ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
One last post, WRT the VFR traffic and Ranga's post
hmmmm there was almost a deal for you until scuttled by a few who frequent this place 
Or you could have had it on ya iPad for $100 (ADSB-In) if you wanted too
Sadly lost.....horse bolted, gate swinging in the breeze.
I am over it with this thread, not much I can add now. Except to say that even my ADSB DO260B compliant jigger is about to get a very big upgrade by mid year. Unlike some I see value in updating and reinvesting in GA.
(Includes newer txpder and GPS/NAV/COM). Ya want a good deal on some gear? PM me.
Count yourself lucky the VFR was talking to ATC. 90% of them don't.
Or you could have had it on ya iPad for $100 (ADSB-In) if you wanted too
Sadly lost.....horse bolted, gate swinging in the breeze.I am over it with this thread, not much I can add now. Except to say that even my ADSB DO260B compliant jigger is about to get a very big upgrade by mid year. Unlike some I see value in updating and reinvesting in GA.
(Includes newer txpder and GPS/NAV/COM). Ya want a good deal on some gear? PM me.
Isn't this all about PBN? If you want access to airspace then you need the appropriate kit, be that radio, transponder, altimeter (RVSM), ADSB.
Unlike some I see value in updating and reinvesting in GA
AND except for the odd transit through a terminal area, I will receive NO safety or efficiency benefit. Because the IFR flights I do are primarily in class G airspace, ATC have zero ability to provide better separation or traffic advice because VFR, RA(Aus) and gliding traffic will not be similarly equipped.
Last year about halfway to Mildura while I was in cloud and solid IMC I was given a traffic warning of a VFR aircraft flying a non ICAO level opposite direction at the same level - 8,000 ft & class G from memory. (how it was VFR, I have no idea). This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.
Also last year in Class E airspace somewhere west of Ballarat while I was cruising in VMC on an IFR plan at 9,000 ft I had a nearish miss (alerted by ATC) with a homebuilt RV with a non functioning (or turned off) transponder once again flying opposite direction at a non ICAO level. This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.
Probably the closest call I have had was some years ago during a MECIR renewal near Latrobe Valley. We were on an IFR plan and starting the descent for the GPSS RNAV. The weather was VFR, but we were in an out of cloud a bit on the descent. We were on an IFR plan and in contact with ATC. Due to some bad luck with timing and a frequency change both the chopper and us we missed each others calls and for reasons unknown we never received an alert from the controller. We passed within metres of the VFR chopper (and yes, the incident was reported). This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.
ADS-B is effectively an additional tax on me flying IFR.
I did find the AsA report "justifying" the costs and I think its laughable.
1. If you add up the costs to industry (presented in a way that scatters them through the document) then you pretty much get the $120m that AsA is saving. Therefore, this is just a way of transferring public expenditure to private aircraft owners.
2. One of my favourite bits is that they have used the 5.5% reported fuel savings they got from airlines and applied it to the GA fleet.
3. There is no distinction between C129a GPS units and C146a units. There is no discussion (or costs included) from the upgrade of C129a GPS units to C146a units required for ADS-B fitment.
4. There is general discussion about the feasibility of using C129a GPS units coupled to Mode S ES transponders to reduce installation cost (used in an abstract manner to mitigate the overall cost), yet this now seems to have been dropped completely from the debate.
5. The IFR fleet size used in the cost calculation of PBN equipment is different than that used for ADS-B upgrade. One of the figures is wrong.
6. There is no genuine discussion of alternatives. Top of this list would be a discussion of the option of implementing ADS-B in a similar manner as Europe or Canada (both using ES without the benefit of UAT) and both of which excluded GA.
7.Unlike the US, there has been no recognition or discussion regarding either the cost of upgrade compared with hull value or the ability of the industry to pay.
8. Unlike the US there has been no discussion about the feasibility or safety benefits of adopting ADS-B IN to allow the provision of traffic information.
