ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
How long before an accident or serious incident?
At the present rate of progress, sadly probably not long.
The greater stupidity is that, since RVSM, except possibly for the J-curve, there is not really enough traffic to need the reduced separation possible with ADS-B over most of the Australian FIRs.
Just another example of mindless compliance ---- it's "The Australian Way".
Tootle pip!!
Leads led, I will guarantee you it's not "mindless compliance".
It is someone or a group who believe that they can ensure future career advancements on the basis of being "ADS-B International Experts" by experimenting on us.
To put that another way, we are the guinea pigs. they will write the research papers; "ADS-B Lessons learnt - the Australian Experience" and suchlike for presentation at international conferences etc.
Seen this stuff before, like the IT guys who wired up a State government building with optical fibre, at stratospheric expense, in the late 1980's just because it would look good on their resumes. The technology was so new U.S. government defence approval was needed before the gear could be exported to Australia.
It is someone or a group who believe that they can ensure future career advancements on the basis of being "ADS-B International Experts" by experimenting on us.
To put that another way, we are the guinea pigs. they will write the research papers; "ADS-B Lessons learnt - the Australian Experience" and suchlike for presentation at international conferences etc.
Seen this stuff before, like the IT guys who wired up a State government building with optical fibre, at stratospheric expense, in the late 1980's just because it would look good on their resumes. The technology was so new U.S. government defence approval was needed before the gear could be exported to Australia.
Thread Starter
I was told today that an AsA employee was actually bragging that they forced the China Southern Airbus to fly across Australia at FL280 with its 200+ unsuspecting passengers.
That is, they don't just stuff up business aviation operators - they will do the same to the Airlines!
I ask again- can someone confirm Phelans story in post 350- that is a non ADSB equipped G5 was allowed to fly in the mandatory airspace?
Is there any other info of ATC's and their managers acting responsibly on this issue ?
It's clearly just shear barstardry so AsA can get an award for being first in the world as previously stated on this thread.
Let's hope an accident is not caused by an aircraft running out of fuel on approach in Asia.
That is, they don't just stuff up business aviation operators - they will do the same to the Airlines!
I ask again- can someone confirm Phelans story in post 350- that is a non ADSB equipped G5 was allowed to fly in the mandatory airspace?
Is there any other info of ATC's and their managers acting responsibly on this issue ?
It's clearly just shear barstardry so AsA can get an award for being first in the world as previously stated on this thread.
Let's hope an accident is not caused by an aircraft running out of fuel on approach in Asia.
Thread Starter
Can someone advise me of what military aircraft would require the dispensation to fly above FL290 ?
I presume the fact the dispensations are available ( or more to the point, there is no requirement ) means some military aircraft that fly above FL 290 require are not fitted.
Any ideas?
I presume the fact the dispensations are available ( or more to the point, there is no requirement ) means some military aircraft that fly above FL 290 require are not fitted.
Any ideas?
Dick
For years I have put up with your self indulgent rants on here about things that don't suit you.
Put up or shut up. Who told you it was deliberate? Have YOU reported that to ASA, ATSB or CASA or to the minister for transport? If it was a deliberate action it requires reporting.
Put up or shut up
PS - I'm not even an ATC, nor do I have anything to do with ASA in fact I do battle with them all the time but your rants painting everyone with the same brush are just ridiculous IMHO.
For years I have put up with your self indulgent rants on here about things that don't suit you.
Put up or shut up. Who told you it was deliberate? Have YOU reported that to ASA, ATSB or CASA or to the minister for transport? If it was a deliberate action it requires reporting.
Put up or shut up
PS - I'm not even an ATC, nor do I have anything to do with ASA in fact I do battle with them all the time but your rants painting everyone with the same brush are just ridiculous IMHO.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PelAir
Yes Dick -
Is my memory correct re the Norfolk Island ditching.
Was the aircraft forced to operate at a lower level because not RVSM compliant - therefore using more fuel - therefore could not get to an alternate?
Couldn't the same thing happen re forcing non ADSB compliant aircraft to lower levels and using more fuel?
Especially if the crew have not planned for the lower level operations before departure.
How long before an accident or serious incident?
Was the aircraft forced to operate at a lower level because not RVSM compliant - therefore using more fuel - therefore could not get to an alternate?
Couldn't the same thing happen re forcing non ADSB compliant aircraft to lower levels and using more fuel?
Especially if the crew have not planned for the lower level operations before departure.
How long before an accident or serious incident?
Thread Starter
Ozbikkies, you are totally wrong.
There is no self interest in this particular case. If I was to be forced to fly lower and use more fuel ( hasn't happened yet) I would simple donate less that year to particular causes I support so my total outgoings would be the same.
Now I know this probably makes you mad - but it's the fact.
But this is not the case with a number of business jet charter operators. A couple I know are really hurting financially from this unique requirement .
Safety will then suffer.
Also I can make a personal decision on whether or not I wish to fly at the lower levels- the airline passenger is not even informed.
