This thread is supposed to highlight that the ATSB have again released a sub-standard report, that does not appear to have considered all relevant facts, that the report is not "transparent" in providing all data that would allow a reviewer to work through the voracity of the report and that yet again, it has failed to diligently examine the role of other government departments - primarily AsA. In this instance it has stopped short of the old practice of blaming a dead pilot, but it certainly does cast aspersions on the pilot without having properly prosecuted its case.
The most fundamental tenant of a scientific report is that a peer reviewer should be able to pick up a report and using the tabled data and / or details of methodology used, work through the report and reach the same conclusions. Currently, the ATSB reports fail this test. In recent years that have adopted the practice of only presenting the data that supports the conclusion of the report. The 2005 report on VH-OAO is a good demonstration. The OAO report tabled all the flight path data of all aircraft involved, not selected flight data of only the subject aircraft.
Regarding ADS-B, after so many posts and so much communication, I cannot believe that we are still going over it.
1. CASA mandated ADS-B for all IFR aircraft at ALL levels and all airspace types by 1 Feb 2017. Something that was unique in the world and 3 years or more in advance of any other country - notably the US and requiring technology that was different than the main markets (ie the US).
2. Like all other recent major "reforms" at the 11th hour when it was patently obvious that CASA's mandate was not practically possible to achieve, CASA backed down.
3. In order to try and save face, it introduced a convoluted web of exceptions that have made the whole affair a mess. From CASA:
The 2 February 2017 mandate still stands. CASA is introducing two instruments – one for domestic operators and one for international operators – that offer restricted, time-limited relief under specific conditions, which will come into effect on 2 February 2017. This is consistent with the action CASA has taken for every mandate introduced to help bring the aviation community on board and help address any concerns as new regulatory requirements are introduced.
All operators of non-ADS-B equipped aircraft that currently operate under instrument flight rules (IFR) will still need to make a decision about whether to equip, fly under the visual flight rules (VFR) only, or retire any unequipped aircraft. These instruments will give a limited number of domestic operators more time to make this decision but the 2 February 2017 mandate will still impact them – they will be restricted to lower level, uncontrolled airspace (Class G/under 10,000 feet) and controlled airspace around regional and metro Class D airports. The most fuel efficient options may not be available to non-equipped aircraft flying under IFR.
Currently, aircraft cannot fly above 10,000 ft without ADS-B. Unless you have one of the many CASA exemptions because there is no approved ADS-B fitment option. Dick Smith's Citation was probably the most famous example.
There are also restrictions on flying into control airspace. But probably more significant than the CASA restrictions are the unpublished AsA flight priority allocations. If you don't have ADS-B you will have lower priority than a rubber band model aircraft. GA is treated badly enough by AsA, but GA without ADS-B is rock bottom.
The second factor are the PBN rules, which if the proposed fuel margin regulations are approved will become dramatically more onerous. If you fly in the J-curve then your sheltered existence won't get this. But for the rest of Australia a C129a GPS means you need to carry fuel for diversion to an airport with a ground based navaid approach plus holding fuel. After the great AsA navaid shutdown, this can mean that some IFR flights just can't be done and meet the fuel reserve requirements. If the proposed fuel regulations are adopted, infringe this by 1 minute and you have committed a strict liability offence. Neither a remote mounted TN70 nor a TXP with integrated WAAS receiver will satisfy the PBN requirements.
Unlike the US, Australia requires engineering orders for ADS-B installation. I'd suggest that for most aircraft its cheaper to put in a used 430 and a ADS-B transponder than fit a remote WAAS box primarily due to the cost of engineering orders and metal work surrounding a non rack mounted remote box together with the install cost of an additional (vs replacement) GPS antennae. The TN70 is about AUD$3,500. Add probably $3,000 - $4,000 for install plus $2,000 - $3,000 for engineering orders and a factory refurbished 430 (which still seem to be readily available) at $9,500 is looking pretty good - or a secondhand GTN650 for about the same price. The 430 will have lower install cost and lower EO cost than the TN70.
Specifically regarding VH-OWN, I believe that the GPS installation was a source of friction between the pilot and aircraft owner and that is why the pilot refused to operate VH-OWN after the Hotham incident and how he ended up flying ZCR on the fateful day. I also understand that the owner of OWN had the GPS upgraded and ADS-B installed soon after the Hotham incident.