9. The whole of the paper focuses on the reduced costs that AsA will incur from the implementation but (unlike the US version) presents virtually no discussion on the impact to industry.
Why do we lead on this??
From todays Avionics News:
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
ADS-B In 'Not Likely' by 2020, IG Says
Woodrow Bellamy III
[Avionics Today February 4, 2014] Avionics that enable pilots to receive real-time information about their position and the airborne location of other aircraft, or Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In, will "not likely be ready" for mandate by 2020 under the FAA's NextGen program, according to a new audit monitoring the program's progress issued by the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
The FAA is mandating that all aircraft flying within the National Airspace System (NAS) are equipped with avionics that outwardly report the real-time position for tracking by air traffic controllers, or ADS-B Out. However, the agency is behind schedule on initiating rulemaking activities requiring the use of ADS-B In, which the OIG claims is a key provision "intended to accelerate NextGen technologies."
Within the latest report, the auditors also note that the FAA missed a February 2013 deadline required by the FAA's 2012 Reauthorization Act to establish rulemaking for issuing ADS-B In guidelines and regulations. OIG also believes it is uncertain when these provisions can be implemented and what the cost will be.
"As a result, FAA will not likely be ready to mandate the use of the technology by 2020, as required by the act," OIG says.
Delays in issuing ADS-B In guidelines and regulations are due in part to the agency's need to finalize requirements for displaying traffic information in aircraft cockpits. Also contributing to the delay is the need for the FAA to modify the systems that controllers rely on to manage traffic, develop and deploy new procedures for separating aircraft using satellite-based technology and assess potential system security vulnerabilities, the report states.
"Moreover, as we reported last year, users are concerned about investing in aircraft avionics for ADS-B and other NextGen initiatives because [the] FAA has not clearly defined what benefits will be achieved and when," OIG says.
FAA officials told the auditors that budgetary issues have had a significant impact on its modernization efforts with NextGen, and that they're still reeling from some of the provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011. Further complicating that was the sequester and 2013 government shutdown, which caused the FAA to further fall behind schedule on several of its modernization efforts.
Despite criticism of the agency's progress with ADS-B In, the FAA is expected to complete the ground infrastructure required to facilitate the use of ADS-B Out this year. Since there is still no mandate requiring ADS-B In, airlines and operators will continue to focus on the 2020 mandate for ADS-B Out.
- See more at: Avionics Magazine :: ADS-B In 'Not Likely' by 2020, IG Says
ADS-B In 'Not Likely' by 2020, IG Says
Woodrow Bellamy III
[Avionics Today February 4, 2014] Avionics that enable pilots to receive real-time information about their position and the airborne location of other aircraft, or Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In, will "not likely be ready" for mandate by 2020 under the FAA's NextGen program, according to a new audit monitoring the program's progress issued by the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
The FAA is mandating that all aircraft flying within the National Airspace System (NAS) are equipped with avionics that outwardly report the real-time position for tracking by air traffic controllers, or ADS-B Out. However, the agency is behind schedule on initiating rulemaking activities requiring the use of ADS-B In, which the OIG claims is a key provision "intended to accelerate NextGen technologies."
Within the latest report, the auditors also note that the FAA missed a February 2013 deadline required by the FAA's 2012 Reauthorization Act to establish rulemaking for issuing ADS-B In guidelines and regulations. OIG also believes it is uncertain when these provisions can be implemented and what the cost will be.
"As a result, FAA will not likely be ready to mandate the use of the technology by 2020, as required by the act," OIG says.
Delays in issuing ADS-B In guidelines and regulations are due in part to the agency's need to finalize requirements for displaying traffic information in aircraft cockpits. Also contributing to the delay is the need for the FAA to modify the systems that controllers rely on to manage traffic, develop and deploy new procedures for separating aircraft using satellite-based technology and assess potential system security vulnerabilities, the report states.
