PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Australian Airspace Discussion
View Single Post
Old 4th Oct 2008, 01:16
  #200 (permalink)  
james michael
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TW

Apology, your post ensued while I was responding to Binghi.

LHR

change where needed/benefit is to be gained is a good thing.
At the risk of offending TW that is exactly why I have been asking Dick to debate.

If you read the JCP you will find some qualified and experienced analysis as follows:

CASA conducted an analysis of 26 ‘normal operation’ CFIT accidents that occurred between 1991 and 2000. Of these, 23 involved the pilot losing visual reference to the external environment through deterioration of the weather, a situation where a terrain display in the cockpit may have assisted with situational awareness.

Analysis concluded that up to 13 CFIT accidents (i.e. 50%) and 26 fatalities (50%) could have been prevented if the pilot had been able to effectively utilise information from a moving map terrain display in the cockpit and taken avoidance action.
and

In cost-benefit work carried out by the FAA in 20059 to estimate the effectiveness of an ADS-B derived display of navigation and terrain information to aircraft not already equipped with a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS), the FAA concluded that the safety effectiveness was approximately 53 % in adverse weather conditions and approximately 18% when no adverse conditions prevail.
and

Although the analysis does not examine potential midair collisions involving regular public transport aircraft, since none have occurred, it did examine a number of passenger-carrying and fatal charter collisions. Most of these were amenable to prevention using this technology. CASA therefore considers that widespread fitment of the light aircraft fleet should also result in reduced collision risk for air transport operations, particularly in the vicinity of aerodromes with a mixture of operations.

This analysis was also presented to ABIT in June 200510 and is available at
ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT). The analysis also received favourable review from ASFA and the Flight Safety Foundation and was endorsed by ASTRA in May 2005.

In a finding similar to CASA’s conclusion, and following recent work to estimate the
effectiveness of ADS-B to reduce the risk of midair collisions, the FAA has
concluded that ADS-B should be approximately 72.3% effective at reducing collision risk, provided that each aircraft in a collision pair is equipped with ADS-B OUT and at least one of the aircraft is equipped with ADS-B IN11.
I think the above is living proof that a positive focus by Dick and his team on SUPPORTING Australian ADS-B has a potentially higher salvation rate than his desires for radar backup of LSALT, route, etc. Give it some thought.
james michael is offline