

Perhaps some should re-read "the ambulance in the valley".

Perhaps they should leave G airspace as it is.

[james michael]

Bob Murphie

A good consideration but my read of the JCP is that the end result is conditional on the subsidy and cannot occur without it.

I doubt any Minister or organisation would attempt to face a Court challenge by ndeavouring to proceed if the subsidy was overturned. If so, the deal is null and void.

"Perhaps they should leave G airspace as is" - I think in that concept you have thrown away your pessimism and become an optimist. As ADS-B becomes more and more interntional, perhaps the concept of airspace will be revised entirely.

"CTAF VFR not IFR" - certainly, but a lot of effort seems to go in Australia into making it 'safe' for IFR - therefore the CTAF R that may become the CTAF ADS-B (or worse if ADS-B does not eventuate?). Just my thought.

Is not UK going to a Mode S mandate - check Mode S Home Page | Mode S | Airspace Policy (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=810&pagetype=90)
Not ADS-B but perhaps the world we knew is changing as technology changes.

[CaptainMidnight]

james michael
I understand it is from the latest meeting they attended and is a proposal put forward to ASTRA to re-start ADS-B now or move to the radar replacement program which puts the next subsidy chance at 2028.
Info on the radar situation can be found in the following document:

http://www.astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/ABIT12_IP12_Radar_Life_Extension.pdf

Not sure if it has already been posted, but here is the master document link (meeting 12 was the latest, last month):

ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT) (http://www.astra.aero/ABIT/meeting_reports.aspx)

[max1]

Bob Murphie,
A quick explanation of where the money is coming from, its basically the airlines through ASA.
ASA is a corporation it doesn't have shareholder(s), it has one The Australian Government. Any profits basically go 60% to government general revenue(not to aviation) and 40% retained.
Last year they made $106 million.

The thinking behind the subsidy is. The airlines will get cost savings from the reduced separation and increased surveillance due installation of more ADS-B stations, (they are way cheaper to instal and maintain than SSRs), ASA will get cost savings from the removal of the SSRs, which should then manifest in less cost to airlines.

ASA and the airlines need GA to get onboard real soon, hence the subsidy(bribe). GA is in a strong bargaining position but there are time constraints when you will lose your position.

Dick, alot of the SSRs are already seriously close to their use-by dates, they don't have 5 years to play about. ADS-B is up and working.

To a certain extent it works in parallel with procedural separation, but due to ADS-Bs proven surveillance capablities it supplants it, with radar like standards. Think 10 minute separation standards against 5 miles. e.g. 10 minutes after passing at a combined speed of 16 miles a minute equals aircraft 160 miles apart against 5 miles.

ASA will need to replace the radar heads soon. That money would come from the GA subsidy, if ASA have to go to the expense of replacing SSRs they will want to get their moneys worth and the subsidy would go. At the moment the cost benefit analysis leans towards subsidising GA and not replacing the SSRs. If things drag on the SSRs will HAVE to be replaced.

How many GA aircraft travel regularly OS? How many will be affected by what Sweden implement? Our system works, there is a window of opportunity to get a proven system free or cheap. That window is not being manipulated, it will close, the SSRs will need to be either replaced or removed. Unfortunately the deal is close-ended, decisions need to be made.

[james michael]

Captain Midnight and Max

My hearfelt thanks for your information and links. This adds more evidence and written information to the considerations.

Bit of reading to do :)

[Quokka]

How many GA aircraft travel regularly OS? How many will be affected by what Sweden implement?

...and Beijing (http://www.erabeyondradar.com/press-releases/era-ads-b-and-multilateration-system-achieves-beijing-site-acceptance-in-advance-of-2008-summer-olym.html), Budapest (http://www.erabeyondradar.com/press-releases/era-ads-b-and-multilateration-surveillance-system-completes-site-acceptance-at-budapest.html), Thailand (http://www.erabeyondradar.com/press-releases/aerothai-selects-era-for-nationwide-ads-b-surveillance-network.html), India (http://www.erabeyondradar.com/press-releases/airports-authority-of-india-selects-era-for-multilateration-and-ads-b-surface-surveillance.html).... and New Zealand (http://www.erabeyondradar.com/press-releases/airways-new-zealand-selects-era-for-wide-area-and-surface-surveillance-systems.html).