You ask. " who told you it is deliberate". What is "it" I don't know what you are actually referring to.
There is no self interest in this particular case. If I was to be forced to fly lower and use more fuel ( hasn't happened yet) I would simple donate less that year to particular causes I support so my total outgoings would be the same.
Now I know this probably makes you mad - but it's the fact.
But this is not the case with a number of business jet charter operators. A couple I know are really hurting financially from this unique requirement .
Safety will then suffer.
Also I can make a personal decision on whether or not I wish to fly at the lower levels- the airline passenger is not even informed.
You ask. " who told you it is deliberate". What is "it" I don't know what you are actually referring to.
I have to explain your own post to you? I know I don't, you know what you think you are doing
You said in your first paragraph you had been told an ASA employees was bragging they had forced the China Southern Flight to fly outside the ADSB levels thus inferring that he was happily endangering the unsuspecting passengers...that was the intent of your post...do you deny that was the case, if so please clarify that. Then you inferred that all the ASA employes are happy about it...in fact have a look back at your title for this topic, it has been your intent to wind people up.
Now if you believe that was the case you should report it, rather than post the old someone unnamed told me something, it could have been the kid who was shovelling Fries in McDonalds for all we know.
Would it make me mad to hear you got forced to fly lower? No, I wouldn't care.
You say business jet charter operators are suffering financially? Really, the ones who can afford to operate shiny business jets around for the rich and famous...must be rough after forking out a few million for your Biz Jet.
Now you may have a case regarding ADSB, you may not. But you discredit yourself the way you try to prosecute your argument.
It does take me back however when you start talking about affordable safety
You said in your first paragraph you had been told an ASA employees was bragging they had forced the China Southern Flight to fly outside the ADSB levels thus inferring that he was happily endangering the unsuspecting passengers...that was the intent of your post...do you deny that was the case, if so please clarify that. Then you inferred that all the ASA employes are happy about it...in fact have a look back at your title for this topic, it has been your intent to wind people up.
Now if you believe that was the case you should report it, rather than post the old someone unnamed told me something, it could have been the kid who was shovelling Fries in McDonalds for all we know.
Would it make me mad to hear you got forced to fly lower? No, I wouldn't care.
You say business jet charter operators are suffering financially? Really, the ones who can afford to operate shiny business jets around for the rich and famous...must be rough after forking out a few million for your Biz Jet.
Now you may have a case regarding ADSB, you may not. But you discredit yourself the way you try to prosecute your argument.
It does take me back however when you start talking about affordable safety
Thread Starter
I can't believe this. Do you think we can have " unaffordable safety"
Or don't you like people being told the truth?
I can see why you don't post under your real name.
Why do you reckon the plane had to fly across Australia at FL 280?
Why wasn't the crew offered a higher level compliant with the current ADSB regulation?
Oh. I know. They should have been familiar with our rules and applied!
Nothing to do with the ATC's who kept them at that level- they were just following orders from clearly incompetent managers
Or don't you like people being told the truth?
I can see why you don't post under your real name.
Why do you reckon the plane had to fly across Australia at FL 280?
Why wasn't the crew offered a higher level compliant with the current ADSB regulation?
Oh. I know. They should have been familiar with our rules and applied!
Nothing to do with the ATC's who kept them at that level- they were just following orders from clearly incompetent managers
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately 'Affordable Safety' seems to be just like 'Worlds Best Practice'.
In the hands of dictators who won't spend a cent more than they are forced to, it leads to the lowest possible standard.
Are we there yet?
In the hands of dictators who won't spend a cent more than they are forced to, it leads to the lowest possible standard.
Are we there yet?
Thread Starter
Most australian GA operators would say just the opposite. That the standards are the most expensive to comply with because there is a one way ratchet of putting "safety" in front of cost considerations.
Come on does anyone know what military aircraft fly above FL290 that are not ADSB equipped . Orion's ?
Come on does anyone know what military aircraft fly above FL290 that are not ADSB equipped . Orion's ?
ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Dick, E737s (Wedgetails), F/A-18s and BAe Hawks are not ADS-B equipped.
Any visiting foreign Military or Head-of-State carrying aircraft are also allowed in ADS-B airspace without the equipment.
I can tell you that the ATCs concerned, far from "bragging about forcing the aircraft to fly at FL280" were embarrassed and concerned about having to enforce this, and pleaded with the supervisor to make sure that this did absolutely have to be applied (and I believe he fully investigated any work-arounds).
The controllers have been issued directives to say they have no leniency or interpretive allowances in the application of these instructions. It is law, and they break the law at the peril of their continued employment.
The controllers involved wished they could have coached the crew in the declaration of a "Mercy Flight" to get the restriction waived
Any visiting foreign Military or Head-of-State carrying aircraft are also allowed in ADS-B airspace without the equipment.
I can tell you that the ATCs concerned, far from "bragging about forcing the aircraft to fly at FL280" were embarrassed and concerned about having to enforce this, and pleaded with the supervisor to make sure that this did absolutely have to be applied (and I believe he fully investigated any work-arounds).
