Rotting ADF / VOR facilities
Thread Starter
I only fly day VFR but I have at least 4 GPS
But, there are still, antennae failures (I personally have had 2 x Garmin ones fail for TSO panel mount GPS), RAIM holes, potential jamming, GPS engine glitches and interference and satellites that go out of spec.
Your example on the ground isn't a good one. There aren't multiple reflections from nearby buildings when you are flying... I hope.
I own 8 industrial GPS data loggers, plus my array of aviation GPS units plus a number of external GPS units for laptops. They get used for a variety of purposes including validating civil & military vehicle systems and expert witness evidence in court cases. I have spent many many hours looking at GPS raw data and comparing it with the graphical output. I've got a pretty good handle on its strengths & weaknesses.
One of these weaknesses is that GPS units are basically computers that run triangulation calculations for each position update (typically 1, 5, 10 or 20 times per second) and a lot of the same computer glitches that occur with your laptop happen with GPS units, but the graphical output is designed to mask it. When you examine a raw data string, there is nearly always missing data. Usually its 1 missing point out of 10 in a second (for a 10Hz unit), so it doesn't matter. But it can be more.
Additionally, we still have the case of the KingAir at Mt Hotham where corrupt or false data from an IFR certified panel mount Garmin GPS is accused of being the root cause for a midair near miss. The ATSB is delaying the release date of this report, which is frequently a sign that the report is causing them trouble. The latest revised release date is Dec 2016. This will be a very interesting report.
The issue is that GPS is not infallible and a back up strategy is warranted. AsA along with every other aviation authority has recognised this and AsA like others are leaving a rudimentary network. In Australia this can be pretty much described as being VOR stations at primary airports and in the "J-curve" and NDB beacons west of the J-curve.
We are shutting down ground based beacons more aggressively than other countries on the basis of cost.
The questions are:
1. If AsA was internationally cost competitive in its maintenance / certification costs, how would this affect the decisions about the back-up network?
2. If we are going to keep a ground based network, then wouldn't it follow that AsA has a safety responsibility to provide aids for currency / training in the major population / training centres (eg Melbourne basin?).
Thread Starter
Not being a Melbournian, a quick look through the decommissioned aids in Vic the only one I can see in the Melbourne basin is Essendon NDB. There were a few other aids that I think may have been close to Melbourne but I am not sure they were associated with an aerodrome. Obviously not being a local I may be completely wrong. Which ones do you think should have been retained?
I also agree that NDB training at MB isn't a wise idea, we certainly didn't do it when I worked at Jandakot, they all had to go to Rottnest (now not an option) or Cunderdin (about 75nm east of Perth). No idea where people went for VOR approaches.
I also agree that NDB training at MB isn't a wise idea, we certainly didn't do it when I worked at Jandakot, they all had to go to Rottnest (now not an option) or Cunderdin (about 75nm east of Perth). No idea where people went for VOR approaches.
Isn't the MB NDB and AV VOR/DME part of the backup network?
Mixing IFR training / currency with possibly the busiest VFR / Ab initio training terminal area in Australia
Re MB. Aren't the Doom and Gloom merchants saying GA is dying and capital city GA airports are now ghost towns, so movements presumably at MB have died off considerably?
Old Akro, I think some of your comments are misguided. For instance, if you could point out where it is Airservices responsibility to provide navaids for training purposes?
Fact: at a recent ASTRA meeting were representatives from most major flying schools across the country. They were there to push the training navaids agenda and hats off too them. In the same meeting the representatives for Q and Jetstar pretty much told them that airlines were not interested in voluntarily subsidising the costs of training navaids.
The reality is, it is casa's responsibilty to ensure the training environment matches the training requirements. Casa has been present on the entire journey and have approved the decommissioning of these navaids! If the regulator thinks you dont need them, good luck trying to prove otherwise.
But getting on here and trying blames AsA is misguided. Its not their responsibilty, they are there to provide value for money for their customers. And before you start about how you think you are a customer and should have a say.....for the miniscule amount of money you spend....you have an equivalent influence.
It may not be how it should be, but thats the way it is.