"Moreover, as we reported last year, users are concerned about investing in aircraft avionics for ADS-B and other NextGen initiatives because [the] FAA has not clearly defined what benefits will be achieved and when," OIG says.
FAA officials told the auditors that budgetary issues have had a significant impact on its modernization efforts with NextGen, and that they're still reeling from some of the provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011. Further complicating that was the sequester and 2013 government shutdown, which caused the FAA to further fall behind schedule on several of its modernization efforts.
Despite criticism of the agency's progress with ADS-B In, the FAA is expected to complete the ground infrastructure required to facilitate the use of ADS-B Out this year. Since there is still no mandate requiring ADS-B In, airlines and operators will continue to focus on the 2020 mandate for ADS-B Out.
- See more at: Avionics Magazine :: ADS-B In 'Not Likely' by 2020, IG Says
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro, I work LTV low level, the radar coverage out there is not the best, if I get you at 5000 it would be lucky. We don't have access to the ESL radar, (you may want to ask ASA why not).
Interestingly, I can see ADSB equipped acft in the cct at ESL. Radar coverage O/H ESL is around 8-9000ft. It has it's benefits.
I'm still confused as to how it is going to cost you 25k? My GTX330ES cost about 4.5k from memory. Granted I can install it myself so 20k to stick it in a hole??
P.S. I can guarantee you that if the controller saw the traffic they would have passed it to you. The rules are explicit on this, we don't sit on our arses watching these situations. If something happens, we saw it & did nothing we're in court.
Interestingly, I can see ADSB equipped acft in the cct at ESL. Radar coverage O/H ESL is around 8-9000ft. It has it's benefits.
I'm still confused as to how it is going to cost you 25k? My GTX330ES cost about 4.5k from memory. Granted I can install it myself so 20k to stick it in a hole??
P.S. I can guarantee you that if the controller saw the traffic they would have passed it to you. The rules are explicit on this, we don't sit on our arses watching these situations. If something happens, we saw it & did nothing we're in court.
Old Akro,
Part of th e "problem" is that CASA and AsA (whether deliberately or otherwise I will leave to you) "confuse" cost/benefit justification and cost/effectiveness analysis, two different animals.
As your figures show, it is very cost effective for AsA, as for cost/benefit --- a joke in very poor taste, this without regard to the very doubtful "savings". Something called "proponent bias" is very evident.
Given the limited IFR traffic below FL 290, it is very difficult to show any cost savings to operators from the theoretically available reduced separation standards available with ADS-B OUT, likewise with reduced vertical separation, it is very hard to show real savings versus ausep standards.
Tootle pip!!
Part of th e "problem" is that CASA and AsA (whether deliberately or otherwise I will leave to you) "confuse" cost/benefit justification and cost/effectiveness analysis, two different animals.
As your figures show, it is very cost effective for AsA, as for cost/benefit --- a joke in very poor taste, this without regard to the very doubtful "savings". Something called "proponent bias" is very evident.
Given the limited IFR traffic below FL 290, it is very difficult to show any cost savings to operators from the theoretically available reduced separation standards available with ADS-B OUT, likewise with reduced vertical separation, it is very hard to show real savings versus ausep standards.
Tootle pip!!
I'm still confused as to how it is going to cost you 25k? My GTX330ES cost about 4.5k from memory.
I think at the moment you can get a mode S ES transponder for about $3.5k. Anyone who has a King KT76A (ie most people) and fits the Garmin unit requires a new tray and a panel relayout (the Garmin is just a bit taller). I would prefer to wait for the King unit which might be available later this year. That requires new pin outs, but not a new tray (I think).
The Mode S transponder requires a new gray code altitude encoder for nearly everyone with a legacy mode C transponder. That will be about $1k
The big hitter is that I cannot use my current C129a GPS. So I need to fit a new C146a (WAAS) GPS. At the moment the only options are a Garmin 430W (while they are still available) GTN 650 or GTN 750. In a year there will be King and Avidyne options also.
