PDA

View Full Version : TCAS safety deficiency and the AIPA, AFAP and GAPAN


Dick Smith
6th Feb 2007, 02:05
It is now over 22 weeks since the Australian Financial Review newspaper published my article in relation to safety deficiencies (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Ten_years_of_aviation_safety_neglect.php)). In the intervening period I find it almost unbelievable that the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP), the Australian & International Pilots Association (AIPA) and the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (GAPAN) have not come out with a public statement asking CASA to legislate for TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of 10 to 30 passengers.

What have we seen? Almost complete silence. Some people claim it is because the Chief Pilots of the airlines concerned (covering over 150 safety deficient aircraft) are scared of losing their bonus if more money is spent on safety.

This is obviously ridiculous, as companies such as Regional Express are making really good profits at the moment and could easily afford TCAS.

When you consider that countries such as India have a mandatory requirement, and all other modern aviation countries, it is extraordinary that Australia is deficient.

Could I suggest that the unions and the guild put out a public statement supporting the move to this internationally recognised safety improvement? Why should Australian passengers have a lower prescribed level of safety when flying in airline aircraft of 10 to 30 passengers?

Remember, Australia has a mandatory requirement for VFR aircraft to have Mode C transponders in all Class E – a world first. If VFR aircraft can afford transponders surely airline aircraft can afford TCAS.

gliderboy
6th Feb 2007, 03:27
Sounds fair enough!

Gliderboy

Chimbu chuckles
6th Feb 2007, 03:44
Mate you didn't want transponders in E and there is no requirement for transponders in G...so what use would a TCAS be if the other aircraft is not squawking mode C?

Lost your faith in see and avoid?

gaunty
6th Feb 2007, 04:06
Hmmmm this seem to have dropped out of sight but here goes again;
Been waiting for this to appear on the website to save me typing it out the hard way.

It is IMHO the final word on the fallacy of "see and be seen" in the modern environment at least the one that I work in.

See-And-Avoid A Dangerous Way To Separate High- and Low-Performance Aircraft

Jan 17, 2007
By Patrick Veillette, Ph.D./Business & Commercial Aviation


The smoke plume on the east side of Los Angeles on the afternoon of Aug. 31, 1986, was clearly visible from the balcony of our apartment adjacent to LAX. The local news was reporting that an airliner had crashed into the suburb of Cerritos. My roommates, all Los Angeles-based pilots from a half dozen airlines, stood on the balcony watching that sick black plume rise. No one said the obvious, that the dark column marked the place of death for many.

We subsequently learned that a pilot of a Piper PA-28 had errantly wandered into what is now Class B airspace without a clearance and without an operative altitude encoding transponder. The flight crew of the Aeromexico DC-9 had only the slimmest of chances to spot and avoid the Cherokee, and unfortunately luck wasn't with them on that day. When the NTSB finalized its report, it found limitations with the "see-and-avoid concept to ensure traffic separation" as a contributing factor to the disaster that took 82 lives.

That inflight collision was eerily reminiscent of another eight years earlier when a Pacific Southwest Airlines Boeing 727 lost sight of a Cessna 172 while on approach to San Diego's Lindbergh Field. The flight crew of the fast moving 727 lost sight of the Cessna and thought they had actually passed the slower aircraft. Unfortunately they had not and 138 people died in the collision that followed. A photograph of the last moments of the 727's dive serve as a gut-wrenching reminder of the inadequacy of eyeballs as a primary collision avoidance tool.

On Jan. 15, 1987, a Mooney M20 pilot was practicing holding patterns near the extended approach path into Salt Lake International Airport and inadvertently entered SLC's airport radar service area. Approach Control wasn't receiving an altitude read-out from the Mooney's transponder and unfortunately the practice holding pattern roughly coincided with the traffic pattern for Salt Lake City Municipal No. 2 Airport, a general aviation facility located roughly six miles to the south of SLC, thus adding further confusion as to the exact location of the Mooney. At the same time a SkyWest SA-227 Metroliner was being vectored to the final approach course for SLC, its pilots attempting to locate traffic pointed out by ATC. Despite the good weather, the Metro pilots never spotted the Mooney because the two aircraft collided over Kearns, Utah, raining aircraft parts on the residential neighborhood and killing the 10 people aboard the two aircraft but somehow avoiding any loss of life or injury to people on the ground.

Just five days later, a U.S. Army U-21 King Air collided with a Piper Chieftain near Independence, Mo. Six people died in that crash. The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the failure of radar controllers to detect the conflict and to issue traffic advisories or a safety alert to the flight crew of the U-21, and the inadequate vigilance of the pilots. However, the Safety Board also cited deficiencies of the see-and-avoid concept as a primary means of collision avoidance, and the lack of automated redundancy in the air traffic control system to provide conflict detection between participating and nonparticipating traffic.

Shortly thereafter, the NTSB recommended the FAA "expedite development, certification and production of various low-cost proximity warning and conflict detection systems for use aboard general aviation aircraft."

Unfortunately, that recommendation was still unrealized when five years later, on Sept. 11, 1992, an MU-2 pilot attempting to pick up an IFR clearance while departing VFR from Greenwood (Ind.) Municipal Airport, collided with a Piper Saratoga inbound for the same airport. The controller pointed out the Greenwood airport to the PA-32's pilot when the aircraft was approximately three miles out, at which time VFR radar service was terminated. The MU-2 had just departed the airport and asked ATC for his IFR clearance to CMH. The controller looked away from the radar screen to locate the proper flight progress strip and did not see the fast-moving turboprop depart from Greenwood. The controller then issued a squawk code and altitude to establish radar identification. It was during those seconds that the incoming PA-32 and outbound MU-2 collided. The Mitsubishi pilot and four passengers and the Saratoga pilot were killed. Two people on board the Piper were seriously injured.

The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was "the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept of the separation of aircraft operating under VFR that precluded the pilots from recognizing a collision hazard and taking actions to avoid the collision." The report concluded that the accident "again underscores the need for low-cost proximity warning and conflict detection systems for use aboard general aviation aircraft."

Now, 20 years have passed since the NTSB issued its original recommendation to expedite development, certification and production of low-cost proximity warning and conflict detection systems for general aviation. And while some systems are in place, "see-and-avoid" remains the primary means of separation between high-performance turbine and low-performance general aviation aircraft sharing the same airspace.

While a "Mode C veil" has been erected 30 nm around Class B airports that seems effective at preventing inflight collisions there, a system-wide solution for preventing collisions in other airspace, especially where high-performance turbine aircraft mix with lower performance general aviation aircraft, has yet to be implemented.

In the meantime, the wreckage continues to pile up. On April 4, 1998, a Cessna CE525 collided with a Cessna 172 over Marietta, Ga., killing five. On June 23, 2000, a Learjet 55 collided with an Extra 300S over the busy skies of Boca Raton, Fla.; four people died as a result. On Oct. 17 of that same year, a Gulfstream GIII collided with a King Air C90 while both aircraft were on approach to Van Nuys (Calif.) Airport; the pilots managed to land their aircraft without injury to anyone aboard. Most recently, a Hawker 800XP descending into Reno collided with a Schleicher ASW-27 sailplane near Minden, Nev., a popular soaring location. Somewhat miraculously the glider pilot managed to parachute to safety and the crew of the damaged Hawker was able to execute a single-engine, gear-up emergency landing at the nearby Carson City Airport. Everybody walked away.

FAR Part 91.113 places the responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft squarely on the pilot, stating, "When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under IFR or VFR, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft."

Using this regulatory precedent, the NTSB has found "failure to see and avoid, inadequate visual lookout, or failure to maintain visual and physical clearance" as the probable cause in 94 percent of the inflight collisions. The Safety Board can keep issuing such causal statements, but that won't change the underlying problem that the see-and-avoid concept isn't reliable as a primary or even secondary means of separating traffic.

Harold Marthinsen, former director of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) safety engineering department, asks, "Do pilots really need a regulation telling them to avoid midair collisions? Pilots have a self-vested interest in preventing that from occurring. It is publications like the FAA's Advisory Circular on collision avoidance that help perpetuate the idea that all you have to do is pay attention, look out the windshield, and you won't have a midair collision. Rather, the FAA should be telling pilots how dangerous the see-and-avoid concept really is as a means of separating aircraft."

See-and-avoid involves a number of steps, all of which are inherently prone to error. First, the pilot must be looking outside the aircraft. Second, pilots must search the visual field and detect objects of interest, most likely with their peripheral vision. Next, the object must be looked at directly so it can be identified as an aircraft. If the aircraft is identified as a collision threat, the pilot must decide what evasive action to take and then follow through correctly and in a timely fashion.

So how well does the concept work? According to Craig Morris of the DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, each year there are an average of 15.6 midair collisions in U.S. civil aviation, and that number may only hint at the scope of the problem. In an average year, NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) receives approximately 577 pilot reports of near in-flight collisions between various types of aircraft. Specifically with regard to business jets, the FAA's near midair collision (NMAC) database included 226 NMAC reports filed by pilots of business jets for a recent 10-year period. In addition, the ASRS database for the same 10-year period had 806 reports of near midair collisions involving business jets. Just how close did some of the aircraft approach each other in these reports? Half of the reported incidents had a separation of less than 500 feet; some were even closer than that. And those are just the reported events. We really don't know how many close calls went unreported or how many pilots were simply unaware of a near disaster.

Those of us who fly the line don't need a bunch of statistics to tell us that flying into Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket (or Santa Monica, Van Nuys, etc.) on a VFR summer weekend is akin to running a gauntlet.

Writing in Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal of the Aerospace Medical Association, Morris held that "The 'see-and-avoid' concept has considerable physical and behavioral limitations such that pilots cannot reliably see and avoid conflicting traffic." A panel of reviewers would not permit an author to make such a statement unless it was backed by a preponderance of respected scientific research. Morris is among many respected aviation authorities who have expressed concerns regarding the limitations of the see-and-avoid concept.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau issued a lengthy research report entitled "Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle" that stated, "Numerous limitations, including those of the human visual system, the demands of cockpit tasks, and various physical and environmental conditions, combine to make see-and-avoid an uncertain method of traffic separation." In addition, the Australian Bureau of Air Safety Investigation stated that "see-and-avoid is completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for scheduled services."

Marthinsen stated in the International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI) Forum (December 1989) that "See-and-avoid was originally a maritime concept developed for slow moving ships that is now out of place in an era of high-speed aviation." He went on to say that "No one is suggesting that see-and-avoid is not a useful tool for general aviation airplanes operating at uncontrolled airports -- it's the only thing available, and it works most of the time in this environment for which it was adapted. But it should not be relied upon to separate high-performance aircraft from lower performance general aviation aircraft -- a situation for which it was not designed."

There is a big difference between seeing an object under laboratory conditions vs. detecting another aircraft on a possible collision course out in "the real world." The NTSB considers 0.2 degrees as the threshold angle for detection (that is, the viewer could detect an object 20 feet wide at a distance of one mile -- Ed.), although Marthinsen says that figure should be increased by a factor of two or three for targets with low contrast or difficult patterns. The former ALPA director believes no one minimum visual angle can be specified because none can accommodate all variety of conditions such as haze, visible moisture or smoke. He noted that many visual acuity studies were done under favorable light conditions and with the subject staring directly at the object, in which case the image is focused directly on the fovea of the eye. The fovea contains the majority of the eye's cones and is responsible for the sharp vision we use in daylight conditions. If an object is six degrees from the fovea, that is, six degrees off a direct line by the viewer, it would have to be twice the size of an object directly in line in order to be detected. The threshold acuity drops off very rapidly for objects placed at angles away from the fovea. Further, all of these theoretical studies were conducted with fixed targets and viewers, never in motion.

FAA Advisory Circular 90-48C provides military-derived data on the time required for a pilot to recognize an approaching aircraft and then execute an evasive maneuver. The calculations do not include search times but assume that the target has been detected. The total time to recognize an approaching aircraft, recognize a collision course, decide on action, execute the control movement and allow the aircraft to respond is estimated to be around 12.5 seconds. Therefore, to have a good chance of avoiding a collision, a conflicting aircraft must be detected at least 12.5 seconds prior to the time of impact. It should also be noted that this study is over-optimistic for aircraft reaction time because the military study was in reference to agile fighter aircraft. The higher inertia and lesser maneuverability of civilian transports would add considerably to aircraft reaction time. The NTSB has used 15 seconds as the absolute minimum time for detection, evaluation and evasive action if the collision is to be avoided. Other studies suggest somewhat higher values.

Target detection is primarily a function of target size and target contrast, with size being, by far, the more important parameter in the ability to detect other aircraft. Unfortunately business jets and general aviation aircraft are on the "small" side of this spectrum and thus would be very difficult to see at sufficient distances to avoid a collision.

Detecting a target at jet speeds leaves very little time to see and avoid. For example, a jet descending at roughly 400 knots groundspeed covers 1.39 nm in 12.5 seconds. Let's say that the intersecting general aviation aircraft is on a roughly perpendicular flight path, thereby presenting more surface area to be detected and making it easier to see. Both the visual angle and its rate of change remain very small until imminent impact. At seven seconds to impact, a 40-foot-long aircraft would subtend only a 0.5-degree angle, which is still very small.

Walton Graham and Robert H. Orr, in a research paper entitled "Separation of Air Traffic by Visual Means: An Estimate of the Effectiveness of the See-and-Avoid Doctrine" and published in Proceedings of the IEEE (Volume 58, 1970) stated, "As speed increases, the effectiveness of 'see-and-avoid' greatly decreases. It is estimated that see-and-avoid prevents 97 percent of possible collisions at closing speeds of between 101 and 199 knots but only 47 percent when the closing speed is greater than 400 knots."

Morris continues, "Pilots can find it physically impossible to see converging traffic, especially when climbing or descending. Also, because human information processing is biased toward detection of contrast and sudden change, the small, motionless, camouflaged target projected by a rapidly converging aircraft is difficult to detect within the random and narrow window of opportunity to see it."

The human visual system is particularly attuned to detecting movement but is less effective at detecting stationary objects. Unfortunately, an aircraft on a collision course will usually appear to be a stationary object in the pilot's visual field. From each pilot's point of view, the converging aircraft will grow in size while remaining fixed at a particular point in the windscreen.

FAA Advisory Circular 90-48C recommends scanning the entire visual field outside the cockpit with eye movements of 10 degrees or less to ensure detection of conflicting traffic. The FAA estimates that approximately one second is required at each fixation. Thus, to scan an area 180 degrees horizontal and 30 degrees vertical could take 54 such fixations at one second each. A jet descending at an approximate groundspeed of 360 knots would cover roughly six miles per minute, so a pilot who faithfully follows the procedure exactly as spelled out in the Advisory Circular would see an entirely different kind of scene before completing the scan. Marthinsen has a rather negative opinion of the FAA scanning technique, stating, "It is incompatible with the physiological capability of the human eye. The time it would take to scan is substantially longer than the time available to see-and-avoid in many of the midair collision accidents."

Do pilots practice the recommended scanning pattern? According to research cited in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's report, "Visual scans tend to be unsystematic, with some areas of the visual field receiving close attention while other areas are neglected. Areas of the sky around edges of the windscreens are generally scanned less than the sky in the center, and saccades [motion of eye between fixations -- Ed.] may be too large, leaving large areas of unsearched space between fixation points."

Furthermore, researchers have known for many years that in the absence of visual cues, the eye will focus at a relatively short distance. In an empty field such as a limitless blue sky, the eye will focus at around 56 centimeters (1.8 feet). This effect is known as "empty field myopia" and can reduce the chance of identifying a distant object. Because the natural focus point is around a half meter (1.6 feet) away, it requires an effort to focus at greater distances, particularly in the absence of visual cues.

A U.S. study in 1976 found that private pilots on VFR flights spend about 50 percent of their time in outside traffic scan during cruise flight, although this drops off to 40 percent during departure and approach. Even motivated pilots under ideal conditions frequently fail to sight conflicting traffic. A research project conducted by John W. Andrews of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory involved 24 general aviation pilots flying a Beech Bonanza on a VFR cross country. The pilots were not aware that their aircraft would be intercepted several times by a Cessna 421 flying a near-collision course. The pilots spotted 36 out of 64 encounters, a 56-percent detection rate. Keep in mind that this study involved comparatively low-speed traffic operating under ideal detection conditions. The MIT study concluded that the ability of pilots to detect aircraft on near-collision courses is not great.Capt. Harry Orlady, a well-respected human factors researcher and former United Air Lines pilot, published a paper with the National Research Council estimating that airline pilots spend about 20 percent of their time in outside scan. A United-ALPA study of airline crews determined that "no one is looking during climb at least 62 percent of the time and 52 percent of the time during descent."

cont'd

gaunty
6th Feb 2007, 04:08
Part the twoth


Earl Wiener, Ph.D., professor of management science and industrial engineering at the University of Miami, Florida, found that pilots whose aircraft are equipped with glass cockpits spend more "head down" time, particularly at low altitudes, as they interact with their flight management systems. These findings were also confirmed in a study (written by yours truly) published in the Transportation Research Record, a peer-reviewed journal of the National Research Council. That study concluded that pilots of automated cockpits, especially during high workload periods in terminal airspace, had a lower likelihood than pilots flying "steam gauges" of detecting aircraft on a collision course.

The increase of inside-the-cockpit duties (such as programming FMSes, running checklists and adjusting systems) has an additional negative effect on the see-and-avoid principle. The human eye is brought into focus by muscle movements, which change the shape of the eye lens. It takes time for the eyes to refocus from viewing objects inside the cockpit to those outside. This process is called "accommodation."

A young person will typically require about one second to accommodate to a stimulus; however, the speed and degree of accommodation decreases with age, which is a separate issue from the general degradation in visual acuity that often occurs with aging. Of further concern is the increased time required for accommodation as a pilot becomes fatigued.

