Smith said
Scurvy, unfortunately you are wrong.
Nup not .. see Mr Michaels quote, and I dare say you would do well to contact anyone from the ABIT GIT groups .. you would avoid making embarrassing gaffs like that!
If you purchased the latest Airbus A380, you would find that whilst it transmits ADS-B, it actually shows aircraft on the screen using TCAS. At the present time it does not have any mix of the ADS-B signals on that display.
Cite a source .. forgive me for not believing your assurance alone
The reason for this as pointed out previously on this site is because the ADS-B position is very accurate, whereas the TCAS position can vary.
Cuckoo!
I have researched this thoroughly.
Microair do have experimental ADS-B in units, however they do not have a TCAS-like voice read out for Traffic Advisories or Resolution Advisories.
oh OK so now you accept ADS-B IN is in play, but the issue is Aural alerts
are you saying that 'IN' without Aural alerts for GA is less safe that nothing??
I have flown aircraft with the FAA Capstone system and they have the same problem. It is more of a gimmick, because you look down on the display and see lots of aircraft appearing, however you cannot study the display all of the time, and once again there is no audio call out when traffic is close.
A gimmick eh? Is that what you consider the TAS type systems (like Bing's) that feed traffic info into moving maps is a gimmick? ..or by the same token having basic Aural but no display such as FLARM (for gliders) are gimmicks??
Whatever you want to make out, the facts are simple. That is, there is no certified (or non-certified) ADS-B in unit available which gives an audio call out for nearby traffic.
again so you now concede that there are certified IN units, but your beef is no aural?
hmmm so lets have nothing instead .. is that your case?
Because a pilot cannot study the display all the time, it means the available systems are not as effective as TCAS.
Aircraft with TCAS, will by the time ADS-B is reaching a critical mass have ADS-B input in the same way A/C TXPDR acft are seen by TCAS.. Mores the point, how many GA aircraft will ever have TCAS???
**** all, ... they could all have ADS-B IN .. but NO you would prefer what we/they have now **** ALL!! .....
As I have mentioned previously, this will change in the future.
.. I am sorry I missed that earlier mention, could you provide a link to it!
I understand there are some patent problems in relation to audio call outs with ADS-B, and that is why the US Capstone does not feature such announcements.
You understand
...how? .. could you for once corroborate your musings?
And now to the inevitable thread drift that usually occurs before the inevitable chucking the dummy in the dirt hissy fit!
By the way Scurvy, you know that one of the reasons that you cannot provide a radar service to the lowest level of radar coverage at Launceston is because the tower controllers are not radar rated.
By the way
Richard, you know that one of the reasons regional tower/app controllers do not hold radar ratings is because procedural app class D towers rarely have radar (or any other surveillance) coverage to use. The ones that do, utilise that surveillance in the most effective way possible. Can it used more effectively by towers, yes .... and that has been worked on for some time. I would suggest you ask the regulator why regional towers (with surveillance) are not able to use it for what it should be
. Mind you, what you think it should be and reality are two different things
but then you have had that explained to you multiple times also!
By the way
Richard regional tower/proc app controllers use standards that RADAR approach controllers (and more particularly en-route controllers) are unable to use i.e. visual and procedural approach/departures! You know that because it has been explained to you numerous times over numerous years also. It is also a fact that procedural standards if used correctly, enable just as efficient traffic management in those regional environments! .. but then you know that as well, the data on efficiency of ATS here and abroad has been cited many many times .. but as usual you ignore it!
In the USA and other leading aviation countries, the radar covered airspace remains with the Centre until the lower level of radar coverage. Because the Centre controllers are radar rated, and because they are there 24 hours per day, it is quite a superb and safe service.
.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace, it is completely justified such as SY, ML, BN, CS, CG, CB, AD, PH
. Or are you advocating a separate RADAR/Surveillance Approach service for Launy and like type aerodromes?
you know, the US style which would mean a fully staffed tower (say 6-8 bums on seats), a fully staffed Approach cell in ML or BN running 24/7 (say 12-14 bums on seats) thats 20+ vs 6-7 (with no change to en-route numbers) and a multi-million dollar radar head at each location
is that what you are advocating???
Australia is the only country I know of in the world where a pilot is forced to leave a radar frequency when in IMC to change to the tower and talk to controllers who are not radar rated.
Bollocks! .. it was not that long ago your oft quoted Alaskan tower was in just that situation
but wait .. whats happened there
. ADS-B!!
oh my giddy aunt!!!!
One day I think we will try the system that is used in the rest of the world, and find that it adds to safety. Of course, that will probably be after someone makes a mistake at a place like Hamilton Island and flies into a mountain because the controllers in the tower had no idea that the error had been made.
well now that depends on whether or not surveillance coverage (ADS-B) is in play, with good IFR TSO146 NAV gear (TAWS etc) being carried by said pilots
. Errrm
who will be responsible for that type of accident if the opportunity being discussed in this proposal, and in this thread is scuttled?
And the FAA won the Collier Trophy for the Capstone system which is totally different to that planned here!
Nope wrong again!
ADS-B was the vision of many prestigious aviation organizations and individuals who both recognized its potential to dramatically improve the current aviation system and who also worked tirelessly for its adoption as the first phase of building the Next-Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Among them are the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Cargo Airline Association, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the Federal Aviation Administration, ITT Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, NASA, MITRE Corporation, UPS, ACSS and many others.
The technology (read functionality) is the trophy winning initiative
!! .. not the ADS-B system delivery frequency!
but thanks for the fire side sermon there Sir Murray Rivers
better than a cup of Horlicks!
RE WAAS ... Got my vote Jaba!!!!