The very cheapest option is a secondhand Garmin 430W which will probably be about $7k. A new 430W about $10k and a GTN 650 about $12k (all from memory).
The WAAS GPS needs a new antennae & cabling. So the interior needs to come out for the install.
The WAAS GPS (in my case) will replace a King Nav/com - so I will need a new CDI. That's about $2k.
The new WAAS GPS will also require that radio stack to be relaid. So more labour.
My guess is that 3 separate engineering orders will be required by CASA. At typically $350 each that's another $1k.
Total materials so far : $14.5k using a secondhand 430W.
Plus installation labour??? My guess is 40 hours @ $100 / hour = $4,000
Total $18,500 with a secondhand Garmin 430W or about $23,500 with a new GTN 650.
Hey Jabba and Jack
So when CASA repechages the rule requiring that all mandatory flight and navigation equipment and instruments be approved by CASA, will you be as enthusiastic?
Remember, CASA is concerned that “a number of amateur-built aircraft” are flying “under the IFR using non-approved” systems.
Are all the systems in which you are happily “reinvesting” approved by CASA for your aircraft?
So when CASA repechages the rule requiring that all mandatory flight and navigation equipment and instruments be approved by CASA, will you be as enthusiastic?
Remember, CASA is concerned that “a number of amateur-built aircraft” are flying “under the IFR using non-approved” systems.
Are all the systems in which you are happily “reinvesting” approved by CASA for your aircraft?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US-FAR's Please
Have you not Creamie, really put your finger on the actual problem here. There are tso standards that all owners must abide by in order that an aircraft can be used in an ICAO compliant airspace.
The issue is, as you say:
This is the real problem we all have - this takes our aircraft to become orphaned in terms of re-sale.
Approved by casa does not cut much ice in terms of a sale into the US environment.
Rollon US-FAR's for all
The issue is, as you say:
approved by CASA for your aircraft?
Approved by casa does not cut much ice in terms of a sale into the US environment.
Rollon US-FAR's for all
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamie, the only non TSO'd stuff in my aircraft is the G3X.
GTN750
GTX330ES
SL40
GI-106A
It has 3 layers of electrical redundancy. It has 3 separate GPS sources. It has backup TSO'd ALT, ASI, AH. It's going on the register IFR.
I had to add stuff to the panel due to ex LAMES at CASA protecting their industry buddy's maintenance income streams.
So, yes Creamie, I'm relatively happy now
Akro, are you complicating things? Why can't you stay with C129a?
GTN750
GTX330ES
SL40
GI-106A
It has 3 layers of electrical redundancy. It has 3 separate GPS sources. It has backup TSO'd ALT, ASI, AH. It's going on the register IFR.
I had to add stuff to the panel due to ex LAMES at CASA protecting their industry buddy's maintenance income streams.
So, yes Creamie, I'm relatively happy now
Akro, are you complicating things? Why can't you stay with C129a?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I miss my Bendix T12C. I could listen to the cricket while flying VFR legally above 8/8's cloud. I even had a licence to drive that and a VOR but I don't have one for this new gadgetry. I do have a wireless licence.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Actually, I think I will change my mind.
For Sale: (At todays new prices)
1 x Toyota 86
1 x Toyota 200 Series GXL Landcruiser
1 x Apple Macbook
1 x RV10 with all glass (2014) panels and avionics
Wanted to Buy: ( At the new price of their day)
1 x 1973 HQ Kingswood
1 x 1967 Toyota FJ 40 series L/C (older than me)
1 x Apple......errr case of Granny Smiths and an abacus
1 x 1965 Piper Comanche 260 absolutely original condition (no upgrades at all please - except maybe the AWA DME)
Ohhh yeah and 240 ground based nav-aids......