The average person has a visual field of about 190 degrees, although field of vision varies from person to person and is generally greater for females than males. The field of vision begins to contract after age 35, and in males, this reduction accelerates markedly after 55 years of age.

A number of transient and psychological conditions such as vibration, fatigue, hypoxia or, more than likely, cockpit workload can cause the effective field of vision to contract even further. Experiments conducted at the NASA Ames Research Center indicated that a concurrent task could reduce pilot eye movements by up to 60 percent.

The small visual angle of an approaching aircraft may make it impossible for a pilot to detect the aircraft in time to take evasive action. Since thin wings on aircraft such as gliders are almost invisible when viewed from ahead or behind, such an aircraft must approach even closer before it presents a target of detectable size. In a special study conducted by MIT's Lincoln Lab for the NTSB's investigation of the 1986 Cerritos accident, the estimated probability of visual acquisition of a general aviation aircraft with one pilot looking out the cockpit is just under 20 percent at a range of just one mile.

Further limiting the ability of pilots to see and avoid is the design of flight deck windows. Most cockpits severely limit the pilot's field of view. Obstructions to vision can include window posts, instrument and annunciator panels, glareshields, sun visors, eyeglass rims, windscreen bug splatter, windscreen imperfections, wings and the pilot beside you. Obstructions will not only mask some of the view completely, but will result in certain areas of the outside world being visible to only one eye, making it less likely to be detected. The eye has a natural blind spot at the point where the optic nerve exits the eyeball. Under normal conditions of binocular vision, the blind spot is not a problem as the area of the visual field falling on the blind spot of one eye will still be visible to the other eye.

However, if the view from one eye is obstructed (such as by a window post), then objects in the blind spot of the remaining eye will be invisible. Bearing in mind that an aircraft on a collision course appears stationary in the visual field, the blind spot could potentially mask a conflicting aircraft. The blind spot covers a visual angle of about five degrees horizontal, which is roughly 18 meters (59 feet) at a distance of 200 meters (656 feet), or enough to obscure a Hawker. A second undesirable effect of a window post or similar obstruction is that it can draw the point of focus inward, resulting not only in blurred vision but distorted perception of size and distance.
When the size of a target becomes large enough, a pilot may see the target, if he is looking directly in that direction. Assuming a pilot has adequate visual acuity and adequate vision outside of the cockpit, there are still many reasons limiting his ability to see another aircraft on a collision course.

Detecting traffic can be difficult because aircraft usually appear against complex backgrounds of clouds or terrain. The human eye is very attuned to detecting borders between objects, but in the absence of contours, the visual system rapidly loses efficiency.

So would painting all aircraft bright orange help pilots spot traffic? Not really. The color of an aircraft is less important than the aircraft's contrast, that is its difference in brightness with its background, and it's one of the major determinants of detectability. Contrast also involves reflectivity, background complexity and atmospheric visibility. A good example of contrast is the black letters on a white eye chart. With good lighting the letters can be easily observed in a doctor's office. However, out in the real world, identifying a target is much more difficult when an aircraft is viewed against the background of a city. A dark aircraft will be seen best against a light background, such as bright sky, while a light-colored aircraft will be most conspicuous against a dull background such as a forest. Contrast is further reduced when small particles of haze scatter light. Not only does haze scatter some light away from the observer, but it also scatters some light from the aircraft so that it appears to originate from the background, while light from the background is scattered into the eye's image of the aircraft.
In addition, glare can come directly from the light source or can take the form of veiling glare, reflected from crazing or dirt on the windscreen.

Furthermore, a pilot's age will affect his tolerance for glare. In general, older pilots will be more sensitive to glare.
TCAS was obviously motivated by the tragic accidents stemming from the limitations of the see-and-avoid concept. Those who have flown with TCAS know what a tremendous tool it can be. A common anecdotal observation by many colleagues is that without TCAS, they would miss the majority of traffic that would approach their aircraft at a close range. Human factors research noted by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found that a traffic search in the absence of traffic information (i.e., no ATC alert, no TCAS TA) is less likely to be successful than a search where traffic information has been provided because knowing where to look greatly increases the chance of sighting the traffic. In fact, traffic alerts were found to increase search effectiveness by a factor of eight.

Providing additional evidence to the efficacy of TCAS-like advisories was the MIT Lincoln Laboratory study cited earlier. The same pilots in the study were given "TCAS-type" advisories as a second part of the research project. In this trial, 57 of the 66 encounters were acquired visually (as opposed to 36 out of 64 encounters without the TCAS-like advisory), with the median range of acquisition being 1.4 nm.

Has TCAS II been a successful factor in preventing collisions? Absolutely. In fact, TCAS II was cited as a factor in detecting and avoiding further loss of separation in 78 percent of reported NMACs in a recent 10-year period. Fifty-nine percent of the reported NMACs involved a resolution advisory from a TCAS II. However, like any warning system, it could not be designed to be absolutely effective in every situation. Fifteen percent of the business jets involved in NMACs were not equipped with TCAS II. In 8 percent of the ASRS reports, the "target aircraft" was not ordinarily equipped with an altitude encoding transponder. TCAS will not provide maximum protection from inflight collisions unless and until all aircraft are equipped with Mode C transponders or its equivalent.

Given the many limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, what must be done to ensure sufficient separation between high-performance and light, general aviation aircraft sharing the same airspace? Arguably, a multilayered protective system is needed in case one or two layers fail, and by design it should offset the fallibility of the see-and-avoid concept. This conclusion isn't my opinion, but rather stems from recommendations from respected organizations and authorities. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's report stated, "Unalerted see-and-avoid has a limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds, but is not sufficiently reliable to warrant a greater role in the air traffic system. Australia's Bureau of Air Safety Investigation considers that see-and-avoid is completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for high-speed jet traffic."The separation of high-performance traffic from low-performance traffic has been previously suggested in the United States. In the aftermath of the MU-2/PA-32 accident near Greenwood, Ind., the NTSB suggested that "consideration should be given to establishing entry and departure corridors for high-performance airplanes that are separate from low-performance airplanes at uncontrolled airports."

Airspace separation would be just one layer in a multilayered remedy. "While visual scanning is necessary to prevent midair collisions, it is not sufficient," said the DOT's Morris, who continued, "Potential mitigation strategies include reliable altitude encoding transponders activated at all times in all aircraft, and affordable and reliable collision avoidance technologies in all general aviation aircraft, as the NTSB recommended in 1987."

In today's era of GPS precision, digital cockpits and synthetic vision, the fact that we still depend on the old, fallible "Mark VIII eyeball" to avoid midair collisions is confounding and dangerous. The rate of inflight collisions isn't likely to improve markedly until we get serious about implementing technological and procedural remedies to address this serious, continuing hazard.

And what Chuckles said.

J430
6th Feb 2007, 04:14
Chuck,

I have had this debate with Dick privately, and I have posted on here in a similar manner, so here is my bottom of the aviation food chain opinion.

Anything that flies should have a minimum Mode C Transponder and we should all be going for 100% ADSB as was being promoted last year. And the GA fleet being equipped by the savings in Radar installation and repairs being avoided.

All things that fly......OK Pelicans, crows and sparrows are exempt!:p

If I can have it in my plastic bug smasher, so can everyone else. Gliders RAA GA and RPT. Its not that expensive and when GA is subsidised for ADSB its a no brainer.

OK.......hard hat on.....into my bunker!:}

J

OZBUSDRIVER
6th Feb 2007, 05:35
J430, agree with u mate:ok: However, I would believe that Dick doesn't like your view on ADS-B. If Dick would so wish, he could have his cake an eat it if he promoted ADS-B with integrated MFD in all RPT aircraft. ADS-B will work outside radar coverage or even outside ADS ground coverage for that matter. Flat earthers believe that an ADS-B unit with traffic will distract an airman from looking out the window. I disagree, the result will be opposite. Alerted to traffic, you will look in the direction indicated for visual contact.

Standby, only a minimum of 5 months until the next Federal election:}

Just to add, TCAS is terribly expensive, ADS-B isn't!

peuce
6th Feb 2007, 06:04
In a perfect world, yes, you would have to agree that having TCAS is better than not having it.

However, when you bring in a cost-benefit analysis ... and compare the chances of Australian ATC cocking it up as against India's record ... perhaps the figures don't add up.

J430
6th Feb 2007, 06:14
OZBUSDRIVER

thanks for that, it just makes sense, and if the GA fleet had the gear provided I would even fit it myself, (I can) and when there is a local manufacturer who has it developed and ready to go its just crazy not to.

Whats more this locally owned and locally made product actually gives you the ADSB out and in, it means Mr Bugsmasher like me can also have the traffic display like the RPT boys for not much more $$$ if we so desired.

I really fail to see any valid excuse for not doing it. None whatsoever, in fact i am that one minded on the topic now, I could almost become adament we should do it.

For those who have not looked lately go here and have a read of what is actually ready for market, or almost ready.

http://www.microair.com.au/admin/uploads/T2000ADSB_T2000GPS_Spec_Rev2.pdf

Cheers
J:ok:

desmotronic
6th Feb 2007, 06:46
Does CASA intend to make ADSB with cockpit display mandatory for RPT aircraft?

tobzalp
6th Feb 2007, 06:55
Every thing that flies should have a radio, transponder, ADSB and TCAS. Everything. Paid for by the owner. The End.

J430
6th Feb 2007, 06:55
They Should

J:ok:

Chimbu chuckles
6th Feb 2007, 07:08
Tobzalp does that include Tiger Moths operating out of bumfeck Taswegia?

What about croppies at Wee Waa?

Sea Planes in the GBR marine park and Canadian wilderness?

Helicopers on trawlers?

Twin Otters, Islanders and cessna singles in the jungles of PNG, Africa and South America?

What about a privately owned Cessna 172 or Cherokee 180 that operates 99% of it's life in G airspace below 5000' miles from anywhere that has a Hicap RPT service...Iron Range for instance?

My Bonanza, which occassionally operates in Class C under an airways clearance and on a full flight plan has ADF,VOR,DME,GPS,Mode C and two transceivers...and now you're telling me I shold fit, at my own expence, equipment that costs somewhere close to 50-70% of the value of the actual aircraft so AsA can save millions...and for what again?

The airliners and ATC can already see me and talk to me... I don't exist to benefit the CEO of AsAs bank balance.

I think ADSB is great technology...it can save AsA huge money over many, many years while providing tangible safety benefits....but I'll be fecked if I am going to subsidise this Govt anymore than I do already.

tobzalp
6th Feb 2007, 08:42
Yep.

_______________________

Jenna Talia
6th Feb 2007, 10:01
Jesus topzalp. You present such a compelling argument :rolleyes:

beaver_rotate
6th Feb 2007, 10:12
Dick:

You say airline A/C should be fitted with TCAS when their capacity is 10-30 PAX. Isn't the current legislation 36+ requires TCAS? What happens to A/C between 31-35 PAX then? I am not being smart, I am genuinely interested in your campaign would like to know if what I thought was right, is actually wrong? I agree with you TCAS should be mandatory, bring on ADSB! You only need to do some research to the lives saved in Alaska in the past 12 months to show that this technology is a lifesaver. And not from a traffic perspective, more CFIT. Cheers!

BR

gaunty
6th Feb 2007, 10:15
Chuckles me old. :)
In my part of the world where I guess maybe more than 60% of the hours and revenue is earned we mostly operate high performance aircraft (with TCAS) and gaggles of 19-30 seat Dash 8, Braz, Metro and B1900 (I expect with TCAS???) into often superb mining strips surrounded by many others in close proximity also populated by the charter 210's, 310's and Chieftains over and surrounded by the pastoral areas alive with mustering types in the season and the usual mix of C172 etc commuting into Karratha, Hedland Broome, Carnarvon for the mail and groceries.

And dont even get me started on the RPTs into Kalgoorlie, Broome et al.

All talking to Melbourne and Brisbane and each other and all arriving and departing within a 60 or so minute period at each end of the day.

No probs amongst themselves, it's the latterthe aircraft that puddle around in "G" 99% of the time that gets the pucker factor waaaaaay up there.
It looked for a while like they were going to get ADSB at a highly subsidised rate that would have solved ALL our problems but something happened along the way.

Now if you were to subsidise Transponders for these blokes, and they are a sight cheaper I suspect you would be a long way to home.

Which begs the question, what happened to the ADSB that I understood was the logical answer? I know we have had a long debate about it here but what was propsed seemed to make perfect sense to me for Australias unique aviation landscape. And I'm not talking about the J curve, its about the other 80% of Australia.

The US is a fair way along with NGATS.

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/ADS-B/

and then there is this;

http://www.faa.gov/and/and500/500/docs/TCAS_SAFETY_BULLETIN.pdf

Are newbies to this technology not in a solid structured mainline airline training system vis a vis the abovementioned FIFI operators going to need more training on TCAS than ADSB?

It seems there is no silver bullet.

J430
6th Feb 2007, 10:17
tobzalp

Chuckles has a very good point. Those who operate out of site of anyone else dont benefit from it, but sooner or later that a/c makes a trip to the big smoke for whatever reason, and then to fit into the system with maximum effectiveness it should have the gear fitted.

Now, if the big end of town want "protection" from any source, be it ATC or a cockpit display, AND the folk at ASA can save heaps of money, why not subsidise the GA fit out. Its not for the GA benefit in the main, its the ASA and big boys that benefit, the little bugsmasher just has to carry it.

Simple Really......dont know why so many intelligent folk argue against it!:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

J:ok:

OZBUSDRIVER
6th Feb 2007, 10:21
Chuck, your type of aircraft should be the typical example for an aircraft owner who should be subsidised for fitment of ADS-B. The croppy at Wee Waa would be useful for a RAAFie on a LJR. GBR traffic can be busy around some destinations with both rotor and floaty ops. The trawler could have one of Dick's boxes and would know at a glance where the chopper is. The 180 just might benefit if the full low level coverage is rolled out. Last known position recorded could mean the difference if he drops off the system. AS a safety tool ADS-B has a lot going for it. The perceived security concerns are a sidetrack issue. No demonstration has ever been attempted to produce multiple false returns. The issue of knowing where an aircraft is has more benefits than risks. A radio scanner is just as dangerous in the terminal area.

Cost wise, the benefit rests solely with ASA. ASA saves the money by not having to refurb/replace radar heads. The rollout of ADS-B is cheaper by millions of real dollars even by subsidising basic equipment for all or a majority of GA aircraft. We get a safety benefit and ASA saves money and gets a modern expandable system.

I would like to here from the crews who have used the system in action to actually post their experience to let us less fortunate types know what we are missing out on. The more information that is out there, the better. It has now been over four or five months since YPWR(edit), BKE and LRE have been in operation. Surely there is someone here flying BN-PH or SY-DN who has benefitted from the extra coverage.

To answer the first post. Why bother forcing expensive equipment on one small part of the industry for a very narrow benefit when with the use of savings and subsidy everyone can get a benefit. If ASA would pay for a basic fitment I would definitely jump for a 480 or similar with a bit (A LOT)of my own money to top off the cost of fitment.

Gaunty, I have differing opinions to you on law and bureaucracy. However, I am 100% in agreeance in what you are saying. Life does not end fifty miles either side of the Hume. Not only your FIFOs and corporate iron but the RFDS also gets a massive operational benefit

Chimbu chuckles
6th Feb 2007, 10:24
I agree Gaunty...my point is that while ADSB would be most excellent it would only be most excellent for a small % of aircraft in Australia and would REALLY benefit AsA 'cause they could save several motzas on infrastructure...that only exists because of the requirements of the big end of town.

Maybe before we go down the road tobzalp suggests we could simply mandate that all aircraft capable of getting in anyones way should have a transponder fitted (that sqawks a callsign), tested annually...and hotwired to the battery bus along with the fecking beacon.:ugh:

Anyone who fecks up sufficiently as to cause an airprox gets their licence ceremonially burnt in front of them and the ashes presented in a little urn with their (former) ARN engraved on it.

I think that would about fix it.

J430
6th Feb 2007, 11:22
Chuck

Few wines on board (and maybe you have too), but I cant say I disagree with you.

But bring on ADSB and with the in/out being potentially so affordable we could all benefit. I can assure you that many of us have had a close call at least once, even if we did not know it:eek: . Recently I was almost taken out by a C421 in class G, 3.5 miles from a CTAF 4miles from another, by a IFR talking to BNE coming out of C........and he did not get any traffic info on me (yes my transponder was on and working, I checked with BNE RAD) and had we both had ADSB displays, because we both would, and knowing who it was that nearly ran me down (ATPL big fella) we would have been much more aware and likely to have seen each other.

Now that is a personal close call, but how many others are even more serious?

We have the technology, not implimenting it is negligence by everyone.

Ok.....its bed time now.....nite!:zzz:

J:ok:

Scurvy.D.Dog
6th Feb 2007, 12:12
…. Tiger Moths operating out of bumfeck Taswegia? …. DH82’s outa Bumfeck Taswegia???? ….. more like thinning gerryhattricks wobbling around in CO2 creating Bonza’s, getting in everyone’s way.. :p :E
.
.
….. screen covered in claret now me thinks :} :O
.
.
.
.
…. just a wind up ol' cock ..... we lov ya chuckles ;) :ok:
.
.
.
.
.
.. as for the other stuff .....errrrm :suspect: ... anyone else smell poo :hmm:

Chimbu chuckles
6th Feb 2007, 12:41
:}

Not claret but almost snorted diet coke out my nose.:ok: :D

gaunty
6th Feb 2007, 13:39
Chuckles.

Ooooer, snort, coke and nose in the same sentence tsk. tsk. :=

OZBUSDRIVER

I have differing opinions to you on law and bureaucracy it would be a boring old world otherwise.:ok:

But that has always been the root of problem hasn't it. Politicians manipulated by people with personal agendas make the laws, bureaucrats hassled by the same people if the bureaucrats have a different usually well qualified because thats what we pay them to be, view.

