PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - The NAS, facts and fantasies
View Single Post
Old 14th Oct 2003, 01:30
  #146 (permalink)  
BIK_116.80
on your FM dial
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
G’day snarek,

I don't suppose there are too many a/c with elec systems and no Txps. But there are a few. Probably a few more without Mode C.
Agreed.

So, if you are going to ‘mandate them’ who will pay???
I would expect that for the vast majority of aircraft it is the owner that pays for the supply, installation and maintenance of mandatory avionics equipment.

Then, once it is in it has to be tested every x years.
Aircraft systems require maintenance – that’s no revelation. Refer : AD/RAD/43 and AD/RAD/47. A transponder check every two years – hardly a big deal.

And who/what is this for.
Switching your altitude encoding transponder onto ALT provides a safety benefit to you because nearby TCAS equipped aircraft will be aware of your position. This will help them to avoid running into you, and that’s got to be a good thing. Additionally, the ability for the pilots of TCAS equipped aircraft to be aware of the location of nearby aircraft without the need to rely on an expensive ground-based air traffic control infrastructure has an enormous potential for cost savings.

Ground-based air traffic control systems are an anachronism from a by-gone post-war era when it was impossible to put a reliable, real-time traffic display in an aircraft cockpit.

With TCAS (and perhaps ADSB?) it is now possible to provide traffic data directly to the pilot, rather than needing to have it relayed by a ground-based third party radio operator.

Traditional ground-based air traffic control systems are expensive, labour intensive, and stymied by voluminous regulations, many of which were written decades ago – long before current cockpit traffic awareness technologies were even dreamt of.

With a TCAS traffic display (and perhaps ADSB?) pilots can be aware of the relative position of traffic around them without having to rely on a ground-based third party air traffic control service. It’s more efficient, more effective, more timely, more autonomous.

But TCAS traffic displays only show traffic that is transponding. TCAS traffic displays can be used to their greatest potential when nearby traffic is transponding with altitude data.

As a start, an enormous benefit would be gained if pilots of aircraft that are already transponder equipped would ensure that they turn their transponder on to ALT. This would cost nothing. Perhaps an AOPA pilot education campaign along those lines would be a good start? What do you say? If you’ve got it – switch it on to ALT.

Don't forget BIK. ‘Free in G’
I’m all for free in G. (ICAO class G = no service, no delay, no charge)

G = Good

But just as the government does not subsidise the mandatory brake lights on your car, neither should the government subsidise mandatory avionics – particularly if it’s mandatory avionics that are already fitted to the vast majority of Australian aircraft.

snarek – a question for you.

You obviously have vastly more experience with these ADSB gizmos than I do.

If I understand this ADSB stuff correctly, it seems to serve two functions :

(1) It can provide a TCAS-like cockpit display of traffic for a pilot to look at; and/or,

(2) It can provide a radar-like display of traffic for a ground-based air traffic controller to look at.

Have I got that right? Please correct me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

Anyway, I can see great benefits in (1), but no real point in (2).

It is obvious that you are quite keen on ADSB. But why are you keen on it? Is it because of (1) or because of (2)?

If you are keen on it because of (1) then what can ADSB do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do? Is it that ADSB offers greater functionality, or is it that an ADSB cockpit traffic display is less expensive than a TCAS cockpit traffic display?

In earlier posts you suggested that airborne ADSB traffic displays would be much cheaper if they were not certified. In what circumstances is it permissible to fit non-certified avionics to a flying machine?

If you are keen on it because of (2) then I say thanks, but no thanks. I see no need for an expensive middle-man when the data can be provided directly to the pilots.

I liked FSOs too. I'd like to think that with full ADSB we could perhaps get some back.
I hope not. That would be the worst of both worlds. The expense of ADSB as well as the expense of the FSO. Someone somewhere has to pay – and it aint going to be the nation’s taxpayers! No thanks.

But, who pays. Unions will do what unions do and try to get the biggest buck for their members, that made FSOs unaffordable under a (stupid) user pays government policy. So FSOs disappeared
This has been an ongoing process.
  • Start with a large, inefficient government bureaucracy that over-services the aviation industry and that is funded out of consolidated revenue at an enormous and unsustainable expense to the nation’s taxpayers.
  • Call the large, inefficient government bureaucracy a “government business enterprise”. Everyone knows that in reality it’s just a government department dressed up in drag.
  • Introduce user fees so industry participants can see (and feel) the real cost of the over-servicing.
  • Users realise that the value added by the over-servicing is less than the enormous and unsustainable cost charged for the over-servicing, and determine that at that price they don’t really need the over-servicing after all.
  • Over-servicing stops, no more enormous and unsustainable cost to the nation’s taxpayers, no more enormous and unsustainable cost to industry participants, all is right with the world.