Fact: at a recent ASTRA meeting were representatives from most major flying schools across the country. They were there to push the training navaids agenda and hats off too them. In the same meeting the representatives for Q and Jetstar pretty much told them that airlines were not interested in voluntarily subsidising the costs of training navaids.
The reality is, it is casa's responsibilty to ensure the training environment matches the training requirements. Casa has been present on the entire journey and have approved the decommissioning of these navaids! If the regulator thinks you dont need them, good luck trying to prove otherwise.
But getting on here and trying blames AsA is misguided. Its not their responsibilty, they are there to provide value for money for their customers. And before you start about how you think you are a customer and should have a say.....for the miniscule amount of money you spend....you have an equivalent influence.
It may not be how it should be, but thats the way it is.
Thread Starter
They are, along with most of the capital city GA airport aids.
AVV can hardly be called "busy" at the best of times.
Re MB. Aren't the Doom and Gloom merchants saying GA is dying and capital city GA airports are now ghost towns, so movements presumably at MB have died off considerably?
AVV can hardly be called "busy" at the best of times.
Re MB. Aren't the Doom and Gloom merchants saying GA is dying and capital city GA airports are now ghost towns, so movements presumably at MB have died off considerably?
The latest ASA statistics http://http://www.airservicesaustral...ncial-2014.pdf show Moorabbin as the second busiest airport in Australia behind Sydney International. In the last 5 years I count 7 ATSB investigations into VFR aircraft proximity events. And you are supporting moving the IFR procedure training from Cowes, Wonthaggi and Yarowee to Moorabbin??? Really??
And you are supporting moving the IFR procedure training from Cowes, Wonthaggi and Yarowee to Moorabbin??? Really??
What alphacentauri said is spot on.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Its not their responsibilty, they are there to provide value for money for their customers."
errr s'cuse me I always thought they were there to generate KPI bonuses for their directors.
They certainly didn't provide value for money with their ADSB mandate for GA and I take accept ion to the notion that airlines are ASA's only customer.
The airlines were perfectly happy to take GA trained pilots when ever it suited them, I guess these days they don't need to bother, there's cheaper alternatives overseas via the 457 visa.
errr s'cuse me I always thought they were there to generate KPI bonuses for their directors.
They certainly didn't provide value for money with their ADSB mandate for GA and I take accept ion to the notion that airlines are ASA's only customer.
The airlines were perfectly happy to take GA trained pilots when ever it suited them, I guess these days they don't need to bother, there's cheaper alternatives overseas via the 457 visa.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And before you start about how you think you are a customer and should have a say.....for the miniscule amount of money you spend....you have an equivalent influence.
It may not be how it should be, but thats the way it is.
It may not be how it should be, but thats the way it is.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airlines were not interested in voluntarily subsidising the costs of training navaids
The reality is that airlines get a massive subsidies from GA and the taxpayer.
How much does it cost to train a pilot from ab initio to airline standard? How much of that do airlines pay?
Every time a GA business puts money into training a pilot who's ultimate aim is the airlines, to replace someone else who has just left because they're working towards the airlines, that GA business is subsidising the airlines.
Every time a GA aircraft takes the long way around controlled airspace due to RPT aircraft, GA is subsidising airlines.
How much do Airservices/airlines pay in rent for the thousands of cubic miles of airspace they control access to? You can bet this has value to them, but they expect it from the taxpayer for free. What would Australia's controlled airspace look like if Airservices were required to pay rent per cubic mile?
I know that's the way the world works (and it's not necessarily a bad thing, granting CTA to Airservices for free maybe makes sense from a societal point of view), but don't bleat about airlines subsidising GA and expect me to take you seriously.
One thing to remember about "user pays" - it usually means that someone with money and influence has found a way to shift their costs to someone else. I prefer to refer to it as "loser pays".
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing to remember about "user pays" - it usually means that someone with money and influence has found a way to shift their costs to someone else. I prefer to refer to it as "loser pays".
Yep - corporate feudalism at work.
Yep - corporate feudalism at work.