And you put your finger right on it. If it works for the FIFO's and corporate iron and especially the RFDS :D :D :D :D it works for the real Australian aviation landscape, because they work in it 24/7.:D

TCAS came out of the high density radar environment and evolved into a really great tool for the enroute non radar environment in Australia and elsewhere, because the type of aircraft operating there generally originated their flights in a radar environment where transponders are mandatory and routinely checked for accuracy almost every flight if not every other.

Not so with Chuckles Deliverance country. :E :} and transponders are not much use to them that dont/wont go near a CTZ nor have any reason/desire to, whereas a hardwired ADSB benefits everyone equally. As for those with paranoid delusions about "big brother" is watching, I find a roll of Alfoil fashioned into a pointy cap makes the voices go away. :)

Neither system helps "visually see" the other aircraft any better, but either way it is better to have not seen and avoided than not seen at all. :rolleyes: It's Valentines Day soon you know.

And whilst I am at it and as a matter of interest only, is it the harsh nature of the Australian light that makes it difficult, because even with a screen full of non conflicting TCAS advisories I am buggered if I can find some of them at all. Does anyone know if the ADSB presentation is better?? This seeing business is not all its cracked up to be you know :}

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/MagooAndDog.jpg/180px-MagooAndDog.jpg

NGATS rocks. :ok:

Scurvy.D.Dog
6th Feb 2007, 19:12
.... I find a roll of Alfoil fashioned into a pointy cap makes the voices go away. ... new undies required :} :ooh: :\ :8 ..... ahhh dear ..... haven't laughed that hard in years :E :D

topdrop
6th Feb 2007, 19:42
I understand AsA's original proposal was that they would subsidise the fitting of ADSB to GA from the savings made by not replacing enroute radars. A certain large airline advised that they paid AsAs bills and as such they wanted the savings passed back to them, not used to fit GA with ADSB.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

SM4 Pirate
6th Feb 2007, 20:44
Could be true topdrop; we are 'restructuring' to make sure all the revenue from Regional Airspace and costs comes in and out of the same bucket.

The problem I have with ADS-B IN is that it doesn't work like a TCAS; yes you may see all those around you who are squitting (yes you can choose not to squit just like a transponder) but you have no idea about intentions.

The TCAS algorythms provide a buffer around the frame; can a pilot do the same just by looking at a cockpit traffic display; can the pilot adjust in the same manner as a TCAS to changes, when they are busy flying their own beast? We all know that TCAS is hopeless for 'traffic caputre/situational awareness', I suspect in the same way a a cockpit TDI will be equally useless for traffic avoidance (that said better than what you have now).

The issue here is cost benefit; where are the risks and what is the cost of those risks? Personally I'd like to fly on a TCAS equipped aircraft as SLF; but under the MEL what is the acceptable unserviceable time?

GaryGnu
6th Feb 2007, 22:28
OZBUSDRIVER,

The only benefits I have seen frm the ADS-B Upper Airspace Project (UAP) is a few less position reports to be made when going to/from Perth or Darwin.

The 5nm separation standard will only be available when all UAP ground stations come on line.

SM4 Pirate,

The TCAS MEL allows unservicability for 72hrs from midnight on the Day of discovery. TCAS cannot be unserviceable for planned flight throuhg E or G airspace.

Does that fill you with any more confidence.

That is a very interesting rumour about an airline claiming the savings realised by not replacing enoute SSR.:eek:

Dick Smith
6th Feb 2007, 22:56
Why is it that when I’m asking for Australia to introduce safety improvements that are well proven and relatively inexpensive, and have been mandatory in other modern aviation countries for 12 years, that virtually everyone goes completely off the track and talks about something that hasn’t even been invented yet?

Let me explain. If you get the latest Airbus or Boeing aircraft, people will claim that it is fully equipped with ADS-B. In fact, it is equipped with ADS-B ‘out’, but its sole method of receiving – i.e. showing on a cockpit display and giving a traffic or resolution advisory – is by TCAS.
No one has yet invented an ADS-B ‘in’ unit which is certified and gives the required voice calls.

Even the most advanced ADS-B (in relation to being proven) the US Capstone project has a display and no audio - you have to look down at it all of the time rather than looking out. Of course after three months of looking down and not seeing an aircraft, it is the aircraft that comes close that you hit.
Even TCAS I gives a traffic advisory, and you can simply look at the screen at that time, see where the traffic is, then look out and work out how to avoid it. With TCAS II, you get a full resolution advisory. This is existing, proven equipment that is not that expensive.

Why aren’t the AFAP, AIPA and GAPAN calling for the Government to at least accept this existing, proven system?

Airservices Australia is now going ahead with a contract in Tasmania, placing a multilateration system on the mountain tops. This works with standard Mode C and Mode S transponders. It does not need a rotating radar head and TCAS I and TCAS II will obviously work perfectly with the system.

There is no doubt that ADS-B will come in one day – I’m told it is at least a decade away. At the present time we have excellent, proven TCAS which is not even required in Australia when it would be overseas. I understand there are some 190 airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers flying in Australia which are not equipped. This is outrageous.

Please do not get off the track and talk about things which are not yet certified – let’s use a proven system.

I will look forward to seeing press releases from the three organisations calling for the Government to at least catch up with the rest of the world before trying to lead the rest of the world.

Beaver rotate, CAR 262AC states:

After 31 December 1999, the pilot in command of an Australian aircraft that is a turbine-powered commercial aeroplane must not begin a flight if the aircraft is not fitted with an approved TCAS II that is serviceable. To find out what this means, have a look at CAR 262AA (definitions):

turbine-powered commercial aeroplane means a large-capacity aeroplane that: (a) is propelled by turbojet, turbofan, or turboprop engines; and (b) is being used, for hire or reward, to carry passengers, cargo or both.
Large-capacity aeroplane means an aeroplane that: (a) has a maximum take-off weight of more than 15,000 kg; or (b) is permitted by its type certificate to have a passenger seating capacity of more than 30 seats. In short, commercial jet or turboprop aircraft of 30 passengers or more are required to have TCAS II.

Shitsu_Tonka
6th Feb 2007, 23:14
Uhm, .... oh forget it.

[goes to a happy place]

Capn Bloggs
6th Feb 2007, 23:21
A certain large airline advised that they paid AsA's bills and as such they wanted the savings passed back to them, not used to fit GA with ADSB.

Fair enough too! User pays, eh Dick?!

GaryGnu
Say I pay $400m to my service provider because that's what it cost them to provide the service. Now the service provider finds some new technology so he can provide the service for only $200m. Why should I keep paying the service provider $400m? Or in this case, why should I continue to pay $400m so that $200m can be used to pay for gadgets for other pilots/aircraft? If those gadgets are deemed necessary, then the taxpayer pays, not me.

TCAS cannot be unserviceable for planned flight throuhg E or G airspace.
Who said?

gaunty
7th Feb 2007, 02:06
topdrop

I understand AsA's original proposal was that they would subsidise the fitting of ADSB to GA from the savings made by not replacing enroute radars. A certain large airline advised that they paid AsAs bills and as such they wanted the savings passed back to them, not used to fit GA with ADSB.

Assuming those savings actually go to their bottom line, they will not even come close to the cost incurred when one of their 19-30 pax aircraft gets taken out by one of Chuckles aforementioned Taswegian bumfeck ??

Any road if you read my posts carefully you'll see that I don't actually have a problem with mandatory TCAS for ALL PUBLIC transport aircraft including up to 9 pax BUT to complete the safety circle EVERYBODY that they are likely to encounter whilst airbourne MUST unless I am missing something, must have a serviceable and operating transponder including airspace which currently does not require it?? The big sky theory does not cut it when they approach an uncontrolled mining airstrip or well travelled nav point.

So if we are going to demand TCAS we must also demand TCAS for ALL public transport aircraft right down to the C210 and universal transponders for ALL aircraft.

For those who dont fully understand the WA/NT mining ops environment I believe a day or three spent jumpseating might help.

Our friend Capn Bloggs would be delighted to accomodate you I'm sure.
And FYI http://www.faa.gov/asd/ads-b/06-07-02_ADS-B-Overview.pdf
And yup it may not be ready right now but the FAA are leading the way so the manufacturers CAN make the provisions. And if my memory serves me correctly AsA are of the same view.
In any event it is a perfect solution for Australia unique aviation architecture.

GaryGnu
7th Feb 2007, 03:06
Captain Bloggs,
I was merely expressing surprise at having heard such a rumour here. I would have thought it may come out in other fora first.
All the major domestic airlines in this country operate into Non Controlled and/or Non radar aerodromes where the benefits of ADS-B and CDTI can be realised. If I recall correctly we would need ADS-B Out equippage rates in the GA fleet close to that of current VHF Radio (around 90%).
For a major airline to ignore such benefits is short sighted but is really just the logical extension of user pays I suppose.
The restriction on unserviceable TCAS in E or G airspace is a straight lift from the MEL that my lot operate under.

Howard Hughes
7th Feb 2007, 03:26
I understand there are some 190 airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers flying in Australia which are not equipped.
This is alarmist and WRONG!! Where do you get your figures?

I can give you the registrations of 54 aircraft that are not required to have TCAS but do! And there must be many many more that I don't know of!http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/shakinghead.gif

Even the most advanced ADS-B (in relation to being proven) the US Capstone project has a display and no audio - you have to look down at it all of the time rather than looking out. Of course after three months of looking down and not seeing an aircraft, it is the aircraft that comes close that you hit.
Even TCAS I gives a traffic advisory, and you can simply look at the screen at that time, see where the traffic is, then look out and work out how to avoid it. With TCAS II, you get a full resolution advisory. This is existing, proven equipment that is not that expensive.

Do you even know how airlines use TCAS as part of their SOP's? If it get's to a traffic, or resolution advisory, the crew were not doing their job effectively and would require a written report!

I have been saved many times by TCAS without a traffic or resolution advisory! Simply by knowing the whereabouts of another aircraft helps you to avoid it. You do not need to know it's direction of travel nor it's intentions to be able to take safe early avoidance action.
Now as these situations are not 'near misses', nor do they require a written report as no audible alert was sounded, I cannot support my theory with factual data, but ask any airline pilot who regularly arrives at airports in G airspace and I am sure they will have similar stories.

In my opinion an aircraft fitted with ADSB, even without an audible warning, would still increase both situational awareness and safety ten fold!:ok:

PS: Please do not bother AFAP, they are busy negotiating me a long overdue pay rise.;)

Dick Smith
7th Feb 2007, 22:57
Howard Hughes, you state:

I have been saved many times by TCAS without a traffic or resolution advisory If this is so, why aren’t you coming out in support of Australia following mandatory requirements which have been in place in other countries in the world for many years?

Yes, I agree that having a display is better than nothing, but in times of high workload in a small commuter airline aircraft, it has been shown that pilots cannot be guaranteed to refer to the TCAS screen all the time. That is why there are audio voice calls.

In relation to the number of 190 aircraft, I will check my figures and come back to you. I believe you will find that I’m pretty close to the mark – and even it if it only 160, surely that is serious. Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is not fitted with TCAS and is involved in a midair collision that could possibly have been prevented by the TCAS?

Scurvy.D.Dog
8th Feb 2007, 01:18
Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is not fitted with TCAS and is involved in a midair collision that could possibly have been prevented by the TCAS? ... of course not! .. equally the question could be asked :-
.
Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is fitted with TCAS and is involved in a midair collision that is the result of a GA ALT encoder that is 300ft out or not selected ON?, or
.
Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is not fitted with TCAS and is involved in a midair collision that could possibly have been prevented by the provision of VFR ATC traffic separation or DTI (not provided in E and G airspace)??, or
.
Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is not fitted with ADS-B and is involved in a midair collision that could possibly have been prevented by ADS-B subsidised fitment to all aircraft capable of powering the equipment?
.
... related to the thrust of your query, perhaps you might also clarify your position on the more important related issues i.e.
.
Do you support ATS Separation/segregation/Traffic services to RPT?
.
Do you support subsidised fitment of digital ADS-B (including integral digital encoders)?
.
.. perhaps you might send out a media statement to that effect, and explain how your current 'safety activism' is consistent with your previously related airspace mantra's :rolleyes:
.
.

Howard Hughes
8th Feb 2007, 01:31
If this is so, why aren’t you coming out in support of Australia following mandatory requirements which have been in place in other countries in the world for many years?
I will support anything that will enhance safety, but in this World of 'affordable safety', there needs to be a cut off point. Why not just mandate for all aircraft? Why not? Because there needs to be a cut off point, you yourself have chosen an arbitrarily decided figure of ten passengers. What about your family? Do they deserve a "lower prescribed level of safety", when flying with you? Do RAA (ultralight) pilots deserve a "lower prescribed level of safety", glider pilots? Balloon pilots? Homebuilts?

Furthermore I recently moved from an operator who was not required to fit TCAS, but did, to an operator who is not required to fit TCAS and doesn't! Guess what, I am now actively involved in advocating the fitment of TCAS to our aircraft. Now this may be a long uphill battle but I think I am worth it!

Now you might perceive this as hypocritical, but as far as regulatory reform is concerned, I would like to see our efforts put towards a system that will serve us well in the future and be compatible with our unique environment. I see a combination of TCAS, mode S and ADSB as the likely system and by the postings of others, I am not in the minority.

everyone goes completely off the track and talks about something that hasn’t even been invented yet?
Given your background I suspect that you are a lot closer to this than I, but surely it won't be long until suitable units are developed? Why not plan ahead and build a system that leads the world, why should we just blindly follow "all other modern aviation countries"?

This is obviously ridiculous, as companies such as Regional Express are making really good profits at the moment and could easily afford TCAS.I stand to be corrected but fairly sure that Rex have TCAS, may only be TCAS I, but it is TCAS, are these aircraft include in your 160? If yes I think your figure needs a considerable readjustment, like I said earlier, I can name 54 aircraft that are not required to have TCAS but do, which would further reduce your number to an almost insignificant amount.

From my experience the only aircraft in the 19-36 seat category that I have encountered that do not have TCAS are night freighters and even some of these do. Having experience late at night, I can categorically say they do not require TCAS! EGPWS certainly, but TCAS no! What happens to these aircraft? I suspect they would be included as the wording generally says 'capable of carrying 10 to 30 passengers' and these aircraft are certainly capable of that.

I think you should publically rescind your statement regarding 160-190 aircraft as I believe it is grossly inaccurate, unless of course you are willing to put forward the registrations of said aircraft for public scrutiny!!

Cheers, HH>:ok:

fixa24
8th Feb 2007, 10:26
TCAS relies on the other aircraft having a functional transponder selected in the "ON" position. You would be amazed, nay, shocked at the amount of aircraft i see launch every day without their transponder on. and this is in controlled airspace!!! what about farmer jim out at whoop whoop station, i'm sure he does a full and comprehensive run up and ensures transponder to ALT b4 take off..not.
TCAS is a flawed system, but it's all we can do. see and avoid does not work, ATSB have acknowledged this. so what can we do? is compulsory TCAS the answer dick? really? how many mid-airs have there really been that could have been prevented with this equipment on the aircraft class that your going on about?
I'm really not sure what your agenda is here dick. I'd agree with you 100% if you included the fact that ALL transponders must be hard wired to the master switch, so they can never be turned off. however, i don't think that this will happen. but until it does, TCAS is relying on farmer bob in his C152 to turn on his transponder when he goes to check on his dam which just happens to be under final to a remote airport...
Think about it, hey?

Capn Bloggs
8th Feb 2007, 11:37
Dick,

Since the powers that be have largely removed your "incredibly unsafe" E airspace, especially non-radar, the majority of 30 and under turborprops are no longer threatened by VFR off-freq higher flyers.

The main threat to my safety is you and your low level bugsmasher mates swanning around making broadcasts with their ears closed in MBZs. I have personally been concerned for the safety of me and my pax on three occasions in the last 18 months because of the stupid statement you had inserted in AIP "Direct Pilot to Pilot dialogue should be avoided where possible".

The only protection we have against these types is TCAS, and they don't have to have a transponder. YOU mandate transponders for the aircraft that will kill us, and we'll push for TCAS in the 30 seaters.

putytat
8th Feb 2007, 19:52
Dick,
It usually takes some time to understand the real motivations of your posts and the underlying reasons.
1. Federal election looming
2. ASA / AERU functions moving to CASA mid 2007.
3. NAS still Government policy and there is no better time to remind the policy makers of their policy than now (refer to point 1)
4. One major hurdle for NAS and especially for attempting Class E over D again, the lowering of Class E to FL145 and Class E corridors is unalerted see and avoid, and the associated risks that have no effective mitigation.
5. TCAS cannot be used as mitigation.:=
6. Your proposal for increased fitment of transponder and TCAS, would enable strong lobbying with policy makers (see point 1) to make new policies prior to point 2 occurring regarding the use of TCAS as risk mitigation. This lobbying can be especially effective when the newly formed CASA wing has little knowledge of past history.
7. TCAS becomes the saviour of the many risks associated with unalerted see and avoid.
8. All remaining NAS characteristics are implemented by the newly formed CASA following Government policy and mandate. Resistance from industry over safety concerns and cost benefit is futile.:ugh:
9. TCAS fitment and mitigation decreases the need for fast tracking any ADS-B in low level airspace as the cost argument could be used. The only solution would be for ASA / Government to pay for fitment 100%.

Chris Higgins
9th Feb 2007, 00:50
In adding my comments to this thread, I am actually surprised at the number of people agreeing with each other...and me with them.