I should have lots of money left over
For Sale: (At todays new prices)
1 x Toyota 86
1 x Toyota 200 Series GXL Landcruiser
1 x Apple Macbook
1 x RV10 with all glass (2014) panels and avionics
Wanted to Buy: ( At the new price of their day)
1 x 1973 HQ Kingswood
1 x 1967 Toyota FJ 40 series L/C (older than me)
1 x Apple......errr case of Granny Smiths and an abacus
1 x 1965 Piper Comanche 260 absolutely original condition (no upgrades at all please - except maybe the AWA DME
)Ohhh yeah and 240 ground based nav-aids......
I should have lots of money left over
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The guy has an Airprox with an aircraft he is required by law to self separate with (as is the chopper pilot), misses standard CTAF calls, and doesn't know why ATC hasn't passed traffic on the VFR he's almost hit (hint: "3.15.1 In Class G airspace, a traffic information service is provided to IFR flights about other conflicting IFR and observed VFR flights. MLJ flights are considered to be IFR for traffic purposes regardless of flight planned category. Services provided may be based on ATS surveillance system data where coverage exists.") and still can't see how extended surveillance will enhance safety for pilots at all operating levels. It's like immunising children, just about everyone needs to do it or it's a waste of time. You share airspace with users who aren't required to fit the equipment...low level airspace that is intended to be the domain of VFR, given most IFR equipped a/c can climb above A100. Thats your choice. Safety to the majority of IFR a/c will increase. In 10 years every a/c will be fitted and in 20 no one will remember the vocal minority. Save your dollars and fly VFR for the next few years and then take up bowls.
p.s Before you get stuck in, tell me what the Coroner would have concluded..
p.s Before you get stuck in, tell me what the Coroner would have concluded..
Last edited by Hempy; 5th Feb 2014 at 04:37.
low level airspace that is intended to be the domain of VFR, given most IFR equipped a/c can climb above A100.
And dear Aunty CASA requires specific approval (& airframe log book entry) for oxygen - even portable systems. Bring back a portable system you buy at Oshkosh, use it here and you are illegal.
Jaba
The real analogy is that I have a L/C 100. I've upgraded the radio to include bluetooth for the mobile phone and I (for the sake of the argument) have upgraded it with a DPF (Diesel particulate filter) so that it meets the same emissions standards as the new L/C 200 V8 Turbo diesel.
I'm driving along the freeway and look over and there's a guy weaving over the road in the same year L/C 100, billowing smoke and holding a mobile phone to his ear.
I down and I see a homebuilt clubman sports car in between us. Its open top. It has been built to kit car standards and has not undergone any safety tests and has unknown compliance to emissions standards and is not fully compliant to ADR's (Australian Design Rules) because the law doesn't require it.
Here's the kicker. The clubman pays less registration because its lighter. The front number plate has fallen off the other L/C 100, so its not paying the freeway tolls. I'm the only mug on the highway who has paid money to be compliant with road rules and vehicle certification (once again hypothetical)
So I am paying more for the ability to use the same piece of freeway.
The real analogy is that I have a L/C 100. I've upgraded the radio to include bluetooth for the mobile phone and I (for the sake of the argument) have upgraded it with a DPF (Diesel particulate filter) so that it meets the same emissions standards as the new L/C 200 V8 Turbo diesel.
I'm driving along the freeway and look over and there's a guy weaving over the road in the same year L/C 100, billowing smoke and holding a mobile phone to his ear.
I down and I see a homebuilt clubman sports car in between us. Its open top. It has been built to kit car standards and has not undergone any safety tests and has unknown compliance to emissions standards and is not fully compliant to ADR's (Australian Design Rules) because the law doesn't require it.
Here's the kicker. The clubman pays less registration because its lighter. The front number plate has fallen off the other L/C 100, so its not paying the freeway tolls. I'm the only mug on the highway who has paid money to be compliant with road rules and vehicle certification (once again hypothetical)
So I am paying more for the ability to use the same piece of freeway.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And dear Aunty CASA requires specific approval (& airframe log book entry) for oxygen - even portable systems. Bring back a portable system you buy at Oshkosh, use it here and you are illegal.
