Mandate Shmandate....
In Europe effectively if you aren't RVSM approved you do not operate above FL280; what shouldn't Australia adapt the same process to aircraft without ADS-B.
ADS-B Introduction will solve two massive problems:-
1) ATC Staffing - Procedural sectors will be able to release many staff from rosters because of the reduced complexity (position reporting monitoring/establishing procedural standards (paperwork working out the times and distances for lateral/crossing/opposite direction standards). I'd guess ADS-B surveillance as well as equipment would release 20-50% of staff from procedural sectors. Workload would be greatly reduced.
2)Efficiency - Whether it be better introduction of preferred routes, or the likelihood of the availability of preferred levels etc. Let alone the ability to introduce 'race track' patterns in what now is a very regimented (for the main) two way route structure. Vectoring to get aircraft through each other, monitoring nose to nose climb throughs like we do on radar etc.
My only concerns are that the mandate will beat the equipment roll out and/or the ability to use radar like standards and that would be embarrassing; then there is the issue with establishing sector sizes with an ability to actually use the new standards; ie not making people sit on 500NM screens and trying to separate to 10NM or less... Of course that may destroy point one above...
There are huge complexity issues regarding a very small % allowed to operate without the gear; we tried it with RVSM, originally there was 70%+ able; there were huge issues because of that 30%; RVSM only applied in one spectrum and was relatively easy to deal with (it still is for the occasional non-RVSM that we see) but to apply the same to the lateral/longitudinal/opposite spectrums and you'll find it very difficult indeed especially with the equipment available to highlight the issues (or not highlight them)...
As for using GPS... We already do... Lateral track spacing WA routes recently introduced is all GPS based.
We get passing and longitudinal distance standards using GPS instead of RNAV, establishing Laterally clear using GPS distances, but the opposite direction and crossing tracks are still problems that are very real and will effectively will be solved by increased surveillance; the amount of time an aircraft is in lateral conflict by one minute and has to be moved is massive; under ADS-B very few will need to be moved vertically.
If I were a betting man ADS-B will be a huge financial benefit to industry, despite the individual costs involved in the initial outlays; one wonders if the money will actually flow back if there are any ATC cost reductions, but the track mile / better routes / better profiles will save huge $$$ annually.
The lack of 'funding' would be about who gets it ie would we provide it to non-nationals or only VH- aircraft? So we still need a mandate to cover non VH-? Hence we have a mandate?
Last edited by Blockla; 29th May 2009 at 14:21.