Thread Starter
This is the first paragraph in the "about us" section of the AsA website signed by the CEO
[quoteAirservices Australia is Australia’s air navigation service provider. We exist to provide safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally-responsible air navigation and aviation rescue fire fighting services to the aviation industry][/quote]
AlphaCentauri is correct that this statement of responsibility does not include navigation aids for training, but in the real world there is no-one else who can operate them (yes, I know there are some privately owned beacons, but they are exceptions). So, its probably a situation that falls into a gap between CASA and ASA. But I would argue that an effective, ethical organisation would do some things beyond its formal scope, just because it's the right and responsible thing to do. And I would also argue that providing the ability for training & currency outside high traffic airports was in the interests of " providing a safe, secure and efficient" airnavigation system.
The other issue is that if the ASA charges were competitive with other international organisations, then there would be no real issue because the marginal cost of keeping a handful of beacons operating around the country would be trivial. I have been unable to find any benchmarking information, but the scraps of information I have found point to ASA charging 7 - 10 times that of other bodies (chiefly the CAA & FAA).
Finally, if you go back and read the RAPAC minutes when the shutting of these aids was first discussed up You will see that a) ASA never used the argument that its responsibility does not include providing training aids and b) it's pretty evident that ASA consciously misled RAPAC. There were promises of reviews and other mechanisms being put in place that ASA clearly never had any intention of honouring. RAPAC is supposed to be the forum for general aviation to raise these concerns and it was minuted in most states RAPAC meetings over an extended period. And frankly, by my reading, ASA just pissed on it.
[quoteAirservices Australia is Australia’s air navigation service provider. We exist to provide safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally-responsible air navigation and aviation rescue fire fighting services to the aviation industry][/quote]
AlphaCentauri is correct that this statement of responsibility does not include navigation aids for training, but in the real world there is no-one else who can operate them (yes, I know there are some privately owned beacons, but they are exceptions). So, its probably a situation that falls into a gap between CASA and ASA. But I would argue that an effective, ethical organisation would do some things beyond its formal scope, just because it's the right and responsible thing to do. And I would also argue that providing the ability for training & currency outside high traffic airports was in the interests of " providing a safe, secure and efficient" airnavigation system.
The other issue is that if the ASA charges were competitive with other international organisations, then there would be no real issue because the marginal cost of keeping a handful of beacons operating around the country would be trivial. I have been unable to find any benchmarking information, but the scraps of information I have found point to ASA charging 7 - 10 times that of other bodies (chiefly the CAA & FAA).
Finally, if you go back and read the RAPAC minutes when the shutting of these aids was first discussed up You will see that a) ASA never used the argument that its responsibility does not include providing training aids and b) it's pretty evident that ASA consciously misled RAPAC. There were promises of reviews and other mechanisms being put in place that ASA clearly never had any intention of honouring. RAPAC is supposed to be the forum for general aviation to raise these concerns and it was minuted in most states RAPAC meetings over an extended period. And frankly, by my reading, ASA just pissed on it.
Old Akro, there is a bigger part of the story you are missing.
With passing of the GNSS equipage mandate, the NAVAID network is not required. In short, nobody should be using ground based NAVAIDS in normal ops.
When the case was first presented to remove part of the existing network (and lets be clear many people wanted to remove ALL of the navaids) it was noted that the IFR training requirements were going to be an issue, primarily because at the time a basic instrument rating needed to have endorsements on NDB. In the negotiations that were had with CASA, they agreed that the basic instrument rating should be with a GNSS endorsement, and the NDB would be an optional extra. With this understanding AsA then proceeded, and were allowed to proceed with, a reduction of ground based navaids.
In this instance the ground based navaids would rarely even be required for training, and then only for those who opted to get an NDB endorsement.
AsA were given assurances multiple times at ASTRA that CASA was going to change the CIR requirements, and then at the 11th hr, they changed their minds. I have heard it was because of one close minded person who was writing PART 61 and we all know how awesome that turned out to be.
So when you argue that AsA was intentionally deceitful, you are wrong, because there was no reason at the time for AsA to provide a strategy to support navaid training. They were advised by the regulator that it wouldn't be an issue, and besides it is not AsA responsibility to communicate CIR training requirements to pilots.
