I have started a new thread on this as it is a very important issue, and quite separate to just Tasmania.
On the thread
"Dick vs ADS-B vs ASA vs CASA vs Cambridge in bad wx",
Mr Approach (no doubt someone informed) has made the most extraordinary revelations in post #37. Here is the first one:
“ADS-B is not in use in terminal areas (TMA) although Class D tower controllers can see the returns on a device called TSAD. This is a situational awareness tool …”
Then most importantly (and most disappointingly), he states:
“ADS-B is only available for the provision of 5 NM separation, it is not displayed in Class C TMA where 3NM or less is normal.”
Can you believe this? With Airservices probably spending over $100 million, and with the claimed $30 million to be spent by GA on ADS-B, they are not actually using it where it is most useful for safety.
Everyone knows that the provision of ADS-B over the remote area above FL290 was mainly ego driven, so Airservices could tell the world that they had covered Australia. Of course, the risk there was non-existent. With so little traffic, everyone on full position reporting operating IFR under a clearance, and the best TCAS equipment, there was simply an imperceptibly small chance of a mid-air.
It was considered by most that when the ADS-B was fitted – especially within the J curve – that this would then be used to improve safety. CASA (under Airservices’ direction) has mandated the most expensive form of GPS to make sure that the ADS-B signal is accurate to within 20 or 30 metres.
However we now read that in fact it can only be used for 5 nautical mile separation. This can only be because Airservices has saved money by not updating the terminal equipment. This is simply outrageous. It is clear that the risk is greatest in the terminal area – not only for air to air collision (which admittedly is small) but more importantly for a controlled flight into terrain.
We have seen Airservices force the most draconian and expensive ADS-B requirements on the GA industry, including the existing mandate for all commercial aircraft flying in cloud. No other country yet has such a restrictive and expensive mandate. Yet, as stated above, they don’t even use the system to provide a service.
It sounds to me as if the whole issue is industrial. That is, industrial resistance to change by the air traffic controllers has resulted in a system where our aircraft are fitted with some of the best ADS-B transceivers in the world, but they are not actually used in the J curve in Australia to help prevent accidents.
Yes, it does require a deal with the air traffic controllers. Clearly the ones in the Class D towers need to be de-skilled and just concentrate on the circuit area and the surface, whilst the enroute controllers of the airspace above need to be trained to do approach work as they do everywhere else in the world.
The cost of having an approach cell (as we do now) for every Class D airport in Australia would be ridiculous, and that is clearly why we don’t provide the service. If other countries such as the USA can train air traffic controllers to do both enroute and approach work, there is no reason why it can’t be done here.
This is clearly a repeat of what I mentioned on page 39 of
Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom, where the ABC could not change over from film to electronic camera equipment, because of an industrial dispute and pathetic management within the organisation.
See page 39 here.
Back in 1990, when I was Chairman of the CAA, we solved the ridiculous problem of Civil Air insisting that we have highly paid air traffic controllers working as operational controllers. We did it by paying them out with lots of money. That is what clearly needs to be done here.
The fact that they don’t even provide a service at Ballina down to the limits of surveillance just shows how pathetic the leadership is.
I will presume we will end up with deaths before anything is done. I will say here, what a ridiculous waste to have in Australia the best and most accurate ADS-B equipment in aircraft in the world, but not actually use it in approach airspace. It is completely irresponsible.
If I was an air traffic controller involved in stopping these more modern changes, I would feel very embarrassed.