The controllers have been issued directives to say they have no leniency or interpretive allowances in the application of these instructions. It is law, and they break the law at the peril of their continued employment.
The controllers involved wished they could have coached the crew in the declaration of a "Mercy Flight" to get the restriction waived
Thread Starter
Two fifty
Thanks. That's what I would have thought. By the way It was not an ATC who did the bragging It was a person from middle management at AsA who was trying to show that it wasn't just business aircraft that were being refused entry into the airspace. ie - AsA were being consistent in applying the ban.
However there is one mystery. The ADSB regulation clearly allows for up to three days of operation in the airspace if the equipment is faulty. Why wasn't China Southern allowed this dispensation? Surely your ATCs know this dispensation is approved by CASA - or am I mistaken!
Thanks. That's what I would have thought. By the way It was not an ATC who did the bragging It was a person from middle management at AsA who was trying to show that it wasn't just business aircraft that were being refused entry into the airspace. ie - AsA were being consistent in applying the ban.
However there is one mystery. The ADSB regulation clearly allows for up to three days of operation in the airspace if the equipment is faulty. Why wasn't China Southern allowed this dispensation? Surely your ATCs know this dispensation is approved by CASA - or am I mistaken!
ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
I believe that approval needs to be sought ( by the airline or the crew) and granted before operating the flight.
I'm wondering if the outbound crew even knew about the condition of the equipment (if it was brought to their attention), seeing as it was inconsequential to the inbound crew who continued operating above F280 when either the equipment failed, or it was realized that it wasn't working ... that is to say, perhaps it was only within range of Australian equipment it became apparent it was not working
I'm wondering if the outbound crew even knew about the condition of the equipment (if it was brought to their attention), seeing as it was inconsequential to the inbound crew who continued operating above F280 when either the equipment failed, or it was realized that it wasn't working ... that is to say, perhaps it was only within range of Australian equipment it became apparent it was not working
I'm sorry Dick that you don't realise that this is an anonymous rumour internet site.
But you did get one thing right, the company involved should have known the rules and applied for the dispensation.
I really don't have time to find all the examples here of you blaming ATCs for this, not just the mangers as you now claim ( doesn't sort of suggest that in the title now does it ) but I guess I will find some time.
I think 250 puts it all in print nicely.
And I do like the truth, not wrongly directed half donkey campaigns.
And if you are so big into names...name your source...and have you reported this to anyone yet other than an anonymous internet web site?
But you did get one thing right, the company involved should have known the rules and applied for the dispensation.
I really don't have time to find all the examples here of you blaming ATCs for this, not just the mangers as you now claim ( doesn't sort of suggest that in the title now does it ) but I guess I will find some time.
I think 250 puts it all in print nicely.
And I do like the truth, not wrongly directed half donkey campaigns.
And if you are so big into names...name your source...and have you reported this to anyone yet other than an anonymous internet web site?
C'mon Dick, are you seriously expecting ATCs to apply for a legal dispensation on behalf of an airline? Why would we know anything about that? It's not just a verbal approval or something we can approve ourselves.
Haven't you got your head around the fact that it's all part of CAOs so is law? The politicians and CASA are the ones you need to be badgering not ATCs. I think the rigidity is stupid as well, but the law says that's the way it is so we have no leeway.
Haven't you got your head around the fact that it's all part of CAOs so is law? The politicians and CASA are the ones you need to be badgering not ATCs. I think the rigidity is stupid as well, but the law says that's the way it is so we have no leeway.
How "Dangerous" is it flying at F280
I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Is there that much "safety" difference between F280 and F350?
I've been on plenty of domestic and international flights that have chosen to fly at that level, presumably because of favourable winds.
Is it that more difficult to avoid CBs at that level?
The point about dodging other aircraft is a bit rich, as I thought you'd be in CTA at that level.
I understand it's economically nasty, but using extra fuel is only a safety issue if you haven't planned for it.
Where's the safety issue?
Is there that much "safety" difference between F280 and F350?
I've been on plenty of domestic and international flights that have chosen to fly at that level, presumably because of favourable winds.
Is it that more difficult to avoid CBs at that level?
The point about dodging other aircraft is a bit rich, as I thought you'd be in CTA at that level.
I understand it's economically nasty, but using extra fuel is only a safety issue if you haven't planned for it.
Where's the safety issue?
Thread Starter
Quite often you can fly above an embedded line of thunderstorms when above FL 410 but right in them at FL280.
Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.
I don't blame the ATCs for this- they would like to be able to handle the small number of non ADSB compliant aircraft in the safest way but are not allowed to.
But wait and see who will be given part of the responsibility when an accident occurs. Suggest you look up the Navair mid air at Bankstown many decades ago.
Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.
I don't blame the ATCs for this- they would like to be able to handle the small number of non ADSB compliant aircraft in the safest way but are not allowed to.
But wait and see who will be given part of the responsibility when an accident occurs. Suggest you look up the Navair mid air at Bankstown many decades ago.