Old 11th Sep 2015, 01:59
  #1 (permalink)  
Dick Smith
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,164
Mr Skidmore backs flawed CASA ADS-B Regulation Impact Statement

In an article this morning in The Australian under the heading “Watchdog backs cost estimates for satellite tracking system” (reproduced in entirety below) CASA Head, Mark Skidmore, has ignored every one of AOPA’s objections to the current requirements for the fitment of ADS-B well ahead of other aviation countries.

Those in the know realise that there is no measurable economic or safety benefit for our unique ADS-B requirements that are coming in in 18 months’ time where every IFR aircraft (yes, even a 172) will have to have ADS-B Out fitted even in non-controlled airspace. No other country in the world has such onerous and expensive requirements.

All of the points in the AOPA letter have been completely ignored by Mr Skidmore as it’s clear that the person who wrote the letter is one of the “iron ring” who came up with the requirements in the first place.

I had an independent person look at the Regulation Impact Statement and he worked out that the negative effect for general aviation was something like $60 million. Can you imagine one of the claims of this huge ADS-B cost is “there will be safety improvements … including increased accuracy of directed traffic information!

Now how does that save any money for general aviation? The article goes on to talk about “quicker alerting when aircraft vanish from surveillance” but it doesn’t mention that at a typical height a small aircraft flies, there will only be about 10% of Australia covered.

Here is the full article…

A review by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of cost estimates to introduce satellite-based technology in general aviation aircraft has found its original assumptions were “adequately sound’’.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association wrote to CASA boss Mark Skidmore about concerns that cost estimates in the regulation impact statement for the mandatory introduction of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast equipment in all instrument flight rules planes by 2017 were incorrect.

Operators have complained the costs can be crippling and AOPA wants the RIS to be re-evaluated.

It also wants CASA to adopt the US Federal Aviation Administration’s approach not to require ADS-B in Class G or E airspace below 10,000ft.

Some operators, including airspace campaigner Dick Smith, have also called for the introduction of ADS-B to be delayed in Australia until after it has been introduced in the US and cheaper equipment becomes available.

In a letter to AOPA, Mr Skidmore listed a series of safety improvements he expected to accrue over time due to the introduction of ADS-B, including increased accuracy of directed traffic information, quicker alerting when aircraft vanish from surveillance, narrower search and rescue areas and a number of advantages from air traffic management automation.

He rejected accusations that Australia was “conducting an R&D exercise for the world’’ and said ADS-B development had been going on for many years and was part of the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s Global Air Navigation Plan.

On the cost issue, he said the RIS had not claimed the introduction of ADS-B would be cost neutral for general aviation and the internal review said it was now common for general aviation installations to use equipment combining multiple avionics functions in one box.

He said the cost of the ADS-B component should be apportioned across the various other functions in the box.

“The internal review considered that, in general, the original RIS assumptions were adequately sound in terms of current ADS-B costs, with the exception of those costs used for the modifications to some integrated avionic systems under aircraft type certificates — these had relatively higher costs than those contained in the RIS,’’ Mr Skidmore said, noting that the US dollar exchange rate had also fallen since the RIS was published.

“The review also noted the view expressed by some, including the Aircraft Electronics Association, that ADS-B equipage costs may well increase as the US and European mandates approach and global demand for equipment stretches supply and installation capacity.’’

Turning to the call to adopt the 10,000ft rule, the CASA boss pointed to differences between US and Australian airspace as well as in the way the two countries were introducing ADS-B.

The FAA would require aircraft to have ADS-B to fly in most airspace requiring a Mode C transponder, including classes A, B or C as well as within 30 nautical miles of a Class C ring around a Class B primary airport to ground level and most Class E airspace above 10,000ft.

“Significantly, the FAA mandate applies to both IFR and VFR operations,’’ he said.


Last edited by Dick Smith; 11th Sep 2015 at 02:33.
Dick Smith is offline