With plenty more to follow...

[Quokka]

Not to mention the 1,600 ADS-B ground stations (http://www.thalesgroup.com/airsystems/Press-Room/Focus-search-all/Focus-search-result/Focus-Article.html?link=1312003b-7e11-750f-3921-39756a3b0514:central&locale=EN-gb&Title=ADS-B+technology%3A+entering+a+new+age&dis=1)in Mr Smith's beloved USA... for 1090ES (1090Mhz-Extended Squitter). Yes, that's 1,600 ADS-B ground stations worth of continental ADS-B coverage that Mr Smith would have you believe that GA in the United States will not participate in... and that, therefore, Australia should not participate in... does anyone really believe that?

[Flying Binghi]

And for the umpteenth time - Where is the contract that states the U.S. will guarantee the ongoing FREE supply of civy GPS signals to run Airservices ADS-B system ???

...... I'm beginning to think that NO such document exists :hmm:


How long will GPS stay FREE when the hardpressed U.S. tax payer realises that Airservices is making a profit from GPS ??? I think with the realization, that government 'policy' may just change for the worse :(

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Bing
.
.... OK so now its charging (rather than the off switch) for GPS use ..... ermmm how and on what basis?
.
Are they gunna charge US citizens (road, rail, air, sea, agricultural, and personal users) also :hmm:
.
Show us one, just one link or sniff that uncle sam is contemplating charging for or considering turning off the constellation/s!
.
Yeh right! :ugh:
.
:D
.
Ah yes ... the deafening sounds of many a pessimist pennies a dropping! ;)
.
Viva la revolution :)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

FB, there was an article in a yank mag a few years ago prior to the permanent deactivation of SA. The Yanks decided that more money came into the US economy by purchases of receivers than charging rent to exclusive use.

EDIT- to add, not to mention the uses resulting in more productivity.

[max1]

FB,
Do you really think the US taxpayer really gives a stuff in what is going on down here.Tazaksthan and the Eskimos get the same benefit we do,think of all the industries in the States that get the same benefit, US AOPA, truckdrivers, US airlines, US recreational boaties, Mom and Pop in the street.

If you think they are passionate about their gun laws, wait for the outcry if the government tried to take the GPS signal away or start charging for it.

If this is the best you can do for stopping ADS-B, I'd give it away. There is a window of opportunity for getting it cheap or free, when that window closes don't come sooking on here that you weren't told.

Dick re-SSRs
'This is not the truth-these units can be continuously be updated and refurbished at very reasonable cost to keep operating "like new".'

The cost is not reasonable, an ADS-B ground station is a fraction of this cost. Its like telling Qantas they could keep the Classics and that they could be updated and refurbished at a very reasonable cost to keep operating "like new". How much to keep the spares on hand and the Technicians working on them, or Lindsay Fox to keep his old trucks on the road?

[Flying Binghi]

Scurvy, OZBUSDRIVER and max1, from your replys I would hazard a guess none of you have been in business for your selves :hmm:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

On that point, Mr speaker I draw your attention to relevance.

FB, do you really understand how navigation technology has evolved over the last three decades.

My little mobile phone GPS has better accuracy and better precision than the hundred thousand dollar plus VLF/OMEGA that was fitted to the worlds business fleet during the seventies and early eighties. It even initialises quicker and needs less programming to start with. Why would this be allowed to happen? Has the company that designed and manufactured my device ripped off the US government? Why would the Japanese government spend so much money putting a satellite into space that is only compatable with a foreign country's system? Why would two other nations put their own constellations into space that is also compatable with this system?

FB,You sound like the type of businessman that wants to control his intellectual property by the use of patent and the courts. Does BORAL pay a dividend back to the family of Mr Macadam for inventing road surfacing for every kilogram of hotmix layed? Does MTU still pay a royalty to Dr Diesel for his invention of the compression ignition engine? Does Mr Cessna pay anything to the Wright family for being the first recorded power aircraft operators?