As to this comment
Reviews of what? The backup navaid network has pretty much been set it stone since day 1. I'm not sure who said what, but there was never an intention to review with the aim of keeping more. What you have to remember is that Yarrowee, Wonthaggi and others were primarily enroute aids, they did not facilitate approaches to aerodromes. Enroute aids are unnecessary in a gnss nav world. Yes some bright spark chucked a approach on one of them, but I can tell you that whether AsA decommissioned those aids or not, you were going to lose the approaches anyway. (I've still got the withdrawal request in my email)
Its clear you are not a big fan AsA, hell I work for them and with what we are going through I am not a massive fan either. Its also clear you are using the information you have to form this view, I would argue that you do not have all information.
For thorn bird
You can take exception all you like but its not what I said. Fact is if GA want a seat at the AsA table then they need a collective, united front. Since they don't have it the only representation that gets through is from individual pilots. If all of GA, through a united group, put up an argument to keep more training aids, you probably would have got them. As it was, it was a few individual pilots and a few chief pilots. Hardly enough to convince the dollar holders.
Alpha
With passing of the GNSS equipage mandate, the NAVAID network is not required. In short, nobody should be using ground based NAVAIDS in normal ops.
When the case was first presented to remove part of the existing network (and lets be clear many people wanted to remove ALL of the navaids) it was noted that the IFR training requirements were going to be an issue, primarily because at the time a basic instrument rating needed to have endorsements on NDB. In the negotiations that were had with CASA, they agreed that the basic instrument rating should be with a GNSS endorsement, and the NDB would be an optional extra. With this understanding AsA then proceeded, and were allowed to proceed with, a reduction of ground based navaids.
In this instance the ground based navaids would rarely even be required for training, and then only for those who opted to get an NDB endorsement.
AsA were given assurances multiple times at ASTRA that CASA was going to change the CIR requirements, and then at the 11th hr, they changed their minds. I have heard it was because of one close minded person who was writing PART 61 and we all know how awesome that turned out to be.
So when you argue that AsA was intentionally deceitful, you are wrong, because there was no reason at the time for AsA to provide a strategy to support navaid training. They were advised by the regulator that it wouldn't be an issue, and besides it is not AsA responsibility to communicate CIR training requirements to pilots.
As to this comment
There were promises of reviews and other mechanisms being put in place that ASA clearly never had any intention of honouring.
Its clear you are not a big fan AsA, hell I work for them and with what we are going through I am not a massive fan either. Its also clear you are using the information you have to form this view, I would argue that you do not have all information.
For thorn bird
I take accept ion to the notion that airlines are ASA's only customer.
Alpha
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With passing of the GNSS equipage mandate, the NAVAID network is not required.
CASA and other people in aviation are applying hardware thinking to a software situation. Hardware ideas of redundancy are not sufficient.
There are enough demonstrated and theoretical ways that GPS can be compromised that the simultaneous failure of all GPS units in all aircraft in an area needs to be considered.
If Airservices don't have a plan for how to get aircraft on the ground during peak period on an IFR day where GPS (i.e. GPS approach and ADSB) is unavailable over an entire terminal area - perhaps even unavailable in all of Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane/Adelaide - they aren't doing their job.
The possibility is not unlikely enough to ignore.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably using the backup network requires pilots to be trained and preferably current on the aids?
Has a simulation been done to see whether ATC and the backup network has the capacity to cope with a widespread outage affecting all GPS navigation in e.g. the Sydney area?
I guess jets would be OK using e.g. INS navigation and vectors to an ILS, but what about GA aircraft? Do you need to mix GA and RPT jets on the same aids in the backup network?
Has a simulation been done to see whether ATC and the backup network has the capacity to cope with a widespread outage affecting all GPS navigation in e.g. the Sydney area?
I guess jets would be OK using e.g. INS navigation and vectors to an ILS, but what about GA aircraft? Do you need to mix GA and RPT jets on the same aids in the backup network?
Thread Starter
With passing of the GNSS equipage mandate, the NAVAID network is not required.
Aviation safety is based on the premise of having redundant systems. 2 magnetos, 2 spark plugs, 2 fuel pumps, 2 engines, 2 pilots, 2 sets of AIP documents (iPad plus paper or 2 x iPad), 2 landing options (destination plus alternate).
Its only when AsA want to save money that this argument arises.