Tobzalp, I think I actually agree with most of all. If it flies, it should have a transponder squawking a discreet code and a TCAD or TCAS capable of responding to a resolution advisory.
Why?
Because Australia doesn't have enough radar coverage and too many people these days have their heads down at g-whizz shiite in the cockpit.
Dick Smith Actually has a point about technology. We might benefit from ADSB on a broad scale in the future, but TCAS and transponders are both here and now.
I say mandate TCAS for all turbine operations due to high rates of closure and be done with it and TCAD for all piston.

Icarus2001
9th Feb 2007, 00:57
Dick you state...I understand there are some 190 airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers flying in Australia which are not equipped. This is outrageous.

Could you post the registration letters for us please? No? What about a rough grouping of types?

Chris Higgins
9th Feb 2007, 00:58
G'day Icarus!

J430
9th Feb 2007, 04:08
Hi Chris,

Not to be too picky, but I think I take the credit for the line about anything that flies!!!! page 1

Chuck,

I have had this debate with Dick privately, and I have posted on here in a similar manner, so here is my bottom of the aviation food chain opinion.

Anything that flies should have a minimum Mode C Transponder and we should all be going for 100% ADSB as was being promoted last year. And the GA fleet being equipped by the savings in Radar installation and repairs being avoided.

All things that fly......OK Pelicans, crows and sparrows are exempt!

If I can have it in my plastic bug smasher, so can everyone else. Gliders RAA GA and RPT. Its not that expensive and when GA is subsidised for ADSB its a no brainer.

OK.......hard hat on.....into my bunker!

J

Back to normal viewing

J:ok:

olderairhead
9th Feb 2007, 10:21
I sit, I logon, I read, I wonder and very rarely reply, but for once I cannot contain myself.
Mr Smith again!
If we all ignored his blatant baiting and failed to respond.......then maybe, just maybe he would go away.
Just a thought, and a very pleasant thought at that. :)
Have a nice night while I go and take my pink pill......................:zzz:

Scurvy.D.Dog
9th Feb 2007, 12:35
olderairhead …. to be sure …. It was a nice couple of months without his nibs usual gun slinging shots from the hip! .. I absolutely agree with you in principle, in practice … the insatiable need for grand standing is saving us all from being ambushed down the track with unnecessary buggerising around with old tech solutions and bad policy … here is an example of that awareness putytat
Dick,
It usually takes some time to understand the real motivations of your posts and the underlying reasons.
1. Federal election looming
2. ASA / AERU functions moving to CASA mid 2007.
3. NAS still Government policy and there is no better time to remind the policy makers of their policy than now (refer to point 1)
4. One major hurdle for NAS and especially for attempting Class E over D again, the lowering of Class E to FL145 and Class E corridors is unalerted see and avoid, and the associated risks that have no effective mitigation.
5. TCAS cannot be used as mitigation.
6. Your proposal for increased fitment of transponder and TCAS, would enable strong lobbying with policy makers (see point 1) to make new policies prior to point 2 occurring regarding the use of TCAS as risk mitigation. This lobbying can be especially effective when the newly formed CASA wing has little knowledge of past history.
7. TCAS becomes the saviour of the many risks associated with unalerted see and avoid.
8. All remaining NAS characteristics are implemented by the newly formed CASA following Government policy and mandate. Resistance from industry over safety concerns and cost benefit is futile.
9. TCAS fitment and mitigation decreases the need for fast tracking any ADS-B in low level airspace as the cost argument could be used. The only solution would be for ASA / Government to pay for fitment 100%. not much to be added there!! :D
.
…. even Chris is putting it together Tobzalp, I think I actually agree with most of all. If it flies, it should have a transponder squawking a discreet code... thats funny, remind me again what your view is on US airspace rules i.e. E and TXPDRS? .. on second thoughts no don't .. in any case, I agree in spirit, hard wire the TXPDR's to air switch ...cause you really do not want them transmitting when on the surface (clutters up traffic displays) in the future, ADS-B will deliver the ability to issue each aircraft a discrete code …. Mode A/C cannot give you enough codes to manage allocation with permanent skin codes ... ATS cannot issue all those A/C codes OCTA!! and a TCAD or TCAS capable of responding to a resolution advisory. .. ADS-B delivers the ability to have a TCAD picture and aural alerts if TCAS equipped!! …. that’s much better, modern and affordable than equipping with outdated and perhaps inaccurate Mode A/C and buying TCAS …no?Because Australia doesn't have enough radar coverage and too many people these days have their heads down at g-whizz shiite in the cockpit. …. Amen …. Dick Smith Actually has a point about technology. We might benefit from ADSB on a broad scale in the future, but TCAS and transponders are both here and now.Guess what, Oz is leading the way with WAMLAT … Solid state surveillance of A/C/S TXPDR's and does low and high level ADS-B as well … existing TXPSRS through to ADS-B …. sounds like catering for the now and the future … aoww bout that!:hmm: I say mandate TCAS for all turbine operations due to high rates of closure and be done with it and TCAD for all piston. …. Howbout:- Subsided ADS-B for all (give the jobs to Australian avionics companies), 'Out' boxes with digital encoder, easy future functionality expansion ('In' Traffic), ADS-B 'in' for RPT straight up, WAMLAT for F, D, C airspace .... AND the Gov’t require that the money saved on infrastructure (over RADAR), be allocated back the industry for as long as it takes to pay for ADS-B fitment!
.
.. The big end of town receive a realised safety benefit as a direct result of the efficiency of technology innovation .. lets not forget, the savings are already being made High Level, Regional/low level is next…. no refunds until it is paid for ....or, the little bloke writes a cheque on behalf of the Australian people NOW…. either way, given the huge safety increase at reasonable cost …. to do otherwise would be questionable … would it not?? :ooh: :suspect:
.
.. keyboards at ten paces is minimising negative impacts by identifying flawed argument in front of a wide cross section of industry and the people! …. reason enough to hope he continues ….. then again, one day soon he might work it out and go away! Just a thought, and a very pleasant thought at that. .. increase to flank :} ..... full steam ahead to the PNR :ok: :E

GaryGnu
9th Feb 2007, 23:14
The ICAO requirement from Jan 1 2005 is for ACAS II (read TCAS II) to be installed on any Turbine A/C with MTOW of 5,700kgs+ or 19+ Pax.

The US require 15,000kgs+ MTOW turbine powered a/c to have Mode S Transponder and TCAS II (Version 7). Aircraft with 10-30 pax require only TCAS I at a minimum.

Europe is in the process of complying with ICAO. Most states in Asia Pacific are ICAO compliant or are in the process of becoming so and yet Australia has no plan to do so.

The UK CAA identified that the cost of compliance with the ICAO standard for aircraft not yet fitted with ACAS/TCAS II would be between GBP 131,000 and 163,000.

Is an equivalent amount too costly for operators of 19-30 pax turbine a/c in this country? (This is a genuine question, not rhetorical)

Dick Smith
12th Feb 2007, 01:19
Icarus2001, the number of 190 airline aircraft that are not equipped with TCAS came to me from an industry source. Even if some aircraft are voluntarily fitted, I’m sure you will agree that it is quite an anomaly in Australian regulations.

Let’s say there are only 100 aircraft which do not have TCAS. Why should the passengers in these 100 aircraft fly to sub-standard safety rules compared to flying in other leading aviation countries?

Scurvy.D.Dog, you quote putytat (I believe) in stating:

5. TCAS cannot be used as mitigation. Who said so? Do you really accept that 1950s radio “calling in the blind” techniques can be used for mitigation, but modern and proven TCAS cannot be? Aren’t you getting mixed up with the fact that a small number of air traffic controllers in Australia do not want TCAS to be used as mitigation, as they believe that aircraft to aircraft safety devices are not in their best interests? Or do you have some other explanation as to why TCAS cannot be used for safety mitigation?

I agree that the mandatory radio “calling in the blind,” which we have in our CTAFs, has safety problems – but not as many as modern TCAS. What do you think?

tobzalp
12th Feb 2007, 01:38
Or do you have some other explanation as to why TCAS cannot be used for safety mitigation?

70 odd people with their bits strewn all over Lake Constance good enough reason for you?

squawk6969
12th Feb 2007, 02:02
Tobzalp
Quote:
Or do you have some other explanation as to why TCAS cannot be used for safety mitigation?
70 odd people with their bits strewn all over Lake Constance good enough reason for you?


If my memory serves me correct, TCAS worked.....ATC did not....:(
What are you suggesting?:confused:

Capn Bloggs
12th Feb 2007, 02:17
Dick,
a small number of air traffic controllers in Australia do not want TCAS to be used as mitigation, as they believe that aircraft to aircraft safety devices are not in their best interests?

You ARE joking, aren't you? If you really believe this (and your other theory about AsA bosses lining their pockets) you really do need to see someone.

I agree that the mandatory radio “calling in the blind,” which we have in our CTAFs, has safety problems – but not as many as modern TCAS.

And so do I. When ICAO approves TCAS as a separation tool (as they did with radio many years ago), then we'll use it too.

All the CTAFs I fly into don't have "calling the blind". They all have AFRUs. If using one of those is too hard, then said pilot shouldn't have a licence.

Lastly, TCAS is no good because your bugsmasher mates don't have to have it below 10k (as I said to you in a previous post, with no response forthcoming. That's pretty weak but is in keeping with your policy of not answering when the truth hurts).

tobzalp
12th Feb 2007, 02:49
If my memory serves me correct, TCAS worked.....ATC did not....
What are you suggesting?

TCAS was present and working in both aircraft and via human 'fingers in the pie' the two collided. Case in point that TCAS cannot be used as a fail safe or mitigator as it(the machine) worked perfectly yet the accident still occured.

You're welcome.

SM4 Pirate
12th Feb 2007, 03:20
Or do you have some other explanation as to why TCAS cannot be used for safety mitigation? I believe that a TCAS can be U/S for 72 hrs (depending on company ops). I wouldn't want that to be my only safety blanket. The point is TCAS is the 'failsafe' when all else fails; the dead mans brake; the other procedures are the system; not the standard.

If you want to use TCAS to mitigate 'one thing' then you can remove ATC and all other processes too as you can use TCAS to mitigate 'everything'.

That doesn't mean it's "safe" or "efficient"...

I'm not sure why the push for TCAS; when a better industry supported standard would be wide spread ADS-B (in-out) and Mode S... You could put a colocated WAMLAT-ADS-B box at "every" RPT aerodrome and still have buckets of money left over from making the whole RPT fleet carry TCAS; and from what we understand you can't 'break' those boxes unless you hit them with an axe.

squawk6969
12th Feb 2007, 03:26
tobzalp

"Case in point that TCAS cannot be used as a fail safe or mitigator as it(the machine) worked perfectly yet the accident still occured."

So what does work perfectly all the time every time?

I like the idea posted earlier in this thread, if it flies stick a transponder in it (and turn it on) and for that matter ADSB as its supposed to be happening should be mandatory. Then Bloggs and co do not have to worry below 10k .......which is a concern in some places of high RAA activity with no requirement for a transponder.

Really this flying stuff is not that hard, sure it requires some brains and some effort, but really why does everyone from bugsmashers to jet jockeys to legislators make it so damned difficult!:}

Dick Smith
12th Feb 2007, 03:57
Tobzalp, you appear to believe the reason TCAS should not be used for safety mitigation is because of the midair collision between a Tu154M and a B757 over Lake Constance on 1 July 2002.

If I remember correctly, the reason the accident occurred is that an error was made by air traffic control and then one of the pilots did not obey the TCAS Resolution Advisory. The safety investigation stated that if the pilot had complied with the TCAS RA, there would not have been an accident and everyone would be alive today.

How then do you use that as an explanation for not using TCAS for safety mitigation?

Scurvy.D.Dog
12th Feb 2007, 04:11
…. even if some aircraft are voluntarily fitted, I’m sure you will agree that it is quite an anomaly in Australian regulations. … a bit like voluntary/recommended radio calls in CTAF vice MBZ !! … In principle I would agree with the requirement if it went hand in hand with hardwired (+ air/squat switch) TXPDR’s!
.
… as we have discussed many times in this place and elsewhere, TCAS will see (most) transponding aircraft (there are some examples of TCAS not seeing TXPDR aircraft in certain proximity situations), that, and the ‘part picture’ issues of crew traffic SA coupled with the inaccuracy of ‘GA’ TXPDR encoders!! .. whats the real point??
.
.. is TCAS a safety improvement? .. in part yes, is it as good (from cost and safety benefit) than other technology options?? … I think not!
.
…. remind us of why delays in policy decisions on future tech solutions (such as low-level/GA equipped ADS-B), have occured! … would you like to revisit your views on this issue?? Let’s say there are only 100 aircraft which do not have TCAS. Why should the passengers in these 100 aircraft fly to sub-standard safety rules compared to flying in other leading aviation countries? … agreed … so are you going to answer the questions posed in my previous post??Scurvy.D.Dog, you quote putytat (I believe) in stating:5. TCAS cannot be used as mitigation.Who said so? …… ICAO, in the context of airspace service level determinations … and you well know this Do you really accept that 1950s radio “calling in the blind” techniques can be used for mitigation, but modern and proven TCAS cannot be? … separate issues (see above) … ‘calling in the blind’ (such as CTAF) is more often than not un-alerted see-and-avoid’ …. You support this notion don’t you, otherwise why support Class E and CTAF over MBZ??? … my view on this is well documented, it is you who seems to support 1950’s techniques! Aren’t you getting mixed up with the fact that a small number of air traffic controllers in Australia do not want TCAS to be used as mitigation, as they believe that aircraft to aircraft safety devices are not in their best interests? …. ‘mixed up’ … seems quite clear where the mix up’s occur! ….Provide a quote for your ridiculous accusation, or do the decent thing and retract it! Or do you have some other explanation as to why TCAS cannot be used for safety mitigation? … please do us all the courtesy of reading responses in full … TCAS can play a ‘part’ in mitigation of collision risk, it is silly to spend a large amount of industry money if that investment can be better spent closing other holes in the collision risk cheese!!I agree that the mandatory radio “calling in the blind,” which we have in our CTAFs, has safety problems …. Ahhhh, so the need for your AusNAS 2C costly change from MBZ to CTAF was for what cost and safety benefit?? – but not as many as modern TCAS. …. TCAS is irrelevant unless both aircraft in the conflict pair are Transponding ‘accurately’ .. how many conflict pairs in CTAF’s do you guess do not have a TXPDR (therefore rendering TCAS useless)? What do you think? … stop being disingenuous!
Many many people over many years have been putting sound opinions and counter arguments … you ignore them all … you clearly do not care what others think! … If you do, answer ‘all’ of the questions posed to you! … better still, ask the Mod’s to return the ADS-B threads from last year … all the questions/opinions and technical data is there for all to see!
.
… what do you think? :suspect:
.
squawk6969Really this flying stuff is not that hard, sure it requires some brains and some effort, but really why does everyone from bugsmashers to jet jockeys to legislators make it so damned difficult! :}
.
…. There is only one bloke you need to talk to about that!!! :mad:

Chimbu chuckles
12th Feb 2007, 08:40
Dick as I understand TCAS it is not terribly accurate in azimuth. Therefore if one pilot manouvers, based purely on a TCAS TA, they run the very real risk of actually making the situation worse and causing a mid air.

That is why it is drummed into us every 6 mths in recurrent training that you don't turn or manouver based on a TA you merely respond vertically to the RA.

There is an argument that says if you see the aircraft you turn if you think it necesary...my argument would be, in busy airspace, are you sure the aircraft you can see out the window is the same as the TA target aircraft on your TCAS screen?

peuce
12th Feb 2007, 10:22
If anyone is interested in some background information on the relative collision avoidance effectiveness of TCAS and ADS-B, this document is a worthwhile read:

http://www.astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/ABIT09-WP003-Passenger_Aircraft_Benefits_vers_final_for_ABIT.pdf

Atlas Shrugged
12th Feb 2007, 21:35
Icarus2001, the number of 190 airline aircraft that are not equipped with TCAS came to me from an industry source. Even if some aircraft are voluntarily fitted, I’m sure you will agree that it is quite an anomaly in Australian regulations.

Let’s say there are only 100 aircraft which do not have TCAS. Why should the passengers in these 100 aircraft fly to sub-standard safety rules compared to flying in other leading aviation countries?


Originally 190, three days ago 160, now 100?

Dick, where exactly are you going with this?

Dick Smith
12th Feb 2007, 22:23
Peuce, you give a link to the ASTRA document. This is valuable, however I note that the ASTRA document is based very much on the FAA cost benefit study for ADS-B, which states:

Of the safety benefits, the single biggest was CFIT prevention The problem here is that the original FAA study linked CFIT prevention with the installation of the Capstone Project in Alaska. As we now know, aircraft are being fitted with Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems quite independently of ADS-B, and this is what will happen in the future.

I believe the FAA paper needs to be reconsidered by separating CFIT prevention with the other benefits that ADS-B gives. Then we will be able to get a true and genuine cost benefit study.

Scurvy.D.Dog
12th Feb 2007, 23:02
.... no answers :D ... :hmm: ... thankyou for confirming the theory!
.
.... even without EGPWS, are you telling us that TCAS and presumably RADAR installations is safer and more cost effective than ADS-B and fitment subsidy! .... just a yes or no and supporting evidence (no I believe's thanks) :suspect:

Dick Smith
13th Feb 2007, 01:22
Scurvy.D.Dog, you state:
even without EGPWS, are you telling us that TCAS and presumably RADAR installations is safer and more cost effective than ADS-B and fitment subsidy! No, I am not. The fact is that TCAS and radar presently exist, whereas ADS-B ‘in’ does not exist in any certified form. I’m sure ADS-B is the way to go in the long term, however I believe that is up to a decade away.
Why not harmonise with the rest of the world? Let’s have the advantages of TCAS now.
I agree that TCAS is not perfect, but it is certainly better than no TCAS. If it were not, the United States and other leading aviation countries would not have the requirement.
I wonder if the “fitment subsidy” is nothing but a pipe dream. As stated many times on this site, the airlines (namely, Qantas) refuse to have a bar of it. They were not going to spend $100 million of their “savings” in subsidising GA aircraft. The Qantas pilots may have thought it was a good idea, but their bosses did not – and I’m sure you know who has the maximum sway at the moment.

