One of the great problems of the JCP and all previous iterations is the glossing over of vital technical details, in the hope that the great unwashed in aviationland won't notice what the Lord High Technopoobah is NOT saying.
… bwahahhah …. Technopoohbah ……
Hey X was that for you or me or the dude at CASA that came up with this??? ….. perhaps he meant poohbah’s
.
-- be very clear that (even if available) ADS-B IN, from a transponder to a TCAS equipped aircraft does NOT give any more information than if the non-TCAS aircraft only had a Mode C transponder ---- no advantage from ADS-B out.
I think everyone gets that bit
.
If (as has been suggested) a manufacturer produces an "ADS-B only" tx., a TCAS aircraft will see nothing
.. at the moment, how many times and in how many references does it need to be pointed out that TCAS ADS-B ‘IN’ standards are being finalised, and by the time (2009-12-14) ADS-B is being fitted to target aircraft, it will be being fitted to TCAS aircraft …. Which leads to your next point
.
"Somebody" going to have it all in the same box? As a Mode S transponder , C, with ADS-B in DF17/18 message slots, or just the ADS-B component without the Mode A/C/S ??
… the stuff that is coming out for GA does all ... does it not? … if not could you point out which and where … genuine question!
.
Given the $$$/availability of sourcing C145/146 is the major stumbling block, I will believe it when see it ---- C145/146 availability is not like C129A.
True, thus my question earlier, for the purposes of VFR (or 129a IFR non WAAS) GNSS input to an ADS TXPDR, are you saying it will not output GNSS data to an ADS-B box?
.
XXXXXXXX intended one box, not a Mode S transponder plus a Freeflight Inc. FFS 1201 as a separate box --- but is that how it turned out?
.. do you know, cause I don’t, and as X (who might well know :wink: ) seems to indicate it will??
.
One of the "features" of the CBA is to thoroughly confuse claimed benefits of ADS-B and the potential benefits of C145/146.
This claim worries me. My understanding is that C145/146 are for providing LPV vertical guidance to IFR.
.
C129a is still a TSO IFR nav (albeit not sole means) that still provides GPS in lieu of DME etc …. There is no confusion that I can see in so far as the ‘back-up’ navaids mentioned in the CBA, such as the
not location sole means VOR’s and NDB’s does not reduce the utility to 129a existing installations. In other words the navaid reductions and the bolt in ADS-B out box should have no detrimental effect on 129a IFR and glass VFR, particularly if the box and its installation is covered by the funding. …. Is that a fair assessment of the 129a IFR/ VFR situation??
.
Thus my earlier question regarding existing 129a IFR and VFR compliance?
.
A large % of the benefits claimed in all the CBAs are nothing to do with ADS-B and everything to do with C145/146. XX. XXXX has made this very clear.
…. Hmmm and that’s the perplexing bit …. This cross industry funding proposal as I read it is to provide at least as good if not better (for those that already have a GNSS system) GNSS nav capability (perhaps including terrain) for free,
to support the ADS-B out signal for CDTI (TCAS) equipped (particularly RPT) and ATS ... that is after all the system being replaced (Enroute MSSR) to fund the ADS-B system ….. Getting GNSS Nav is a benefit to the industry of the ADS-B requirement not the other way around!!
.
Not all C145/146 are created equal, the Freeflight Inc. FFS 1201 does not have the capabilities of the C145/146 in the Garmin 430W, 480 and 530W, and W is WAAS, and without WAAS, and WAAS enabled --- NO precision (LPV) vertical guidance and lower minima ---- Regional and Rural Australia left out in the cold, again.
…. There is the Nub …. WAAS is by no means a done deal in Oz, in fact from what I read of late, probably will not be the way many countries go (including Europe), irrespective, WAAS LPV was not the purpose of the subsidy was it? … the fact that 145/146 was preferred as I understand it (you can correct me if I am wrong your poohbahness) was more to do with the accuracy of the ranging etc than to provide LPV .. the fact that LPV is delivered to IFR where most do not have it now provides the platform for whichever augmentation system is eventually chosen … VFR and other IFR who do not want it or (have 129a glass that do not want or cannot afford that upgrade) will still have the ‘traffic’ benefit of ADS-B through 129a … which again brings us back to my question regarding 129a compliance
.
Once again, the mantra, there is considerable economic potential in the use of ADS-B for ATM purposes by airlines----- but it has nothing to do with "safety", and nothing to do with the needs (if, indeed there is any demonstrated need) of low level unpressurised aircraft.
…. that depends on whether the risk management expert commenting on behalf of the XXXX has considered some of (but not limited to) the following benefits:-
.