Akro,
Do you actually understand anything I have posted? Or are you so full of rage you aren't actually processing what you are reading?
The Backup Navaid Network is the redundant system for GNSS.
The Backup Navaid Network is not required for normal ops ie GNSS available. Therefore my statement that you called foolish is actually true.
The Backup Navaid Network was developed with consultation of Airlines, Regulator and AOPA.
So now we are down to the only argument you have left. And that is essentially "but AsA could have left a few more navaids for training" No argument here, but that horse has bolted.
Do you actually understand anything I have posted? Or are you so full of rage you aren't actually processing what you are reading?
The Backup Navaid Network is the redundant system for GNSS.
The Backup Navaid Network is not required for normal ops ie GNSS available. Therefore my statement that you called foolish is actually true.
The Backup Navaid Network was developed with consultation of Airlines, Regulator and AOPA.
So now we are down to the only argument you have left. And that is essentially "but AsA could have left a few more navaids for training" No argument here, but that horse has bolted.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in antiquity, before radar, before transponders, when you could fly without the ever constant fear of being thrown in jail for committing aviation, they had this thing called a DME letdown.
To be able to use DME you had to have it endorsed on your licence. To gain this "endorsement" you had to renew it every six months which added about half an hour to your six monthly IFR renewal about a $150 dollars worth...a lot of money in those days.
Remember those days where every approach was a circling approach because the old DCA considered aligning them with the runway would just encourage pilots to descend below MDA. Now that was Real safety.
A lot of people didnt bother with the endorsement because nobody in their right mind would do one, except in an emergency and in an emergency basically you can do whatever you like.
In this modern world with desk top simulators you can practice letdowns all day for bugger all, jeez my five year old grandson can fly an approach better than I can.
In todays world, where people behind desks in Cantberra attempt to micro manage farts on the flight deck, forget about ground based aids, place all your trust in GPS and if ultimately the doo doo hits the fan, declare an emergency and go letdown on 2RN or 2GB or whatever your local radio station is. If our so called "safety" authority wants to get antsi...tell them to bugger off, your the ones who allowed this to happen, your supposed to consider "Safety" nothing else, you heap enormous costs on industry in the name of safety yet I hear from your officers that they dont care about the costs, not in their brief, yet your prepared to ignore safety in the interests of a few ASA executives KPI bonuses.
I think they would have a hard time in court explaining how you had compromised "Safety".
I really pity those poor coal face controllers who so dilligently look after us every day. When that terrible day arrives and that infallible GPS does go down and all thats left is a very few ILS at the primaries are left, a lot of aircraft declaring fuel emergencies, who decides who lives and who dies?
Well obviously RPT will get priority after all they PAID for it.
To be able to use DME you had to have it endorsed on your licence. To gain this "endorsement" you had to renew it every six months which added about half an hour to your six monthly IFR renewal about a $150 dollars worth...a lot of money in those days.
Remember those days where every approach was a circling approach because the old DCA considered aligning them with the runway would just encourage pilots to descend below MDA. Now that was Real safety.
A lot of people didnt bother with the endorsement because nobody in their right mind would do one, except in an emergency and in an emergency basically you can do whatever you like.
In this modern world with desk top simulators you can practice letdowns all day for bugger all, jeez my five year old grandson can fly an approach better than I can.
In todays world, where people behind desks in Cantberra attempt to micro manage farts on the flight deck, forget about ground based aids, place all your trust in GPS and if ultimately the doo doo hits the fan, declare an emergency and go letdown on 2RN or 2GB or whatever your local radio station is. If our so called "safety" authority wants to get antsi...tell them to bugger off, your the ones who allowed this to happen, your supposed to consider "Safety" nothing else, you heap enormous costs on industry in the name of safety yet I hear from your officers that they dont care about the costs, not in their brief, yet your prepared to ignore safety in the interests of a few ASA executives KPI bonuses.
I think they would have a hard time in court explaining how you had compromised "Safety".
I really pity those poor coal face controllers who so dilligently look after us every day. When that terrible day arrives and that infallible GPS does go down and all thats left is a very few ILS at the primaries are left, a lot of aircraft declaring fuel emergencies, who decides who lives and who dies?
Well obviously RPT will get priority after all they PAID for it.