Scurvy.D.Dog
13th Feb 2007, 12:02
The fact is that TCAS and radar presently exist, TCAS yes, accurate mode C TXPDRS - ?? ….. sufficient ATS RADAR coverage - NO whereas ADS-B ‘in’ does not exist in any certified form. … many RPT’s already have ADS-B, and ATS have it now (just need more ground boxes to increase coverage further for mode A/C and S), so the question is - in the short, medium and long term are you or RPT worse off with the ADS-B (more accurately WAMLat) program V's modest investment in TCAS for a small number of commuters?? ... which option achieves most across all timelines S/M/LT ?? I’m sure ADS-B is the way to go in the long term, however I believe that is up to a decade away. … you support ADS-B? … what has changed since you rather public views on it last year??? …. was it delayed as a result? … has any part of the system design/description changed?Why not harmonise with the rest of the world? Let’s have the advantages of TCAS now. …. Yes lets ….. let the world catch up with us rather than us acquiescing with them over current older tech solutions that do not spread the advantages so widely and profoundly as subsidised ADS-BI agree that TCAS is not perfect, but it is certainly better than no TCAS. .. so why not mandate mode A/C transponders??? .. TCAS is only half the story is it not? If it were not, the United States and other leading aviation countries would not have the requirement. … and how many of their GA fleet are not TXPDR equipped and operating regularly/almost always in RADAR surveillance … are they not!I wonder if the “fitment subsidy” is nothing but a pipe dream. … if it is, whose fault will that be then?? As stated many times on this site, the airlines (namely, Qantas) refuse to have a bar of it. .. see above!They were not going to spend $100 million of their “savings” in subsidising GA aircraft. .. they won’t! … they are already enjoying substantial fuel and other savings from AsA tech investment (flex tracks etc), this investment is AsA using any infrastructure expenditure for other enhancements to ATS that will result in further opportunities to increase industry efficiencies … how is that QANTAS’s money?The Qantas pilots may have thought it was a good idea, but their bosses did not …. Where did QANTAS pilots come into this?? – and I’m sure you know who has the maximum sway at the moment. … ah dear .. there is a line there :} …. but I shall refrain! :E

Dick Smith
13th Feb 2007, 21:38
Scurvy.D.Dog, have you ever heard of the expression, “slowly slowly catchy monkey?”

You may wonder why, in over a five year period with over $100 million expended, that CASA has got virtually nowhere with the Regulatory Reform Program. This is because those involved keep asking for the ultimate and then it is rejected – this delays the whole program.

You state:

… many RPT’s already have ADS-B Scurvy.D.Dog, you do not seem to understand. No RPTs have ADS-B ‘in’ – i.e. a display of ADS-B ‘paints’ in the aircraft cockpit. As the greatest chance of a collision is close to the circuit area – quite often below radar coverage for aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers, and quite often below ADS-B ‘back to base coverage’ at many airports for similar sized aircraft – it is obviously more sensible to concentrate on TCAS.

Remember, TCAS works without any radar coverage at all. Two aircraft in the circuit area at Windorah have the same chance of TCAS working as two aircraft in the circuit area at Sydney airport.

You state:

… you support ADS-B? Yes, I have always supported ADS-B, as long as it is properly certified and designed – and most importantly, has some thought about the problem of ‘spoofing’ by terrorists or amateur disrupters.

The FAA has now said that when they issue a tender for ADS-B, the system will be required to be protected against simple spoofing. The Airservices high level system that is currently being installed has no real ‘spoofing’ rejection capability. I’ve offered to demonstrate this to them.

You state:

.. so why not mandate mode A/C transponders??? We already have the most restrictive mandatory transponder requirements in the world. I know – I introduced them. However, we are way behind the rest of the world in TCAS requirements for airline aircraft. Surely we should at least step forward slowly where we have a chance of success. As I said, “slowly slowly catchy monkey.”

The fact that the “fitment subsidy is nothing but a pipe dream” is no one’s fault – it is just a fact of life. The powerful airlines will not cross-subsidise $100 million worth of equipment for the GA industry unless they see a real advantage in this. Their experts do not.

The fact that Airservices Australia is spending a lot of money in installing a multilateration transponder system in Tasmania shows that they are not totally convinced that ADS-B is the way to go for low level in the short term. This sounds sensible to me.

If you look at all of my postings over the years, I have always supported ADS-B. I simply do not want Australia to go it alone as we did with the unique AWA DME, or the microwave landing system. I’m a businessman and I know how to make sensible business decisions. One of the success forces in business is to be conservative when it comes to risk taking. That is what I always follow.

gaunty
14th Feb 2007, 01:47
Why is this argument being taken round in circles?

OK so lets all agree that ALL public transport aircraft (and that includes Air Taxi/On Demand and Charter) regardless of seat numbers, size or number of engines should be fitted with TCAS. Social equity demands the same level of safety for ALL.

Whether you set the seat limit at 10 or more is irrelevant when close to if not 100% of these flights are going to a regional/remote/non radar/uncontrolled strips/private mining strips and spend some time during flight in "G".?? If its Public transport its Public transport, see above.

Ergo ALL Public transport aircraft MUST ALSO carry and operate a transponder to be able to see each other.

Given that leaves, oh I dont know, maybe another 9,000 aircraft that MAY or MAY NOT be able to be seen by them. How many of those have serviceable and accurate, or regularly checked, transponders? Dunno, but it only takes one who hasn't or who does and does not have it turned on, or hasn't been in a radar environment requiring it for yonks, to spoil your day. Anecdotal it may be, but in my experience it is probably 60% of the total, and close to 100% of those live and operate in and around the aforementioned regional/remote/non radar/uncontrolled strips/private mining strips and spend close to ALL of the time during flight in "G". This is the unique Australian airspace. It is like no other, anywhere.

Ergo for TCAS to be "fully effective" for ALL Public transport aircraft equipped so, ALL (= every) aircraft must be equipped with serviceable and operating transponder, hard wired to the master switch.

Or do we simply revert to what is merely a modern version of the "old fashioned calling in the blind" technique for Public transport operations .

Unless I'm missing something here TCAS doesn't work with out its mate the transponder also working.

And the thought just occured to me that given universal mandatory equipment of TCAS and transponder in ALL aircraft, for the moment, you could probably give anything not A, C and D airspace back to G. Then we would be "ready" conceptually and in mindset for ADSB, in whatever form it arrives. ????

Cost, well you already know my feelings about that. You are either going to have a seamless safety Public transport safety system or not, you cant have it both ways.

As for the "BIG airlines not wishing to subsidise" GA hogwash, that may well be true but only because they have been persuaded by someone that it is so. IMHO there is a COMPELLING argument why in this country anyway they should revisit this concept and quickly. One may well ask who "sold" or at the least "were not sufficiently competent to be able to defend it" to them in the first place and why. The entry of Tiger and others into the regional marketplaces raises the stakes alarmingly.

peuce
14th Feb 2007, 06:36
Gaunty, I'm glad someone stated the bleeding obvious.

TCAS will not work unless there is a corresponding Transponder.

Mandating TCAS without mandating Transponders (especially for the likely conflict suspects ... bugsmashers) is like mandating that all aircraft flying into Timbucktoo must have an ADF (as it's safer) ... although there is no NDB at Timbucktoo.

CaptainMidnight
14th Feb 2007, 07:03
Well said, Gaunty.

And so one organisation significantly affected by the proposal and missing from the thread title is obviously AOPA.

Wonder what they think of mandatory fitment of mode C transponders for all GA aircraft :)

gaunty
14th Feb 2007, 07:21
Mate since the days of regulatory dismemberment its all been backwards.

In the good 'ol US of A the airlines (pax) have paid for the WHOLE system with GA (inc corporate) riding along on the basis that their "load" on the system compared to the airlines, is in the scheme of things, irrelevant.

There is a movement by the US Govt to go GA user pays which is causing a bit of angst as the GA/airline "load" ratio has not significantly changed. It is also based on a review of the whole airline passenger taxation revenue system that has been supporting the FAA forever.

Go here for the full drama: http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/
AOPA US who now have way over 400,000 members, 400 staff, a seriously big bank balance and seriously respected clout are not going down easy neither is the equally powerful NBAA.

Lil Johnny must have been comparing notes with his mate George Dubya.:{

In any event the whole regulatory system exists for the airlines, that GA could ride off it should never have been an issue in Australia nor become one in the US.

I seem to recall a GA mantra that was sung from the rafters which went something like "pay your own way, have your own say" ?? which is fine and beaut, but you shouldn't complain when you do have to pay. Now as a businessman I hardly ever look a gift horse in the mouth, one can only wonder why those responsible for that concept thought it was a good idea.

I digress, the cat was out of the bag when the DCA was split up, and Airservices became, well, a service provider, required to operate at a profit. It will not go back in the bag easily.
The airlines dont run Airservices and if you look at the GA portion of thier revenue its hardly worth the costs of collecting it.

IMHO the "airlines wont cop it routine" is empty rhetoric and polemic. If ADSB is going to save Airservices therefore the users, GA heaps, it must be saving the airlines squillions. Lets see the data before we fall for that one shall we.

Like your "Timbuktu" isn't it obvious our betters :* new better.:= :ugh: :ugh: Stampede/frighten the proletariate on to the guns shall we, then we can "save" them. Works every time.:}

J430
14th Feb 2007, 07:28
Just to be picky.....when you say all GA, some might think to exclude all the RAA and glider folk.

If you can afford to fly, you can afford a transponder, and to have it check every two years.\

And if ADSB ever gets going, the Microair system would have both in one small box.....so no excuses then! Its small light and not that expensive, and if it was "dontaed" who cares, fit it and maintain it. Cheapest safety ever invented. Apart from your eyes:eek:

J:ok:

gaunty
14th Feb 2007, 07:30
Capt Midnight
I know what is used to be and suspect it has not changed, which is why I was a bit puzzled but not surprised when Mr Smith did not include them in his call to the alphabet soup lot.

Perhaps he just forgot?? Mr Smith can you help us out here please.??

J340

I hate it when that happens :bored: :}

If the RAA and gliders want to fly in G and if you genuinely want to complete the safety circle for ALL then YES.

I expect you've got a small but statistically finite chance of surviving an impact with a biggie in a VH aircraft, even it seems a glider recently but I reckon zero to none in most RAA types.:{

And that l'ill Microair thingy was a real whizbang. :ok:

Scurvy.D.Dog
14th Feb 2007, 10:59
Gentlemen .. Bravo! :D
.
I’m doubling up a little, but I typed the damd thing so here it is! This is because those involved keep asking for the ultimate and then it is rejected …. Dick, you are going to have to explain this to me, could you cite an example of the ‘ultimate’ that has been rejected? … you do not seem to understand. No RPTs have ADS-B ‘in’ – i.e. a display of ADS-B ‘paints’ in the aircraft cockpit. … I understand fully, the ‘plug in’ costs … what do you suppose a new TCAS install (without ADS-B) costs for small commuters when compared with new TCAS with ADS-B ‘in’ functionality also?? As the greatest chance of a collision is close to the circuit area – quite often below radar coverage for aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers, .. exxxackery … and how many in those airspace areas have TXPDRS let alone accurate ones? and quite often below ADS-B ‘back to base coverage’ at many airports for similar sized aircraft … well we should do something about that eh! – it is obviously more sensible to concentrate on TCAS. … argh :mad: I give up! Remember, TCAS works without any radar coverage at all. . yes and will ony see GA aircraft with TXPDR ON (maybe) Two aircraft in the circuit area at Windorah have the same chance of TCAS working as two aircraft in the circuit area at Sydney airport. … no not really! … the aircraft in the circuit at Windorah are likely GA and possibly not TXPDR equipped, the aircraft in the circuit at Sydney would likely be big aircraft with digital RVSM encoders (highly accurate) any thing else (helo,s) would most definitely have a TXPDR and it would be checked by ATS nearly every flight! .. see the difference! I have always supported ADS-B, as long as it is properly certified and designed – and most importantly, has some thought about the problem of ‘spoofing’ by terrorists or amateur disrupters. … some thought ….OK .... not that I think anybody (of sound mind and capability) would bother .... So make the dam’d thing Licensed equipment i.e. for manufacturers of units for aerial conveyances, operations vehicles and ATS … and huge penalties for breaches … and lets not forget that the Oz ATS surveillance systems will NOT display a non-registered target! The Airservices high level system that is currently being installed has no real ‘spoofing’ rejection capability. .. can you provide some support for this assertion? We already have the most restrictive mandatory transponder requirements in the world. I know – I introduced them. .. in class E particularly … why is that? … what about OCTA in non radar G or CTAF?? However, we are way behind the rest of the world in TCAS requirements for airline aircraft. … that would be the ever decreasing number of small commuters? Surely we should at least step forward slowly where we have a chance of success. … step forward slowly …. now that is novel! As I said, “slowly slowly catchy monkey.” …. Nice banana! The fact that the “fitment subsidy is nothing but a pipe dream” is no one’s fault – it is just a fact of life. …. if you are right, opportunity lost is what it amounts to IMHO!! The fact that Airservices Australia is spending a lot of money in installing a multilateration transponder system in Tasmania shows that they are not totally convinced that ADS-B is the way to go for low level in the short term. This sounds sensible to me. … or perhaps the WAMLat is being trialled for use to replace the PRM (due to the inherent accuracy)? … it also coincidentally, provides future system options in parallel … I am glad you support it! If you look at all of my postings over the years, I have always supported ADS-B. … I must have missed something last year then! I simply do not want Australia to go it alone as we did with the unique AWA DME, or the microwave landing system. I’m a businessman and I know how to make sensible business decisions. … no doubt! ... have you the technical, system and business knowledge to make this decision (for all of us)? One of the success forces in business is to be conservative when it comes to risk taking. That is what I always follow. ….Ooooooo K! :hmm:

Dick Smith
15th Feb 2007, 02:44
I suggest posters look at my original post again. Isn’t it extraordinary that no one from The Australian Federation of Air Pilots, the Australian and International Pilots Association and the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators has made a post in support of Australia harmonising with other modern aviation countries in relation to TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of 10 to 30 passengers?

All we seem to get is a diatribe of comments about mandating transponders in all airspace. As I have stated previously, we are already leading the world in mandatory transponder requirements for VFR GA aircraft. Why can’t we at least catch up to the world with TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of 10 – 30 passengers?

Surely there must be pilots who fly these aircraft which are not TCAS fitted, who would like to have the additional level of safety?

Some midairs around the world occur in controlled airspace, where an air traffic controller has made a human error. That is where TCAS comes into its own. If one of these airline aircraft (of between 10 and 30 passengers) is flying in controlled airspace, say at Sydney or Brisbane, and an air traffic controller or a pilot makes an error, there is no TCAS to give a Resolution Advisory – and possibly save many lives.

Come on AFAP, AIPA and GAPAN, why not make a comment?

peuce
15th Feb 2007, 03:37
OK, now we are getting to the nitty gritty. Correct me if I am wrong:

Mr Smith wants all Airline aircraft holding over 10 passengers to have TCAS fitted for conflict resolution in Controlled Airspace.


Mr Smith does not want an extension of Transponder requirements into uncontrolled airspace.


It still all comes down to cost-benefit. Is there such a risk in Australian controlled airspace that the cost of fittment is warranted?

CaptainMidnight
15th Feb 2007, 07:52
Dick Smith said:They were not going to spend $100 million of their “savings” in subsidising GA aircraft.Two aircraft in the circuit area at Windorah have the same chance of TCAS working Clearly references to GA & class G airspace, but now we're only talking about the benefits of TCAS in controlled airspace??

Clearly the likelihood of a 10-30 pax aircraft (and anything else) having a mid-air is vastly higher in class G (particularly in your oft-quoted "terminal areas") than in controlled airspace.

So using your argument for TCAS to be most effective to those 10-30 pax aircraft, all in class G would have to be transponder equipped.

Dick Smith
15th Feb 2007, 22:40
CaptainMidnight, clearly one of the greatest benefits of TCAS is when air traffic control or pilot error puts two aircraft at the same altitude in the same location at the same time. This is becoming more of a problem because GPS is so accurate, and RVSM is so accurate.

I think if you look at the figures you will find that about 80% of VFR aircraft that mix with 10 to 30 passenger airline aircraft are transponder equipped. By fitting TCAS to these airline aircraft, it is obvious that safety will be improved.

By not supporting the fact that we harmonise our airline rules with that of other leading aviation countries and going off on a track of mandating even more unique transponder requirements for VFR aircraft, you are showing your true colours. That is, delay, delay, delay.

Are you really suggesting that we should mandate transponders for all VFR aircraft? That is, cropdusters?

I believe we should catch up with the rest of the world in relation to airline safety before we move ahead and lead the world.

Having said that, I am certainly supportive of more transponder requirements for VFR aircraft.

I have a proposal which will allow this to happen with funding coming from saving in other means – but some people won’t like that.

J430
15th Feb 2007, 22:57
Dick

You cant please all the people all of the time, so I say any proposals should be put forward, and yes some wont like it.

I think that whoever it was (the big Q and others) that wanted to ditch ADSB subsidy is a bit naive. Many on here have said you think safety is expensive.........

I do think we should work towards 100% ADSB and mode C transponders, and yes even a crop duster, because I am sure at say .....Moree, St George or similar places, they operate right up to the airport boundaries, and at times fly in and out of these airports.

Some could argue that their Drifter thats only ever flown over their own cattle station is not a risk, and thats true, but how do you keep them their? they can fly them anywhere, so you rely on folk doing the right thing if you make exemptions.

Myself I am in favor of everyone having the gear AND doing the right thing.