G’day Paul Phelan,

With so many people showing an interest in this topic, perhaps one of them can help me understand the term “commercial airspace?”
To be honest, I somehow doubt it.

In any case, you’re an articulate and grammatically skilful man. Just for fun, see if you can make a sentence that includes these words :
  • public
  • vested
  • scare
  • interests
  • crash
  • airliner
  • burn
  • die
  • horror
  • plummet

G’day again Here to Help,

But we will have Class G with DTI in NAS 2B, and in many instances the area frequency will also be the Class E frequency, so there is a “correct ATS frequency”. Your argument that frequency boundaries can be removed because the airspace is not what you think it should be is frivolous.

Do you think that this is safer? Is anybody saving money with the boundaries removed?

If the area frequency becomes irrelevant in a later stage of NAS, then why not wait until that stage to remove the boundaries?
There is no “correct ATS frequency” for VFR aircraft in class G airspace.

Under current class G arrangements (ICAO class F but with mandatory IFR participation) IFR aircraft are advised when to change frequency and which frequency to change to by ATS. They don’t need lines on a map.

Actually, I can’t get too excited whether you put class G “frequency boundaries” on the charts or not (even though they are not a relevant concept). The issue that interests me is that a small minority of pilots (both VFR and IFR) think that they will instantly be run-down by Concorde (or some other equally threatening aircraft) if they fail to maintain a careful listening watch on an air traffic control radio frequency when they are enroute in class G airspace. This is demonstrably untrue. That some pilots are concerned that the “frequency boundaries” have been taken off the charts only confirms their misguided concern.

In any case, the frequencies are all there on the maps, even if the lines are gone. If it makes you feel more secure to hear the sound of a human voice then listen to whichever frequency takes your fancy.

In relation to a flight that is enroute in class G airspace, why does it matter what frequency the pilot is on? What would it matter if they were not on any air traffic control frequency? What would it matter if they maintained a listening watch on 104.9 MHz or 101.7 MHz?

ICAO Class G = no service, no delay, no charge.

On a completely different note - those who joke that the picture posted here with the Cessna in the windscreen is indicative of IFR pilots not looking out the window and thus causing the situation, what is the Cessna pilot doing?
The Cessna pilot is probably at the pub with his mates having a few beers. The outer two-thirds of each propeller blade is missing. In this condition the aircraft is incapable of sustained flight. The Cessna is clearly parked and on the ground. There is no need for the pilot of a parked aircraft to maintain a lookout.

From the engine instrument indications it is quite clear that the Hercules in the photo is also parked and on the ground.

Since both aircraft are parked and on the ground it is most unlikely that there is a collision risk (although perhaps there is some small residual risk, particularly in light of the BAe 146s that mated in the night at YMEN ).

If both aircraft were enroute in class G airspace then I would expect the Big Sky Theory to keep them apart.

If that didn’t work, then I would expect that a Cessna of that type would be fitted with an altitude encoding transponder. If the Cessna pilot were wise then they would have switched the transponder on to ALT as they entered the runway just prior to take-off. If the military Hercules was instead a civilian Hercules, or an airliner, then it would be required by regulation to be fitted with TCAS II. The crew of a TCAS II equipped aircraft would be given advanced warning of the relative position of a nearby aircraft, giving them ample time to manoeuvre clear of it.

If the Hercules were a civilian aircraft then the crew would have received a TCAS resolution advisory long before it got to the scenario portrayed in the photographic collage.

If both aircraft were in flight in a busy terminal area near an airport then I would expect the pilots of both aircraft to be maintaining a vigilant look out. It is quite clear that the crew of the Hercules are not maintaining a vigilant look out – and I don’t think that’s anything to joke about.

Capn Bloggs,

Many of the “VFR bugsmasher drivers” are instrument rated ATPL holders who fly heavy metal during the week. It’s not that they can’t fly IFR, it’s that they choose not to.

See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK.
In regard to the enroute environment I agree with you.

Thankfully, we don’t have to rely on see and avoid in the enroute environment because the chances are extremely high that the Big Sky Theory will keep the planes apart irrespective of whether the pilots look out the window or not.


Bernie says : Vote [1] Big Sky Theory
BIK_116.80 is offline