And I will guarantee you that my sports car will piss all over any aircraft of it's class in the certified ranks, both build quality & equipment redundancy, guaranteed
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
COMIC RELIEF TIME
hehehhehehehhe
Can't help but have some fun Akro I like your analogy Ol mate .. ridiculous, incomprehensible, but entertaining none the less 
Satirically corrected version of Akro’s analogy:
Hope ya get a giggle
Can't help but have some fun Akro
I like your analogy Ol mate .. ridiculous, incomprehensible, but entertaining none the less Satirically corrected version of Akro’s analogy:
I have a L/C 100. I've upgraded the radio to include bluetooth for the mobile phone and I (for the sake of the argument) have upgraded it with a DPF (Diesel particulate filter) so that it meets the same emissions standards as the new L/C 200 V8 Turbo diesel. My L/C 100 is also equipped with an all weather guidance system so that I my use designated roads to towns with no/low-vision arrival off ramps, day. night, zero visibility fog etc! In order to ensure I do not hit another L/C 100 in low/no-vis I can pay a fee, and friendly operator from the Roads and Traffic Authority will monitor my drive and advise via Satellite radio when other low/no-vis cars are around me, as well as make sure I don’t miss my off ramp, each of which has its own special guidance beam signals!
I'm driving along the road on a section where the weather is OK, so other drivers not paying for a low/no-vis service are also driving, and look over and there's a guy weaving over the road in the same year L/C 100, billowing smoke and holding a mobile phone to his ear. I shake my head and take care to give ‘Murph’ a wide birth!
I also see a homebuilt clubman sports car in between us. Its open top. It has been built to kit car standards and has not undergone any safety tests that I know of and has unknown compliance to emissions standards and is not fully compliant to ADR's (Australian Design Rules) because the law doesn't require it. But my fears are allayed as the Clubman is obviously compliant as this registered vehicle is also in receipt of a low/no-vis service, and the R.T.A. operator has just advised me of the ‘clubman’ being in the same area on the road. The Clubman is paying the same fee as me for the low/no-vis service. The R.T.A operator has luckily seen ‘Ol Murph’ on an R.T.A camera and advises both myself and the Clubman of his presence even though ‘Ol Murph’ is not self-announcing on the radio, nor paying attention to other road users!
Here's the kicker. The clubman pays less general registration because its lighter. The front number plate has fallen off ‘Ol Murph’s’ L/C 100, so it is not approved nor able to pay a fee and drive in no/low-vis conditions. That's lucky!
Perhaps I should buy a clubman (less rego) and only drive in clear visibility conditions (like ‘Ol Murph’)
I'm driving along the road on a section where the weather is OK, so other drivers not paying for a low/no-vis service are also driving, and look over and there's a guy weaving over the road in the same year L/C 100, billowing smoke and holding a mobile phone to his ear. I shake my head and take care to give ‘Murph’ a wide birth!
I also see a homebuilt clubman sports car in between us. Its open top. It has been built to kit car standards and has not undergone any safety tests that I know of and has unknown compliance to emissions standards and is not fully compliant to ADR's (Australian Design Rules) because the law doesn't require it. But my fears are allayed as the Clubman is obviously compliant as this registered vehicle is also in receipt of a low/no-vis service, and the R.T.A. operator has just advised me of the ‘clubman’ being in the same area on the road. The Clubman is paying the same fee as me for the low/no-vis service. The R.T.A operator has luckily seen ‘Ol Murph’ on an R.T.A camera and advises both myself and the Clubman of his presence even though ‘Ol Murph’ is not self-announcing on the radio, nor paying attention to other road users!
Here's the kicker. The clubman pays less general registration because its lighter. The front number plate has fallen off ‘Ol Murph’s’ L/C 100, so it is not approved nor able to pay a fee and drive in no/low-vis conditions. That's lucky!
Perhaps I should buy a clubman (less rego) and only drive in clear visibility conditions (like ‘Ol Murph’)