Have a good weekend evryone!

J:ok:

Wizofoz
16th Feb 2007, 04:14
Actually, TCAS does NOT provide RAs or TAs below certain pre-determined levels (so is less effective in terminal areas.)

Also, whilst TCAS will provide a one-way RA between a TCAs equipped aircraft and a TXP-C equipped aircraft, it is much more effective between TWO TCAS equipped aircraft as it gives them both complimentery RAs. Indeed, one aircraft manaeuvering in response to an RA whilst another tries to do so visually or in response to an ATC instruction completely negates the effectivness of the system.

Conclusion?

If Mr Smith is true to his ideals, he should be advocating the fittment, use, and training of TCAS to ALL Australian aircraft and ALL Australian pilots.

Or does cost actually play a part in the real world.....

Quokka
16th Feb 2007, 06:08
J430... you're not wrong about the cropdusters...

I once had an RFDS MED1 priority flight depart an airstrip in Class G airspace. Shortly thereafter he advised me "I nearly got cleaned up by a cropduster on departure" and asked me if I knew of any VFR aircraft operating in that area. We had a lengthy conversation about it and a few issues quickly became apparent:

1. The cropduster was either not transponder equipped, or, had not switched it on (it didn't paint on the RFDS aircrafts TCAS and it didn't paint on my RADAR).

2. The cropduster was operating in the approach path of a country town airport and not monitoring the appropriate frequency or not responding to the calls made by the RFDS aircraft and by myself.

3. See & Avoid was not possible. This was a case of "See as we miss by sheer blind luck".


The RFDS pilot was a very angry man for five apparent reasons:

1. No transponder signal.

2. No radio call.

3. No traffic advice.

4. No See-&-Avoid.

5. My patient, my medical crew and myself nearly died.

GaryGnu
16th Feb 2007, 07:33
Why can’t we at least catch up to the world with TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of 10 – 30 passengers?

Dick,

The world is mandating TCAS II for 19 + pax and 5700kg + aircraft.

It is the USA that requires TCAS in aircraft with 10-19 pax (and even then only TCAS I)

If you are going to cite compliance with international standards as the basis for your argument at least do it accurately.

putytat
16th Feb 2007, 21:44
Having said that, I am certainly supportive of more transponder requirements for VFR aircraft.

I have a proposal which will allow this to happen with funding coming from saving in other means – but some people won’t like that.

Dick,

Now the real intentions appear! What proposal one wonders? Another report, Willoughby style - $70M savings somewhere, that will be the basis of new reforms over a 5 year period. From your recent posts, one could assume that savings may be found in the mandatory use of TCAS in certain areas, and then amending the requirements to use TCAS as risk mitigation. This could lead to the removal of the provision of enroute directed traffic information by ATC, and produce a saving of lets say $70M over 5 years (or was that annually).

One wonders whether this "proposal" will be announced around 02 - 03 Jul07 by the newly formed CASA branch of airspace reform??

Dick Smith
18th Feb 2007, 23:15
GaryGnu, you state:

The world is mandating TCAS II for 19 + pax and 5700kg + aircraft. I think you are getting mixed up with ICAO recommendations. The 5700kg one sounds like ICAO – where they do not realise that it is the number of passengers that pay for the higher level of safety, not the weight of the aircraft.

Anyway, which ever way you look at it, Australia is lagging behind what leading aviation countries are mandating.

By the way, why is there no comment from the AIPA, AFAP or GAPAN? Is it all too obvious and simple?

Chris Higgins
19th Feb 2007, 00:53
Dick,

I completely agree with your request for tried and proven technologies to close a safety gap.

I also agree that a retrofitting of Australian aircraft should include the apllications of ADS, because, firstly, Australia should be leading the world..not following and secondly, your own background in mass produced electronics allows us all to use your experience in this field to know that by forcing larger unit production, you are making the individual units cheaper anyway.

By shying away from ADS-B you are kind of telling us all that the world is still flat. We need to embrace these new technologies as we look for proven ones to solve our airspace problems and inherent risks of mid-air collision in non-radar environments between VFR and IFR aircraft.

By the way..I salute your efforts to allow the David Hicks issue to be resolved in Australian courts.

Dick Smith
19th Feb 2007, 03:53
Chris, where is the evidence that ADS-B is better for solving the “inherent risks of mid-air collision in non-radar environments between VFR and IFR aircraft” compared to TCAS? None of the ADS-B units that have been made can give a Resolution Advisory – TCAS can, and it has saved many lives.

I don’t think the world is flat, I just know that we already have a very workable TCAS/transponder system for reducing the risk of midair collisions, whereas at the present time we do not have an existing ADS-B system.

I think we have to be very careful in allowing the boffins to design something which is technically superior, but in practice is no safer.

As I’ve said again and again, I support ADS-B, but only when it is properly designed and certified. I’m told this is at least a decade away, whereas at the present time we have a very workable TCAS approved system which will work with both Mode C and Mode S transponders.

I have TCAS in two of my aircraft and it is fantastic. It picks up most aircraft in a non-radar environment as most aircraft are transponder equipped. No, it is not perfect, just as ADS-B will not be perfect, but it is available now - so surely we should encourage as many aircraft to be fitted as possible.

GaryGnu
19th Feb 2007, 04:58
I think you are getting mixed up with ICAO recommendations
Dick,
It is not a recommendation, it is a Standard. See ICAO Annex 6 Vol I Paragraph 6.18.2. It requires that turbine aircraft over 5700kgs or authorised to carry more than 19 pax shall have ACAS (TCAS) II. The number of passengers is covered and it additionally covers large aircraft that do not carry passengers.

You are correct that Australia is lagging behind that ICAO standard. I do not know why.

None the less TCAS, shall not be a determining factor in deciding on Air Traffic Service (ATS) levels.

Icarus2001
19th Feb 2007, 08:00
It picks up most aircraft in a non-radar environment as most aircraft are transponder equipped. My bolding.
See Dick, there you go again. How do you know most aircraft are transponder equipped? You could approach Temora and see two TA's but not see the other three non transponder equipped aircraft. If they do not have a transponder you cannot know that they are not there. CLEAR?
Which funnily enough is an argument I heard used on the hugely successful John & Martha King Roadshow TM, people rely on the radio and therefore stop "looking" for the non radio traffic.
Same, same.

Then again most doesn't really help does it. One mid air is enough;)

Pinky the pilot
19th Feb 2007, 08:30
most aircraft are transponder equipped

I have never yet seen a Pawnee being used as a glider tug that had a transponder fitted. Would'nt be a bad idea if they did have but it would have to be hard wired to the master switch!

Chris Higgins
19th Feb 2007, 20:41
Dick, you're absolutely correct that TCAS II with change 7, is a wonderful device that gives excellent, accurate results in todays working environment.

Nobody disputes this, and your responses are leaving me slightly bewildered.

Your background as both an innovator, inventor, businessman and entrepreneur, together with your time in public service as CASA Chairman, would have left me to believe that you would be "pushing" the next big thing. You may or may not believe that ADS-B is "it", but we need to think about the doubling of air traffic in the next 15 years or so.

There have been many PPruners on these boards that have been critical of me in the support I have had for you, but like I keep saying to them...as well as to you; the answer is in the middle.

If such an electronic system could be built that accomodates both present and future technologies there would be beneficiaries to such a policy that would make regulators, controllers, aircraft owners and pilots all quite happy with the outcome.

Dick Smith
19th Feb 2007, 21:12
Icarus2001, you appear to be a classic fundamentalist. Unfortunately there is no such thing as 100% safety, or 100% compliance of anything. Are you really suggesting that if we mandate everything we will have 100% safety?

I can assure you that most aircraft that mix with my aircraft in a non-radar environment are transponder equipped. However, even if it was only 5% of aircraft, that is 5% extra safety I can obtain. I would never take for granted that all aircraft were transponder equipped – that is why I remain as visually alert as I can at all times.

You state:

Then again most doesn't really help does it. One mid air is enough You are completely wrong. “Most” does help – even if it is only a 5% improvement, it is certainly a help. This means that there is less chance of having a midair collision.

I can see why you remain anonymous and don’t put your real name to the posts.

I can assure you that every additional aircraft that is fitted with TCAS in this country slightly improves safety. Many airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers are not TCAS equipped. This is not so in other leading aviation countries.

You can go on with every bit of obfuscation that you want to, however the facts are simple. If we followed the mandatory requirements that existed in the USA, we would improve safety.

Just as every aircraft (including airline aircraft) were not always on the correct radio frequency in an MBZ, the same situation exists in a CTAF. As I have stated above, safety is not absolute, but anything we do which is additional, and is affordable without reducing participation, is surely worthwhile.

Condition lever
19th Feb 2007, 22:09
Dick,

By the very same logic surely MBZs are a measurably safer option than CTAFs?
Why were they scrapped?
Perhaps we can get Gabby Hollow's opinion on this.

Icarus2001
20th Feb 2007, 01:43
Dick for pointing out the inconsistency of your position you label me a classic fundamentalist. What does that mean?

Are you really suggesting that if we mandate everything we will have 100% safety?
Can you show me where I suggested that please?

[I can see why you remain anonymous and don’t put your real name to the posts. ...and why is that?

ForkTailedDrKiller
20th Feb 2007, 02:02
"I have never yet seen a Pawnee being used as a glider tug that had a transponder fitted. Would'nt be a bad idea if they did have but it would have to be hard wired to the master switch!"

Good idea. In this day and age there is no reason why every aircraft that flys above 500' should not be transponder equiped.

In its simplist form - fixed to squak 1200 only, surge protected and hard wired to the master. Modern electronic wizardry - couple of hundred bucks - subsidised by our air services charges - heavily weighted so that the airlines (especially those of record profits) who stand to loose the most from a mid-air with a bug smasher carry most of the financial burden.

FTDK:cool:

J430
20th Feb 2007, 07:39
FTDK

Mate...we should start a "group" here......the Everything that flies SHALL have a transponder and ADSB association...........

Its not hard, its not expensive, and if the big end of town used some common sense, it would all be a Eutopia......well almost!

Now how do we get the ear of those who need convincing?

J:ok:

ForkTailedDrKiller
20th Feb 2007, 09:21
J430 - yes, but I want it all!

I want to be able to cancel Sarwatch in the YLHR circuit on VHF.

If that's too hard, I want to at least be able to call Flightwatch on VHF enroute YBTL-YROM.

and I would really like to be able to upload realtime weather onto my GNS430, rather than having to connect to the BOM site via my CDMA phone.

FTDK:cool:

J430
20th Feb 2007, 10:41
FTDK....Mate...who are flightwatch anyway....I see 'em on me charts, but can never get em anywhere I try......so poor old BNE CEN gets my call, and even when they dont like it.

Sad, but it makes you want to swithch the radio off altogether and "phone a friend"

J:ok:

ForkTailedDrKiller
20th Feb 2007, 13:12
Overhead YEML at A010, dodging CBs enroute YROM - YBTL in the Bo
ME - Center, XXX request the lastest Townsville weather
CENTRE - XXX call Flightwatch
a few minutes later
ME - Center, XXX, nothing heard from Flightwatch. Can you give me the latest Townsville
CENTRE - XXX, you should be able to raise them from your position and altitude, suggest you try them again
a few minutes later
ME - Center, XXX, nothing heard from Flightwatch. Can you give me the latest Townsville
CENTRE - XXX, not at this time
ME (Thinks!) - CENTRE, XXX, thanks for nothing

FTDK:cool:

peuce
20th Feb 2007, 21:29
FTDK, in theory, they won't be able to put you off for much longer. The Flightwatch responsibilities are being relocated to the ATC Consoles.

However, notice I said "in theory". Even though ATC will be the only ones able to give you the WX/Notams/Briefing that you are after ... separation services take priority ... so, conceivably, if the ATCs are busy doing separation work (as they should).. they will knock you back and there will be no one else to give it to you.

Ah! That is, unless they create standalone ATC positions to provide Flightwatch services.

It's groundhog day !!!

Chris Higgins
21st Feb 2007, 01:27
I've got an idea!

How about starting up Flight Service Stations that give detailed weather information and prognosis from qualified meteoroligists in a face-to-face briefing style.

Like we used to have?:p

Dick Smith
21st Feb 2007, 01:58
Chris, it is a good idea. The original plan introduced with AMATS, when I was the Chairman of the CAA in the early 1990s, was to have two automated flight service stations in the US style. One was to be in Melbourne and one in Brisbane. The officers were to be trained in giving detailed weather information – as you receive in the USA. Unfortunately this seems to have been stopped.

Having said that, how are you suggesting we pay for flight service stations? Do you believe that it should be lumped on to normal Airservices costs – i.e. to be paid 95% by the airlines? Do you think the general taxpayer should pay for them, or do you think general aviation should pay? How do you think we will get the Government to agree with each of these scenarios?

alph2z
21st Feb 2007, 02:44
Watched an interesting documentary on PBS called Innovations and it talked about airline crashes and about NTSB recommendations that were acted upon or not by the FAA.

A number that interested me was the number $2.5 million per passenger-deaths when calculating break even of when safety recommendations are implemented or not. This number was uttered by a US government aviation official (FAA or NTSB).

In other words if the new technology costs cannot overcome this number then it doesn't have to be implemented by industry.

I've seen a similar documentary years ago but I can't remember the $$$ break even number for safety improvements.

alph2z
21st Feb 2007, 02:50
I finally found the 2003 info from another PBS show interviewing FAA and NTSB officials.

The FAA has assigned a cost to losing a passenger at approximately $3 million so that not ALL design changes HAVE to be incorporated. Otherwise each plane would cost in excess of $ 1 billion.
.

bushy
21st Feb 2007, 05:40
Weather details can be broadcast by automated ground stations, and this should be widespread. There seems to be some paranoia associated with this information, and it is almost kept secret. You even need a password the acess notams etc. It's technically possible to make all this readily available, but they do not. It's only the little aeroplanes that want it, so they do not bother.

CaptainMidnight
21st Feb 2007, 08:18
Weather details can be broadcast by automated ground stations, and this should be widespread. It already is - it's called AERIS. And if what you want is not there, you call Flightwatch.

Simple.

peuce
21st Feb 2007, 09:46
Well, Dick put out the challenge .. although he thought it was a good idea to have FS, how would it be funded.
Well, here's one out of left field. I know it returns to days gone by, but to me, it still makes sense. Admittedly, it's all dodgy figures, but if it's anywhere near correct, I bet even QANTAS would be happy to fund it:

Proposal
1. Bring CAGRO services back under the ASA umbrella
2. ASA provides CAGRO (or whatever name you like) services at specific airports, provided by independent Contractors (no Super, Workers Comp, Leave etc), trained to ASA specs
3. ASA leases the appropriate premises and provides and services VHF transceivers and internet/network access for the CAGRO
4. CAGRO provides Aerodrome Traffic Service, pre-flight briefing services, flight plan submission, on request in-flight met/notam/briefing services & Sartime nomination/cancellation relay
5. No HF
6. No ATC Coordination (taxy & arrival calls etc)

Requirements
Say 1 or 2 Officers at each airport, depending on opening hours
Say around 15 airports (or more or less) … throwing some possibilities around:
WP, MA, CV, DU, WG, BH, MI, PD, KA, BM, KU, DV, Ayers Rock

Cost
Say 30 Contractors@ $50,000 = M$1.5 … lets say $2M
Leases …. Say 15 @$20,000 = $300,000 … lets say $0.5M
Equipment … say 15@5,000 = $75,000 … lets say $0.1M
Equipment maintenance … the Techs will be visiting to service the Navaids anyway
Incidentals … say $0.4M
TOTAL $3M per annum

Benefits for the Cost?
1. To get a return of $3M per annum we need the service to save 1 life per annum … is that a possibility?
2. Also offsetting the cost is the reduction in ATC/Flightwatch/Briefing staff required in the Centre
3. Less call on ATCs to provide FIS … so they can concentrate on keeping aircraft apart. Most Jet traffic would be in range of one of the airports.
4. Safer “AFIZ-type”operations at those locations … meaning less pressure on putting in new Towers
5. An aviation administrative presence back in the regional areas ( even the pollies would like that)

fixa24
21st Feb 2007, 10:56
I think the taxpayer should pay for all the improvements like wx breifing, cagro etc... What? johhny taxpayer doesn't like his hard earned tax dollars going to aviation?
Too bad. I don't like my hard earned tax dollars going to some 18 year old punk who can't be bothered getting off his ass and finding a job to support himself, his 4 kids and "partner". At least if tax dollars were paying some cash into aviation then there's at least a return on investment there (less reliance on airlines, pilot training for future pilots etc) rather than just supporting suburban scum who will only raise more of their own to become just like them, a drain on society......:mad:

Scurvy.D.Dog
21st Feb 2007, 12:01
PEUCE …. agreed :ok: ….. as long as the CASR part 71 is gazetted and concrete to avoid any .. well :hmm: ….. cost imperatives playing a disproportionate roll in service level determination! …. i.e. Medium capacity Jet (D TWR/C Centre) V lower density turbo (AFIZ) …. that said .. appropriate technology application should provide some tangible increases in RPT Terminal area (controlled or otherwise) safety across all classifications … VFR PVT thru High capacity RPT … risk ALARP!!
.
… the millions squandered …… imagine the loss for us as a nation! :mad: :mad: :ugh: :suspect:
.
….. GBAS is a quite separate argument from WAAS and ADS-B! :=

bushy
21st Feb 2007, 14:03
It is NOT adequately done, and never has been. Read the posts by fork tailed doctor killer. With todays technology it can be done, but is not. In a push button age, we are using pull chain equipment.

jumpuFOKKERjump
21st Feb 2007, 22:11
ME - Center, XXX, nothing heard from Flightwatch. Can you give me the latest Townsville
CENTRE - XXX, not at this time

Airspace service
priorities
3.1.3.4 Controllers shall give first priority to separating aircraft, issuing safety alerts and providing directed traffic information as required by this Manual. That action which is most critical from a safety standpoint shall be performed first.