1. The accuracy of ADS-B out compared to existing mode A/C
2. The number of aircraft covered by ADS-B as opposed to the number currently equipped with a ‘serviceable’ mode A/C
3. The number of IFR aircraft that will have some form of CDTI by 2012-14
4. The number of VFR aircraft that will have some form of CDTI by 2012-14
5. The cost neutrality for VFR fitment (particularly if 129a is acceptable)
6. The cost neutrality for light IFR fitment (particularly if 129a is acceptable)
7. The cost effectiveness for IFR wishing to upgrade to 146a LPV ready
8. The cost savings to industry into the future from ADS-B vice MSSR
9. The safety enhancement of cost effective surveillance in areas where RPT operate
10. The add on technologies the baseline ADS-B system provides
.
And the unknowns;
.
1. VFR traffic densities and complexities in areas IFR operate OCTA outside radar coverage
2. VFR traffic densities and complexities in CTAF areas outside radar coverage
3. The number and disposition of IFR/VFR/VFR conflict pairs OCTA outside radar coverage
.
… vanishingly small risk no doubt …. but how small when there is no data on which to base that assumption? … against VFR/VFR/IFR enroute accidents in the US and elsewhere ….. it only takes two aircraft to form an aluminium welder! ….perhaps you might quantify the difference in risk say west of the ranges in OZ to the mid west enroute areas in the US for us? … hmmm ……
.
The absence of WAAS really does limit the use of LPV capable GPS, no lower minima than you get now, and no precision vertical guidance. So, about the only C145/146 advantage over c129A left., as far as I can see, is sole source navigation to, and an instrument approach at an alternate with no other aid (not possible with a C129A GPS).
…. See you knew all along that 145/6a was only gunna benefit IFR
.
Not a lot of interest to VFR.
… that’s the real issue isn’t it … it does not cost the average XXXXX VFR owner squat ….. what is the kick for the small number of IFR owners ... nil I would reckon???
.
So Airservices need "you" to spend lots of money so they can "save" lots of money
…. so AsA are gunna pay your members up to 10K VFR, 15K IFR to get a GNSS and ADS-B out (prolly ‘in’ by then as well) and will cost them virtually nothing .. so AsA can remove the enroute MSSR that industry are paying to maintain at a much larger premium than the ADS-B that will replace it, and in return for your free GNSS they are gunna remove ONLY the back-up VOR and NDB’s …… to save industry more money in maintance and replacement cost
.
… are you that jaded from years of confrontation that you cannot see anything positive in anything? …. It is trust isn’t it? …. I hear you on that score!
.
As a quite senior and very enthusiastic AsA proponent of ADS-B was compelled to admit, to a group of us ---- "we need to force widespread adoption of ADS-B to force widespread adoption of C146/146 GPS so we can get on with pulling almost all the NDB(T) and all but a few terminal VOR/DME". But why does it have to be forced on VFR ?? It doesn't.
If it does not cost you anything, and you can use 129a .. why would you object? …. Even if it is a 145a engine and it cost you nothing why would you object? ….. if you cannot physically put a box in the aircraft or power it you are exempt ….. what’s the issue?
.
A fundamental of proper cost/benefit principles is to compare the costs to whoever is the subject of increased cost,
… exactly, who is subject to increased cost?
.
versus the benefits that accrues to those who directly bear the cost.
I say again, what negatives (or non-benefits) are there?
.
Throughout this who exercise there has been an almost complete disconnect between who incurs the costs and who reaps the benefits .
.. yer dam’d right about that, and it seems pretty obvious where the disconnect is!
.
What's going on here, to me, is more like taxation, I get to pay, somebody else gets the benefits.
That’s Camel fertiliser and you surely must know it!
.
Increased costs for some "national benefit" also sounds like taxation to me.
.. I say again, where are the increased costs?
.
On a peripherally related subject, now that Melbourne is going to get a Cat 111 ILS, (can Sydney be far behind) what does this say about GBAS as the answer to a maiden's (or a Virgin's ) prayer.
… at a guess .....in the average year there might be 4-7 mornings during winter when diversions are needed …. Many aircraft, much money, much irate passengers, much screwed up hull and crew networks …. How much do ya reckon that is worth each year?
.
.. now work out how long it will be for 00 RNP type approaches to be certified on each hull on each crew ( you know the requirements, FMS, HUD, training blah blah) … how long do ya reckon ?????
.
.. do you know what’s involved in upgrading a Cat I to a CAT III ….. ???
.
I’ll let you sleep on that one!
.
Nite happy