Navigation Rationalisation Project
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navigation Rationalisation Project
The NAVIGATION RATIONALISATION PROJECT is preparing for the decomissioning of almost half of the existing 415 ground-based navigation aids including NDB, VOR and DME.
A fact sheet is available at:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...roject_WEB.pdf
A fact sheet is available at:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...roject_WEB.pdf
That project has been running for a number of years. RAPACs have received updates from time to time, including consultation over the decommissionings.
Many navaids have already been decommissioned.
Navigation Rationalisation Project | Airservices
Many navaids have already been decommissioned.
Navigation Rationalisation Project | Airservices
Another situation where the Airlines may save millions but GA will in many cases have to spend thousands of dollars in upgrading GPS units to keep reasonable alternates.
Do I see a pattern here? Add all the time to GA costs so pilots sell their planes and travel by airline?
Do I see a pattern here? Add all the time to GA costs so pilots sell their planes and travel by airline?
Yes. But why bring in a mandate for more expensive WAAS GPS units if the alternate does not have a conventional approach .
This will once again result in higher costs for GA in most cases and substantially lower costs for airlines.
This will once again result in higher costs for GA in most cases and substantially lower costs for airlines.
Let's say AsA claim they can give a 10% reduction in costs by removing 50% of the ground based aids.
This would mean Qantas may get a $20 million PA saving however a small GA operator may get a $300 pa saving. But the GA operator must spend $20 or $30 k in upgrading the GPS units in aircraft.
I think I know who would be financially in front from this.
Also the RIS prepared by CASA is a con because it shows substantial savings the airlines will get then makes out that GA will also get these savings when this is clearly not so.
This would mean Qantas may get a $20 million PA saving however a small GA operator may get a $300 pa saving. But the GA operator must spend $20 or $30 k in upgrading the GPS units in aircraft.
I think I know who would be financially in front from this.
Also the RIS prepared by CASA is a con because it shows substantial savings the airlines will get then makes out that GA will also get these savings when this is clearly not so.
To play devils advocate here look at the other side of the argument.
The RPT don't use or want NDB and they certainly don't want to pay for something that they don't require, for example Air NZ jet fleet do not purchase ADF equipment as a matter of policy. I am sure the same arguments were made when the four course range was disestablished, I recall the arguments when Omega was turned off. It is the price of progress that the irrelevant and obsolete are assigned to history
If GA wants or needs NDB then the cost should then fall to the user of the item or the person who wants to keep them.
I think the real discussion is sole means v primary means GNSS and which should be used. Or TSO 129 v TSO 145/146
The RPT don't use or want NDB and they certainly don't want to pay for something that they don't require, for example Air NZ jet fleet do not purchase ADF equipment as a matter of policy. I am sure the same arguments were made when the four course range was disestablished, I recall the arguments when Omega was turned off. It is the price of progress that the irrelevant and obsolete are assigned to history
If GA wants or needs NDB then the cost should then fall to the user of the item or the person who wants to keep them.
I think the real discussion is sole means v primary means GNSS and which should be used. Or TSO 129 v TSO 145/146
Interestingly NZ is a lot further down the track in withdrawing "non critical" NDB and VOR stations than appears in Aussie. More importantly Airways NZ is moving towards the retirement of the Radar system starting in 2020 and completed in 2022.
However there is no mandated ADS-B or TSO 145/146 requirement yet as the NZ CAA are writing the AC and expect to publish one this November (though they will not certify any new TSO 129 operations). One reason was to consult with all the aviation user groups to come to a consensus and also to await the outcome of the USA avionic suppliers and what sort of units they come up with to comply with their mandate.
To a Kiwi eye it is apparent that Aussie mandate has jumped the gun and is too far ahead of the industry ability to manufacture solutions that fit the price bracket for GA refit.
However there is no mandated ADS-B or TSO 145/146 requirement yet as the NZ CAA are writing the AC and expect to publish one this November (though they will not certify any new TSO 129 operations). One reason was to consult with all the aviation user groups to come to a consensus and also to await the outcome of the USA avionic suppliers and what sort of units they come up with to comply with their mandate.
To a Kiwi eye it is apparent that Aussie mandate has jumped the gun and is too far ahead of the industry ability to manufacture solutions that fit the price bracket for GA refit.
No they have not. That's why I understand Airservices could not go ahead with their origional plan to rip out all the en route SSR heads.
So the subsidy for GA ADSB did not eventuate so they " cooked " the RIS and went ahead anyway hoping for the big performance bonuses by putting costs onto others!
So the subsidy for GA ADSB did not eventuate so they " cooked " the RIS and went ahead anyway hoping for the big performance bonuses by putting costs onto others!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 9th Jul 2015 at 00:50.
Thorn Bird, you need to do some more research on the U.S. GPS system.
Currently the US GPS system is co managed by Department of Transportation and the Department of Defence. The DOD through the USAF Space command is charged with the operation and maintenance of the GPS. Sitting on the governance board of the U.S. GPS as well as the Air Force and DOT is the Department of Agriculture, NASA, U.S. Coast Guard, Home Land Security just to name a few.
What does all that mean? It is not going to be turned off anytime soon!
Besides the fact, India, Russia, China and the EU all have GNSS components already in flight that is not under the control of the U.S. and can operate independently of the U.S. Though not currently with full availability.
I was at a conference a few years ago when that question was asked and the answer was illuminating. "The use of GPS technology is so interwoven to the American economy from trucking, shipping, police, fire, ambulance, utilities maintenance, rail roads, mining, agriculture, taxi, busses, shopping outlets, to finding the nearest Starbucks that it is never going to be allowed to fail or be turned off. Do you think the average American will accept not getting pizza delivered?"