3.1.3.5 Additional services such as the provision of traffic information to IFR flights and aircraft using IFR Pick-up about VFR flights in Class E, or the provision of RIS shall be provided to the extent possible, contingent only upon higher priority duties and other factors including equipment limitations, volume of traffic, frequency congestion and workload.

Your weather request comes somewhere after that.

Not sure what any of this has to do with TCAS, but the thread originator is entering into debate on the 'drifted' bits, so shall I.

My current ATC functional group administers what would have been work for about 7 (the boundaries have all changed, blurring the effects) FS positions pre 1991, and about 2 when the airspace was handed over. There's a little more work involved for everybody, but only one additional ATC during core hours weekdays and Sunday arvo. Plus a small portion of the Flightwatch officers time. I get paid more, but there are definite efficiencies.

peuce
21st Feb 2007, 22:27
However, isn't that efficiency there because you follow those priorities and don't have to reply to, and provide all information requested of you?

Would it not be a different matter if you had to do your separation work and respond to ALL the FIS requested of you?

Dick Smith
21st Feb 2007, 22:37
Alph2z, you state:

The FAA has assigned a cost to losing a passenger at approximately $3 million so that not ALL design changes HAVE to be incorporated. Otherwise each plane would cost in excess of $ 1 billion. Yes, it is called the law of affordable safety. If you incorporated all of the design changes that improve safety, and if each plane cost over $1 billion, the market place would dictate that far fewer people would fly. In fact, with aircraft costing $1 billion each – especially if they were small commuter airliners – hardly anyone would fly!

I prefer to look at it a different way. I have always valued a human life at an infinite amount. Let’s say $10 trillion. As long as you always use this amount in your safety studies, you know where to best allocate your resources to save the most lives. In effect, human life is priceless so we must do everything we can to allocate the limited resources which society has available to save the most number of lives.

This is all just commonsense but it is amazing the number of people in CASA, and the people who post on this website, who do not understand that. For many decades there has been a denial that safety costs money and the money is not unlimited. This means you have to be very careful where you allocate your resources.

It would still be great to have the rescue and fire fighting at Bankstown Airport, but by allocating that money to a new fire station close to the airport at Coolangatta, we ended up having the potential to save more lives – and that is where the money should be spent.

Chris Higgins
22nd Feb 2007, 00:37
Dick,
You're scaring us Mate! You're making way too much sense recently.

ForkTailedDrKiller
22nd Feb 2007, 01:33
JYFJ

Airspace service
priorities
3.1.3.4 Controllers shall give first priority to separating aircraft, issuing safety alerts and providing directed traffic information as required by this Manual. That action which is most critical from a safety standpoint shall be performed first.

From my point of view, in the circumstances described, the YBTL Weather WAS "critical from a (my!) safety standpoint".

FTDK:cool:

No Further Requirements
22nd Feb 2007, 03:15
FTDK: Did you make this 'critical safety' issue apparent? We are not mind readers. "Request the weather at Townsville" is just that, a request for information that is at the bottom of the ladder of things for ATC to do. Reading your transcript below, I think you could have responded a little differently to get your message through. ATC will never deny a request out of spite - just because you are VFR, don't like your tone, have a dislike of Beechcraft etc etc.

Perhaps, if there is time, explain a little better your predicament - "Centre, I require the weather at Townsville. I have tried Flightwatch for the last ... minutes with no joy. The conditions may be such that I need to divert and I need to know in the next 5 minutes so I can make it safely to my alternate" or something like that. Sure as hell, if I heard those words, your request would be right up there with separation on the ladder of things to do.

OK, back to the topic now!

Cheers,

NFR.

ForkTailedDrKiller
22nd Feb 2007, 04:44
NFR


How about,

ME - PAN, PAN, PAN, CENTRE XXX I REQUIRE THE LATEST F*CKING TL WEATHER, SO PULL YOUR F*CKING FINGER OUT!

???

Do you think that would get my point across?

FTDC:cool:

PS: Then again maybe a simple "XXX standby" or "XXX wait one" from Centre was all that was required!

No Further Requirements
22nd Feb 2007, 05:14
A PAN call will always be treated with priority. If you think it is necessary, then call it. If you are just being a smart arse, then I hope you re-read my suggestion and have a look at what I was trying to tell you: ATC are not mind readers. If you think it is a safety issue and it is important to you, then make it important to us.

Your response to my suggestion was quite uncalled for IMHO.

NFR.

BEACH KING
22nd Feb 2007, 07:01
Righto,...That's it... I've had enough... I've got to ask.
I've read hundreds of posts and tried to work it out from the context.
I have lay in bed thinking for hours with my finger on my chin, thinking of what it could be... what could it possibly stand for... Surely I can't be that stupid that everyone else knows what it is... and I don't.. because I have asked pimply faced kids with mobile phones that send text messages 24/7... and they can tell me what "LOL" "RU" and "BTW" mean, but not what I really need to know

PLEASE.. SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT THE FCKU IS "IMHO"?

Icarus2001
22nd Feb 2007, 07:22
IMHO = In my humble/honest opinion
Dick you are still priceless. IMHO.

BEACH KING
22nd Feb 2007, 10:27
In my Humble/Honest opinion?

Well I'll be stuffed.. I would never have worked that out IMHO.

Thank you Icarus for ending my misery.
Now I wonder what I am going to wonder about now.

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Feb 2007, 12:04
… fish in a barrel :E Yes, it is called the law of affordable safety. If you incorporated all of the design changes that improve safety, and if each plane cost over $1 billion, …. why on earth would a ‘plane’ (wish people would call them what they are ... ‘aircraft’ … not feckin ‘planes’) cost 1 billion? …. idiotic, meaningless rubbish … in any event, what does 'imagined' (major) design changes have to do with this discussion of modest cost electronic surveillance boxes and software that improves anti-collision safety? … is that the best of your counter arguments? :suspect: …. the establishment is in more trouble than I thought! :rolleyes: the market place would dictate that far fewer people would fly. … quite the contrary, if folks knew that single seaters through to flying belugas could be seen (electronically which in turn enhances pilot visual acquisition), and/or supported with appropriate ATS CTA and OCTA (free) services where appropriate, the resulting reduction in collision risk is significant (perceived and real), resulting in increased public confidence and therefore engagement for a comparatively modest cost (perhaps cost neutral from the outset through flight efficiencies and infrastructure savings) … for the money invested, you have just reduced dramatically one of the greatest fear impediments for the skitish punters (particularly for GA) In fact, with aircraft costing $1 billion each – especially if they were small commuter airliners – hardly anyone would fly! …. and the moon is made of Mozzarella :ugh: I prefer to look at it a different way. I have always valued a human life at an infinite amount. Let’s say $10 trillion. As long as you always use this amount in your safety studies, you know where to best allocate your resources to save the most lives. …. I cannot wait to hear this maxim explained … please enlighten us with your ‘safety study’ methodologies :hmm: In effect, human life is priceless so we must do everything we can to allocate the limited resources which society has available to save the most number of lives.… effective use of limited resources? …. such as smaller operators paying a fortune for TCAS, a system that will not see all of the traffic (Nil/Off TXPDR) especially in areas where ATS is not providing separation services (OCTA). In the Oz context ….. ‘to save the most number of lives’ .... your plan does not even come close :suspect: This is all just commonsense but it is amazing the number of people in CASA, and the people who post on this website, who do not understand that. … I think you will find most do understand! For many decades there has been a denial that safety costs money and the money is not unlimited. … who has denied that safety costs? …. mores the point, who is it that denies that safety systems save money and lives (buckets of it/them)?This means you have to be very careful where you allocate your resources. … this is a telecom recording …. the motherhood statement you have dialled is not connected … please check the context and try again later … you have not been charged for this call!It would still be great to have the rescue and fire fighting at Bankstown Airport, but by allocating that money to a new fire station close to the airport at Coolangatta, we ended up having the potential to save more lives – and that is where the money should be spent. … on to the ARFF now ….. Christ .…. robbing ‘peter’ (users of BK) to pay ‘paul’ (users of CG) is the most ridiculous and morally bankrupt reasoning I have heard for deciding on provision/removal of services! …. a dunce would know that services such as ARFF should be established (or otherwise) based on separate (location specific), thorough risk and safety analysis!
.
… very insightful! :hmm:

Dick Smith
22nd Feb 2007, 22:25
Scurvy.D.Dog, no doubt you are a competent air traffic controller, however it is obvious that you just don’t understand risk management and the limitations of the marketplace.

The aircraft cost of $1 billion was used as an example by another poster. However let’s say all aircraft should be the same safety standard as a Boeing 747 – costing $400 million. It is obvious to you that many airports in Australia would not receive an air service with such an aircraft because the ticket price would be too high. This is why some airports are serviced by Chieftains.

In relation to the value of a human life at $10 trillion, if you are simply comparing safety improvements – i.e. whether to fit TCAS or whether to increase the coverage of radar – you can use any figure in the comparison as the answer will be the same. That is, where best to spend the money to save the most lives.

I know you will say, in your fundamentalist way, that we should do all things that improve safety. I agree. But if you are going to have the air passenger pay for this level of safety, once the costs are too high people will either decide or be forced to travel by other means, or not travel at all.

Scurvy.D.Dog, this is just a fact of life and it is how decisions have been made in aviation safety ever since aviation commenced. You can get as angry as you like and remain in denial, but it would be better if you concentrated on reality.

I understand you have a genuine view that aviation should be as safe as possible. I have a similar view. That means tough decisions have to be made in relation to where you allocate your resources.

In relation to the ARFF at Coolangatta, yes it was established in relation to thorough risk and safety analysis and that is why the ARFF was closed down at Bankstown. It did not meet the same “thorough risk and safety analysis” in relation to effectively allocating resources.

J430
22nd Feb 2007, 22:48
Last post by Dick is pretty much 100% common sense.:D

I still add........100% mode C and for the future ADS-B fitment, TCAS in all RPT (and maybe anything like a 200knot + a/c, and many new ones do anyway) and you would achieve all these outcomes and more.

Just get the ADSB project back on track and tell the airlines to stop blocking common sense, after all its to save them from a big nasty.......:sad:

J:ok:

Scurvy.D.Dog
23rd Feb 2007, 00:09
I know you will say, in your fundamentalist way, that we should do all things that improve safety.fundamentalism
.
–noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives. ... I do not deal in beliefs rather facts, other than that, the difference (in the context of fundamentalism) between you and I is what exactly? ... I can think of one, I do not need to make feable attempts to belittle you by calling you a fundamentalist!
.
Back to the discussion … you seem to be incapable of reading … I am saying that (finite) money should be spent where it is most effective! I agree. I beg to differ! But if you are going to have the air passenger pay for this level of safety, once the costs are too high people will either decide or be forced to travel by other means, or not travel at all. .. where in any of the opinions on this or airspace safety issues in general have I supported safety systems that cost so much that the costs are too high people will either decide or be forced to travel by other means, or not travel at all. … it is you who are advocating TCAS for smaller aircraft who operate where many other aircraft will not be seen by TCAS!
.
… are you going to address anything put forward in this or the other thread or just continue with the empty rhetoric?

Scurvy.D.Dog
23rd Feb 2007, 01:39
The aircraft cost of $1 billion was used as an example by another poster. However let’s say all aircraft should be the same safety standard as a Boeing 747 – costing $400 million. … the same safety standard? … you are confusing capacity/cost with adequate safety standards …. A B747 is as safe as a DHC8 or SF34!? .. the two are worth substantially different amounts and require vastly different ground support infrastructure and terminal area protection …. Throwing up meaningless comparisons is pointless! It is obvious to you that many airports in Australia would not receive an air service with such an aircraft because the ticket price would be too high. … no ****e! This is why some airports are serviced by Chieftains. … and using your methodology (10trillion), why should that chieftain operation be any less safe as each passenger on the PA31, DHC8 and the B747 are worth 10trillion i.e. 100tril (PA31) 300tril (DHC8) 3,500trill (B747) ... in either case, an accident is unafforable! .. therefore, using your logic:-
.
- YBTH would have a full radar TCU, Radar TWR, precision approach monitor etc etc to ensure not one passenger was lost due lack of safety services (10tril) .... flawed and inconsistant with your other views on allocation of services ..... how do you reconcile this?
.
In reality, the safety systems available to each should reflect a baseline and then scaled according to the number of persons exposed to the operations risks! …. I say again, why mandate TCAS without corresponding TXPDRS … why not subsidized ADS-B (including IN for RPT) so all targets can be alerted! ... it can be done for modest cost and will provide real savings in infrustructure and improved safety across all sectors!In relation to the value of a human life at $10 trillion, if you are simply comparing safety improvements – i.e. whether to fit TCAS or whether to increase the coverage of radar – you can use any figure in the comparison as the answer will be the same.again, this is patently wrong, that is why figures are set to consider properly cost V's benefit! That is, where best to spend the money to save the most lives. I will say it one more time – location specific service levels should be assessed and (where necessary) established based on a whole set of variables including traffic density and complexity, meassured against the cost of loss of life (agreed and reasonable values), the risk of loss occuring, and what systems are available to reduce that risk to ALARP
.!
…. It is disingenuous to suggest that anyone is saying airspace serviced by PA31’s should be the same as SY serviced by B747’s!
…. Similarly, Regional airports servicing 30 odd daily RPT jet movements (+ GA etc) might not be CTAF with Centre E above or SY type primary high density infrastructure, rather D TWR/App!
…. Similarly regional airports with RPT turbo’s and moderate levels of other traffic might be F AFIZ!
…. and remote rarely used airports might be CTAF with pilot separation based on ADS-B/VHF provided traffic information pilot to pilot!
.
……. Allocation based on need not by how many dollars Pollies decide is available (surely you do not want that)! ... not ridiculous unnecessary investment where it is not effective ……. It is common sense whether you choose to agree or not!

OZBUSDRIVER
23rd Feb 2007, 05:15
Why push for TCAS ( I or II) when ADS-B will do the same job better. Dick, think of it this way. TCAS will only provide aa accurate resolution in the vertical.(Depending on how accurate the opposing aircraft's encoder is) The parameters are near impossible to provide an advisory for a horizontal deviation. ADS-B furnishes course, speed, whether climbing and descending ACCURATELY. A deviation (taken far enough away from a conflict to be a minor course change) is a simple matter of altering a path to avoid the conflicting traffic in any plane. Much the same as ATC giving vectors. In these days of spiralling costs wouldn't it be far more sensible to allow a system that gives a pilot and ATC a better tool to separate yourself from everyone else. Rather than have them diving all over the place. With WAAS the position is known within 8m at its very worst and nominally 1.5m X1.0m.

If you use your favorite argument with regard to conflicting traffic in class E. Approaching B737 sees that an ADS-B equiped aircraft is approaching their position, climbing through their level and passing from left to right. The crew alerts ATC that they have a conflict with approaching traffic and are altering course to the left of track to pass behind the target aircraft whilst keeping the same descent profile into BN. The crew and ATC know that there are no other aircraft in the vicinity. It doesn't really matter if the climbing aircraft has ADS-B in. Unless the climbing aircraft goes vertical or manages to fly backwards there is less chance of a collision than getting into a diving contest like in Switzerland. Note that Switzerland was due to the Russian crew NOT following their TCAS RA as they were supposed to do.

I may be naive with some points but on the aspect of accuracy ADS-B leaves TCAS of any variety in the weeds. Even with an encoding transponder there is a discrepancy. With a TSO146 GPS with WAAS coverage there will be another source of reliable flight level information. Embrace the technology, Dick. Stop trying to push old world technology on us.

Dick Smith
26th Feb 2007, 01:40
Scurvy.D.Dog, you say in relation to safety standards:

A B747 is as safe as a DHC8 or SF34! This is not so. In fact, a B767 is not as safe as a B747. That is why there are restrictive ETOPS requirements for aircraft of less than 3 engines.

You do not appear to understand my methodology re the $10 trillion. If you are comparing the safety of Chieftains with the safety of B747s, you can put $10 trillion in each figure to do the comparison. It would be more sensible to put $3 million in, however when you are only comparing the safety improvement by spending money on one particular field rather than another, you can use any figure. I can assure you that the mathematicians say I am correct.

OZBUSDRIVER, I don’t seem to be able to get anywhere! You state:

Why push for TCAS ( I or II) when ADS-B will do the same job better. Because ADS-B does not yet exist in the “in” form. You are honest when you say, “I may be naïve with some points.” You seem to be obsessed with the greater accuracy (i.e. down to metres) with ADS-B. In fact, you don’t need that type of accuracy. No one wants to miss another aircraft by 10 or 20 metres – we want to remain miles apart where possible.

The other point is that with sunspot activity on the rise there will be times when GPS will drop out, and therefore ADS-B will not have the accuracy you are talking about. The advantage of TCAS is because it is direct aircraft to aircraft, it will work no matter what the state of the sunspot activity.

Don’t get me wrong. ADS-B will be introduced in the future – I’m told by the FAA it is about a decade away. However at the present time we have a fantastic TCAS/transponder system which has never resulted in an accident when the system has been working and the crew has complied with the resolution advisory.

You want to keep talking about something which has the potential to be better, but it is still a decade away, when we can fit units right at this moment which will substantially improve safety.

Remember, modern TCAS has an antenna on the top and bottom of the aircraft, so even when you bank the unit will still work. In my Agusta helicopter, when I do a steep bank the GPS drops out for the Ground Proximity Warning System. This type of problem will eventually be fixed for ADS-B (or it will go into a coast mode), however as stated above, and stated before on this thread numerous times, you seem to be arguing for something that doesn’t yet exist.