And finally does DARPA want you to stop playing with its most famous toy. last I looked this little device has a considerable risk of being used for terrorist activities....or do you just wish to choose which toy suits your own agenda.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Anyway, thats it for me.

Unless there is a new argument produced against fitment, this subject is dead and done! Hopefully, Minister Albanese comes to the right decision prior to September.

I can wait until then. C U!

[peuce]

Dick,

I apologise if I have offended you or given anyone the wrong impression of you.

However, I thought my phrase would be taken as a bit of a compliment ... clever, cany etc ... a bit of a throw away line ... a bit like the word "fundamentalists' has been thrown around.

Anyway, no offence intended and I'll but out ... like OZBUSDRIVER ...

[max1]

FB,
No I have not owned a business, but have managed one.
As stated above- Relevance?

Are you serious that you wish that we enter into a formal contract with the US government for the supply of the GPS signal.
What would you want in this contract?
How/where would it be enforceable?
What would you expect us to pay?
What penalties would you put on the US if the signal was interrupted?

The Russians are developing their own satellite network, and I believe the Europeans as well.

Sorry, if I've misunderstood what you are implying, the signal is free, other countries are developing alternative sources. I doubt that, even if we did have a contract, that this would stop the US turning off or corrupting the signal if it was in their national interest.

[james michael]

Max 1

And I feel this indicates exactly the national defence 'at any cost' ethos you mention. Of interest - note one test location considered.

US 'planned to test nerve gas on diggers' (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=287260&rss=yes)

The plan, which is disclosed for the first time on tomorrow’s SUNDAY (http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/) program on Nine, called for 200 mainly Australian combat troops to be aerially bombed and sprayed with the chemical weapons — with all but a handful of the soldiers to be kept in the dark about the "full details" of the tests.

A former senior official with then Prime Minister Harold Holt, Mr Peter Bailey, tells the program that as far as he knows the tests never went ahead but the planning was very advanced.

He admitted the whole operation was to be kept secret because use of such weapons was almost certainly illegal under international law at the time.

"The idea that we could actually… that the Australians could countenance such an activity is …unacceptable," University of NSW toxicologist Professor Chris Winder said.

He says even a fraction of a drop of either chemical on exposed skin could have been fatal and Cold War fears that communist Chinese or Russian attackers might have used such weapons in a third world war "doesn’t justify it now and I don’t think it justified it then".

The files show that in July 1962 the then-US defence secretary Robert McNamara wrote in secret to the Australian Defence Department suggesting joint testing of chemical weapons "on a classified basis without a public release by either country".

In early 1963 a survey team of Australian and US scientists reviewed sites in Australia for chemical warfare tests, suggesting the remote Iron Range rainforest near Lockhart River in far north Queensland as one such location.

The request caused consternation in Canberra, with senior Defence bureaucrats clearly opposed to the use of nerve gas, but, as former senior Prime Ministerial policy advisor Peter Bailey recalls: "I heard that many times in Cabinet meetings that if they weren’t pretty good and pretty faithful to the Americans we would be dumped.

Peuce

My new firend I am extremely concerned to note your apology and exit after Dick Smith mentioned the word 'defamation' about your quite innocent 'tricky' in regard to his debating style

Is this forum to be a place of good debate or some fear of retribution for open comment? Am I missing something? Should I not communicate with Mr Smith on here at all? This is muchly of concern to my research efforts.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Threats normally follow the defeat of empty rhetoric! :yuk:
.
Re GPS costs
.
Think about it rather than having a sulk Bing
.
Do GPS manufacturers (of all ilk) have a 'licence' for their/a particular chip that decodes GPS for use!? ... hmmm, and the cost of that 'licence' (access/decode) is paid how and by whom :rolleyes: ... here is a hint ... the once off cost of purchase by consumers of said device would include ... ermmm well, the cost recovery by manufacturers to licence the GPS chip in the first place!
.
Like I said, most folks already have the pennies dropping! :hmm:
.
As for your business jibe ... not even close! :=
.
OZ and Peuce, make a seat space, I'm over the amateur hour as well! :yuk:

[Flying Binghi]

On that point, Mr speaker I draw your attention to relevance

Looks like I stand corrected re the business experience of certain posters :( ...Funny how some are running away though ...are the very simple scenarios I offer up, too hard to debate ? ...or are they going off for a sulk ? :hmm:

Re the relevance of my posts - I am not questioning the usefullness of GPS, I am very concerned though about the dangers of totally dedicating the Oz airspace to a GPS only based air-nav system.