Currently the US GPS system is co managed by Department of Transportation and the Department of Defence. The DOD through the USAF Space command is charged with the operation and maintenance of the GPS. Sitting on the governance board of the U.S. GPS as well as the Air Force and DOT is the Department of Agriculture, NASA, U.S. Coast Guard, Home Land Security just to name a few.
What does all that mean? It is not going to be turned off anytime soon!
Besides the fact, India, Russia, China and the EU all have GNSS components already in flight that is not under the control of the U.S. and can operate independently of the U.S. Though not currently with full availability.
I was at a conference a few years ago when that question was asked and the answer was illuminating. "The use of GPS technology is so interwoven to the American economy from trucking, shipping, police, fire, ambulance, utilities maintenance, rail roads, mining, agriculture, taxi, busses, shopping outlets, to finding the nearest Starbucks that it is never going to be allowed to fail or be turned off. Do you think the average American will accept not getting pizza delivered?"
Last edited by c100driver; 8th Jul 2015 at 21:27.
via c100driver:
Thorn Bird, you need to do some more research on the U.S. GPS system.
Currently the US GPS system is co managed by Department of Transportation and the Department of Defence. The DOD through the USAF Space command is charged with the operation and maintenance of the GPS. Sitting on the governance board of the U.S. GPS as well as the Air Force and DOT is the Department of Agriculture, NASA, U.S. Coast Guard, Home Land Security just to name a few.
What does all that mean? It is not going to be turned off anytime soon!
Besides the fact, India, Russia, China and the EU all have GNSS components already in flight that is not under the control of the U.S. and can operate independently of the U.S. Though not currently with full availability.
I was at a conference a few years ago when that question was asked and the answer was illuminating. "The use of GPS technology is so interwoven to the American economy from trucking, shipping, police, fire, ambulance, utilities maintenance, rail roads, mining, agriculture, taxi, busses, shopping outlets, to finding the nearest Starbucks that it is never going to be allowed to fail or be turned off. Do you think the average American will accept not getting pizza delivered?"
Thorn Bird, you need to do some more research on the U.S. GPS system.
Currently the US GPS system is co managed by Department of Transportation and the Department of Defence. The DOD through the USAF Space command is charged with the operation and maintenance of the GPS. Sitting on the governance board of the U.S. GPS as well as the Air Force and DOT is the Department of Agriculture, NASA, U.S. Coast Guard, Home Land Security just to name a few.
What does all that mean? It is not going to be turned off anytime soon!
Besides the fact, India, Russia, China and the EU all have GNSS components already in flight that is not under the control of the U.S. and can operate independently of the U.S. Though not currently with full availability.
I was at a conference a few years ago when that question was asked and the answer was illuminating. "The use of GPS technology is so interwoven to the American economy from trucking, shipping, police, fire, ambulance, utilities maintenance, rail roads, mining, agriculture, taxi, busses, shopping outlets, to finding the nearest Starbucks that it is never going to be allowed to fail or be turned off. Do you think the average American will accept not getting pizza delivered?"
.
via c100driver:
c100driver
Because they copied the system from the USA.
c100driver
Because they copied the system from the USA.
Moving along...
via c100driver:
...Besides the fact, India, Russia, China and the EU all have GNSS components already in flight that is not under the control of the U.S. and can operate independently of the U.S. Though not currently with full availability...
...Besides the fact, India, Russia, China and the EU all have GNSS components already in flight that is not under the control of the U.S. and can operate independently of the U.S. Though not currently with full availability...
Does this mean that all aircraft will need to be fitted out with different types of ADS-B/GPS systems to suit all the different GPS satellites ?
The cost of it all. Dick Smith will be pleased..
...although, didn't the yanks tell them europeans that they will turn off their GPS system when told to or the Yanks will shoot down their satellites..
.
the Chinese GPS system have selective availability ?
Military also have the capacity to jam GPS signals. There were extensive trials of the near Hamilton and at Woomera in the early 2000's
The sheer weight of numbers of civil functions that depend on GPS means that its likely that GPS will remain reliable. Plus we now have the Russian Glonas & European Galileo systems.
But, like all navaids, its not infallible and requires a backup. The trouble is that AsA has allowed our ground based aids to deteriorate to third world levels.
Impact on operations?
Rumour is that after the 4th of Feb one will not be able to submit an IFR flight plan if they aren't appropriately rated or the aircraft isn't appropriately equipped for GNSS use.
Hence if you will be holding a current IFR rating without a GNSS approval on it your IFR rating will in effect become redundant until such time that you get a GNSS approval. I could be wrong on this, can anyone elaborate?
I'm not exactly sure what effect this will have on NVFR pilots, however there will be implications.
Has CASA or Airservices issued a differences document/cheat sheet on this as the impact on industry is going to be reasonably significant?
Hence if you will be holding a current IFR rating without a GNSS approval on it your IFR rating will in effect become redundant until such time that you get a GNSS approval. I could be wrong on this, can anyone elaborate?
I'm not exactly sure what effect this will have on NVFR pilots, however there will be implications.
Has CASA or Airservices issued a differences document/cheat sheet on this as the impact on industry is going to be reasonably significant?
Hence if you will be holding a current IFR rating without a GNSS approval on it your IFR rating will in effect become redundant until such time that you get a GNSS approval.
Surely there can't be many serious IFR pilots out there who do not have this rating?
In my 42 years as a PPL/CPL in GA, the two biggest advances in my general aviation risk management are GPS and digital fuel flow.
Dr
Originally Posted by Akro
The trouble is that AsA has allowed our ground based aids to deteriorate to third world levels.