I have asked what happens to the GPS system when several, perhaps dozens, or hundreds of very cheap GPS guided UAVs/buzz bombs fly over the Oz or U.S.coast lines - i am yet to receive much of an answer to this. Is this scenario plausable ? Prior to the 9II event, how many thought a 9II possible.

The UAVs I describe could be as small as a 6 foot wing span, a little single cylinder engine turning a home made prop, and launched from 500+ miles off shore. With GPS targetting accuracy, these UAV bombs wouldnt need to be big at all.

From reading other posts, etc, I get the impression that the U.S. cannot isolate the civvy GPS signal via the satelites so more then likely the only way to stop supplying the GPS targetting signal to the terrorists would to turn off the civy GPS until alternate measures were found to stop the Buzz bombs - and that could take years. Obviously No GPS = No ADS-B. Perhaps one of the reasons why there are no concrete guarentees of GPS continuing, only a vague policy.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

I am very concerned though about the dangers of totally dedicating the Oz airspace to a GPS only based air-nav system it is not and would not be ONLY GPS based for Nav! nor is ADS-B sole surveillance around the Primary capitals that will retain PRIM and MSSR! ... are you deliberately trying to mislead? :=
.
... answer your own question Bing/Dick
.
Is GPS 'the' nav system a nasty would use for guidance?
.
Even if it was, what would be risked by shuting down GPS at short/no notice?
.
In other words, how many industries, companies, government systems that rely on sole (or near to it GPS) use would be affected? ... would lots and lots of lives be put at risk? .... is that an acceptable risk?
.
Not to mention the number of critical systems that utilise the super accurate GPS clocks worldwide.
.
Or are you suggesting that even after an 'event' those exposures would be considered worth it to turn it off?
.
You tell us!!

[Flying Binghi]

it is not and would not be ONLY GPS based for Nav! nor is ADS-B sole surveillance around the Primary capitals that will retain PRIM and MSSR! ... are you deliberately trying to mislead? :=
.
... answer your own question Bing/Dick
.
Is GPS 'the' nav system a nasty would use for guidance?
.
Even if it was, what would be risked by shuting down GPS at short/no notice?
.
In other words, how many industries, companies, government systems that rely on sole (or near to it GPS) use would be affected? ... would lots and lots of lives be put at risk? .... is that an acceptable risk?
.
Not to mention the number of critical systems that utilise the super accurate GPS clocks worldwide.
.
Or are you suggesting that even after an 'event' those exposures would be considered worth it to turn it off?
.
You tell us!!

Scurvy, you ask some interesting questions. I hope our security people take note.



On another mater, Just to clarify any possible miss-understandings, I have nothing to do with Dick Smith.

[max1]

FB,
Enough already with the doomsday scenario. It is absolute scaremongering, I am amazed you even get out of bed in the morning.
So what you are saying is lets not put in a proven, working system and subsidise GA. Get FAR greater surveillance coverage and safety benefits on the basis of your rantings.

Have a think, the 9/11 guys you reckon wouldn't have been able to find New York if the GPS system was turned off.

Now your talking about them building GPS guided buzz bombs, I don't believe the rockets lobbed into Israel are that hi-tech.

You talk about the "very simple scenarios you offer up", so designing , testing and building GPS guided buzzbombs and keeping it secret can be whipped up in the backyard very simply.

The Russians are putting in to orbit their own satellites for a GPS system. What do the Yanks do then? Take out their system too?

You're talking WW3 now, and this is your reasoning behind hanging on to enroute radars.