Yes, I do understand that Airservices is leading the world with ADS-B “out” (i.e. transmitting an ADS-B signal from an aircraft), however they do not have any certified unit which shows an ADS-B “in” reply on a screen in an aircraft. Even if it did show on the display, you need something similar to a resolution advisory or an audio call out – otherwise it is next to useless. I have flown in the USA in an aircraft with Capstone. Because there is no audio call out you have to look at the screen all the time. After a few weeks of looking at the screen you look away, and that is when you could hit another aircraft.

Capn Bloggs
26th Feb 2007, 04:08
Dick,

I've been away from this thread for a few days but come back and see that Scurvy Dog (about the fifth time it's been raised) again asks you why you won't mandate transponders for ALL aircraft so that these TCASs that you want in 10-30 seaters will actually work in the greatest threat area, the CTAF/Class G against VFR.

Why do you continue to ignore this question? No wonder people don't believe or you respect your views.

You continue to live with your head in the sand, unable to acknowledge that the greatest threat to paying pax is the VFR lighty flying around with his head in the cockpit looking at all his new gear. Until he has mandatory transponders, don't come bleating for TCAS in 10-30s.

OzBusdriver,
Off thread but your scenario highlights the unworkability of non-radar E airspace:
The crew alerts ATC that they have a conflict with approaching traffic and are altering course to the left of track to pass behind the target aircraft whilst keeping the same descent profile into BN. The crew and ATC know that there are no other aircraft in the vicinity.
What if the crew are not able to avoid, because of ATC requirements, this non-speaking, not on frequency VFR who just happens to be transponding? The whole situation turns to worms. Another failing of his ideal E airspace that Dick just cannot accept.

For those of you who think pilot self-separation using ADS-B IN is the panacea for all our ills, have a look at what happened when UPS tried it a few years back. It was a cock-up. Pilots need extensive training in aircraft separation techniques to do it themselves, and that's why the authorities won't be letting us do it anytime soon.

Quokka
26th Feb 2007, 05:40
Dick,

I refer you to my post on page 4 in regard to the near-collision of an RFDS aircraft and a cropduster without transponder.

Will you call for and support mandatory carriage and operation of transponders in all VFR aircraft operating in Class G airspace in Australia?

Yes or no?

tobzalp
26th Feb 2007, 21:50
Dick

Will you call for and support mandatory carriage and operation of transponders in all VFR aircraft operating in Class G airspace in Australia?

Yes or no?

Dick Smith
26th Feb 2007, 22:50
I have never seen such utter selfishness in all my life.

It was I, as Chairman, who introduced the mandatory transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in Class E airspace. This was specially organised with Ministerial approval, without a cost benefit study (as it would not have met one), so that airline pilots would accept Class E airspace.

The quid pro quo with this was that airline pilots would support Class E airspace as used in the USA.

No sooner did the requirement come in that certain airline pilots then said, “We are now not going to support Class E airspace and we now want all VFR aircraft to fit transponders in Class G airspace as well.” That is, a one-way ratchet of adding costs to general aviation and therefore reducing participation levels. Look at this graph.

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/ga_flying_hours_black_line.gif

I believe it would be a little less selfish for airline pilots such as Capn Bloggs to state that seeing Australian GA has the most restrictive transponder requirements in the world already, the next step in moving to higher safety levels would be to bring the airlines in line with existing international practice.

Once that happens, I will then look forward to leading the world again and supporting even further safety requirements such as additional transponders for GA – but only if it is clear that participation levels and the viability of the GA industry is not compromised.

peuce
26th Feb 2007, 23:18
Dick, I think you have brought a lot of this on yourself ... because of the conflicting messages you're giving:


The point of your original post was that you wanted RPTs to get TCAS installed
However, you don't want VFRs (argualbly the main un-controlled airspace conflictions) to get Transponders ... thus they can't be seen by the TCAS.
Perhaps you wanted TCAS for controlled airspace use only ... then show us the cost-benefit figures. "But they do it in the U.S" doesn't cut it any more.


To me, either option is flawed.... TCAS OCTA, without transponder equipped aircraft is un workable ... more TCAS in CTA, well ... show me the figures.

ForkTailedDrKiller
27th Feb 2007, 00:05
Dick

How much would a transponder in its simplest form cost? Either transmitting the aircraft's call sign or even just 1200.

A box of bits from Dick Smith Electronics should do it!

If I can buy an electronic ear tag for my cows for $5 and GPS for $300, how much should a simple transponder cost?

Even if there was no altitude encoding, at least the RPT stuff (and me in the Bo, cause I would install minimum TCAS gear) would know that a bug smasher was out there.

FTDK:cool:

J430
27th Feb 2007, 02:24
FTDK

Mate they are not expensive, and hence my argument everything that flies oughta have one. And ADSB too in the way it was proposed before the airlines allegedly got greedy.

$2860 inc GST gets you the lot, encoder and all!:ok:

http://www.microair.com.au/index.aspx

J:ok:

tobzalp
27th Feb 2007, 04:22
Keep in mind with all of this that dick wants E down to 500 odd feet at all aerodromes where these 10-30 seat aircraft operate. If there is selfishness in paying for the G transponders, who is going to pay for all of this E airspace?

gaunty
27th Feb 2007, 06:16
Mr Smith

I am looking at your graph and yes it is a BTRE 5 year moving average graph of private and business flying hours.

With respect the decline shown and there is a decline in flying hours, IMHO has little or nothing whatsoever to do with "recalcitrant" airline pilots, alphabet airspace, regulatory reform, Airservices, CASA, the phase of the moon or the dreaded strict liability.

It has everything to do with fundamental changes in our society, the wholesale redistribution of leisure money, LCCs and a whole host of elements out of your and our control. GA aviation is now simply but one other choice amongst several dozens of challenging, fascinating, fulfilling and yes equally often more expensive pursuits. Its a function of that good ol unique Australian airspace and geography again.

Plus, why would anybody but the most hardbitten wannabe aviator even want to come and have a look when for the last 30 years he has been serially assailed with relentless cries of aviation doom and disaster in the halls of the Govt, CASA, and the long suffering Airservices.

It's a whole new world in modern aviation and in the parts where it is, it is going gangbusters.

The RAA world is growing fit to bust and the modern VH world likewise. Business aviation is doing less hours but way more miles.

And I'll support mandatory TCAS for 10-30 seat RPTs and Charter if you support mandatory transponders in ALL aircraft sharing their airspace.

That is the only way the circle of safety can be completed. Surely you must understand that the airspace in which these aircraft spend at least half their flight time is also where the greatest threat from lighties resides.
Or if what tobzalp suggests is the way we must go, what happened to free in G.?

SCE to Aux
27th Feb 2007, 06:38
Capn Bloggs, very interesting quote from your post.
For those of you who think pilot self-separation using ADS-B IN is the panacea for all our ills, have a look at what happened when UPS tried it a few years back. It was a cock-up. Pilots need extensive training in aircraft separation techniques to do it themselves, and that's why the authorities won't be letting us do it anytime soon.
Capn Bloggs, that is exactly why there are many people who would rather have Class E airspace than Class G. With Class E, IFR aircraft are separated by air traffic control to a standard. With Class G airspace (and the Class F that you have in Australia), pilots must do their own separation, usually to no real standard and at best to a variable standard. As you correctly point out pilots need extensive training, and authorities around the world won't be letting airlines do that any time soon.

gaunty
27th Feb 2007, 06:53
Bloggs

old chap.:cool:

I'll find the B C & A article for you but UPS are a loooong way up the track and with the blessing of the FAA with their ADSB for traffic flow detrmination to and from their hubs and out ports. Yes it requires training but the benefits are seriously finite.

I'll get the exact quote but one of the experts says that in just the fuel saving (10% of the total fuel??) obtained by this method of "flight idle" type descents to touch down without all the usual low level vectoring could be implemented across the airline system every airline in the world today would be profitable without having to take any further action

Worth following don't you think??:)

Quokka
27th Feb 2007, 06:59
gaunty is correct in this regard,

To quote the BTRE 5 year moving average graph without removing the variables is to make a fundamental academic error.

To draw a single conclusion as to the cause of the decline in the graph, without measuring, and achieving, a correlation between the raw data and the theory being tested is to make a fundamental academic error.

In respect of why Generation X, Y & Z are not participating in GA to the same extent as the Baby Boomers, there are several reasons, all of which need to be isolated from the graph before a conclusion can be drawn. In fact, the conclusion would include all of the reasons, not just one.

Scurvy.D.Dog
27th Feb 2007, 13:25
… sorry folks, war and peace again …. necessary though given Mr Smiths admission that he and a former the minister circumvented safety assessment processes! ….. print this page as it is likely to disappear soon me thinks!
.
Scurvy.D.Dog, you say in relation to safety standards:A B747 is as safe as a DHC8 or SF34!
This is not so. In fact, a B767 is not as safe as a B747. .. what utter rubbish! … all jets in the RPT category are required to meet standards, those standards are met uniformly That is why there are restrictive ETOPS requirements for aircraft of less than 3 engines. …. dear oh dear … ETOPS are there for the twins to ensure the same relative safety levels within a determined flight time of a suitable lump of tar given the reduced power redundancy! … ETOPS is not there because the type is less safe, the ETOPS requirement is to ensure it is as safe!!You do not appear to understand my methodology re the $10 trillion. If you are comparing the safety of Chieftains with the safety of B747s, you can put $10 trillion in each figure to do the comparison. …. with respect, your methodology is quite clear .. and it is bollocks! It would be more sensible to put $3 million in, however when you are only comparing the safety improvement by spending money on one particular field rather than another, you can use any figure. …. are you being deliberately obtuse? I can assure you that the mathematicians say I am correct. … which mathematicians would those be? .... seem obsessed with the greater accuracy (i.e. down to metres) with ADS-B. In fact, you don’t need that type of accuracy. No one wants to miss another aircraft by 10 or 20 metres – we want to remain miles apart where possible. …. the largest pile of manure thus far!
…. ADS-B will provide accuracy of target position for provision of ATS, as well as S.A opportunities for pilots that are unparalleled … as opposed to nil TXPDR/TCAS and mark one eyeballs ... outside surveillance areas without pilot to pilot alerting is how we are gunna end-up 10-20 metres apart …. or worse!!
.
not wihtstanding the demonstrable benefits ADS-B brings …… are you seriously suggesting that Australian and O/S avionics/electronic/software companies would not jump at adding ‘in’ for new installs, and software/hardware for existing glass for reasonable price (given the scale of production) if there is going to be fleet wide fitment?? …. why are you not looking to the additional benefits that Oz companies would capture.. not to mention the boost they would receive in international market readiness, ready to go boxes and bits and low cost? …. Its obvious isn’t it?
.
… you keep telling us what a great businessman you are ….. how do you reconcile your position on ADS-B (and fitment) with business acumen and plain old patriotism when it appears you would rather our aircraft owners and the Oz travelling public wait for the rest of the world to sell us their off the shelf stuff? …. Why would you rather have our aircraft owners and the travelling public pay more in the long run for this technology by buying it from US avionics manufacturers? .. why are you in favour of delaying and therefore reducing or removing the competitive edge this opportunity provides for Australian avionics/electronic/software companies?The other point is that with sunspot activity on the rise there will be times when GPS will drop out, and therefore ADS-B will not have the accuracy you are talking about. ….. bloody hell, …. are you now saying GPS is not reliable for precision navigation? …. what rubbish, if a RAIM alert is possible for GPS accuracy monitoring, the same ‘flag’ can be used with ADS-B output! …. besides, have you heard of differential GPS??? .. there are a few different types, but the basic premise is the same … the GPS is augmented by local ground stations … in other words, even if the GPS went into ‘less accurate’ modes, the accuracy remains in the terminal areas ….. beautiful!!! The advantage of TCAS is because it is direct aircraft to aircraft, it will work no matter what the state of the sunspot activity. …. as will GPS and WAMlat/ADS-B! :ugh: Don’t get me wrong. ADS-B will be introduced in the future – I’m told by the FAA it is about a decade away. …. says it all :hmm: …. Who cares what the FAA thinks … we are Australia, and Australians are on the cusp of an aviation revolution that we should/could be leading! (by 10 years apparently) :ugh:
Remember, modern TCAS has an antenna on the top and bottom of the aircraft, so even when you bank the unit will still work. In my Agusta helicopter, when I do a steep bank the GPS drops out for the Ground Proximity Warning System. This type of problem will eventually be fixed for ADS-B (or it will go into a coast mode), … point to a technical reference for this assertion that GPS/ADS-B is affected this way!however as stated above, and stated before on this thread numerous times, you seem to be arguing for something that doesn’t yet exist. … oh it exists …. wishing it didn’t is revealing!Yes, I do understand that Airservices is leading the world with ADS-B “out” (i.e. transmitting an ADS-B signal from an aircraft), ….. is that the problem? .. is it simply that your nemisis Airservices Australia (or more properly the first class engineers that designed this) could see the benefit of this and pursued it … would it have been an issue if it had been DSAvionics? I have never seen such utter selfishness in all my life. …. No??
.
… how about this:-
.
Dick Smith said: 27th February 2007 10:50 It was I, as Chairman, who introduced the mandatory transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in Class E airspace. This was specially organised with Ministerial approval, without a cost benefit study (as it would not have met one), so that airline pilots would accept Class E airspace. ….. lets just get this straight for the record :suspect:
.
….. you have said that a minister of the crown (assumed to be the former deputy Prime Minister), at your insistence/recommendation, set aside the rules/ regs and the Act's (processes) to introduce a transponder requirement that was used to justify the replacement of ATS C services with less safe class E (that also subsequently occured without proper AeroStudy processes under AusNAS 2b)!
.
… there is a legal definition for this behaviour :hmm: .. poignant isn't it .. considering the subsequent Airprox safety incidents that occurred in that tried and failed AusNAS 2b class E airspace ….. I hope you and the government are comfortable with the decision to accept responsibility for the consequences!
.
…. you go on to suggest that this was agreed by the ‘airline pilots’ …. Provide support for that assertion, as there are sure to be serious implications if that is true!No sooner did the requirement come in that certain airline pilots then said, “We are now not going to support Class E airspace and we now want all VFR aircraft to fit transponders in Class G airspace as well.” …. Errm, when during the AusNAS 2b debacle did ‘certain airline pilots’ say they wanted TXPDRS in G?? ….a quote or link perhaps?? …. bet there isn’t any forthcoming! That is, a one-way ratchet of adding costs to general aviation and therefore reducing participation levels. …… no, what is a one way ratchet is forcing class E and TXPDR requirements without saving the industry a cent... even the removal of C saved them no money as E and C cost GA exactly the same .. it WAS and IS FREE to VFR! …. bit the same as ratcheting up costs to GA via location specific charging eh :ugh: …. you know the jingle …. ‘pay our own way, have our own say’ …… winner … not really .... and which industry has paid for this folly?! I believe it would be a little less selfish for airline pilots such as Capn Bloggs to state that seeing Australian GA has the most restrictive transponder requirements in the world already, … only in E ... thanks to you, the minister and a wing and a prayer!the next step in moving to higher safety levels would be to bring the airlines in line with existing international practice. ... rot ... your so called 'international practice' is in areas of dence radar airspace where most if not all GA aircraft have transponders and they are checked every flight by ATS verification ... spread out regional locations in Australia are not so equipped! .... it is basic stuff, why don't you get it?? :suspect: ... what is in this for you? :hmm: Once that happens, I will then look forward to leading the world again .. ah OK then ... I get it ..... you are leading the world :rolleyes:... thank our lucky stars! :uhoh: :{ and supporting even further safety requirements such as additional transponders for GA ….. just what GA want, old tech they have to pay for and fit …. Idiotic compared to the alternative! – but only if it is clear that participation levels and the viability of the GA industry is not compromised. … really? :ooh: why? :suspect: …. you have admitted circumventing past assessment processes that clearly cost the whole industry (including GA) a fortune, why would you give a ****e now? :hmm:
.
….. nup, tis still a 'dead cat'! .... nite all :E

Capn Bloggs
27th Feb 2007, 21:45
Dick,
You are now becoming irrational. For MY part, I never supported E airspace, especially non-radar E, and you know it. The only reason that AIRLINE PILOTS "no longer supported" E airspace is because, even with transponders, it tried to kill a few of them (and hundreds of pax). Or does your memory fail to remember 2004? E airspace is a furphy Yankism. You just cannot have two separate airspace systems mixing it without some sort of coordination.
Anyway, back to your tit-for-tat cost to GA. I'll add to the list above that another reason GA has declined is that because you have changed every rule 10 times in the last 15 years that many have just lost interest. if you can afford to buy a $100k+aeroplane, a $1000 transponder is a detail!

SCE to AUX,
With Class G airspace (and the Class F that you have in Australia), pilots must do their own separation, usually to no real standard and at best to a variable standard. As you correctly point out pilots need extensive training, and authorities around the world won't be letting airlines do that any time soon.
Provision of Traffic Information is an ICAO-approved IFR service aka Class F. In 30 years of flying in Class F (call it what you like Dick) I have never been scared when I have known about other IFR traffic and self-separated from them after having been trained in the technique by my instructors. All I'm saying is that there are tricks to self-separation with ADS-B that we will have to be trained in. Your average Joe Blow with have the TCAS bleating if they say "oh there he is we'll just turn this way a bit and miss him".
It all boils down to what the biggest threat is. IMO, it's VFR in the terminal area, hence the need to have transponders on them.

[B]Gaunty[B],
ADS-B is fantastic, I agree. you just have to listen to the shamozzle over the Pilbara every day. But are we gunna pay for it voluntarily? Nuh! I was just pointing out that in the late nineties it was touted as the panacea of self-separation but when UPS tried it, they got themselves into trouble on quite few occasions (as crew, now instant fighter pilots, tried dodging each other) and if my memory serves me correctly, the trial was stopped on safety grounds. With the benefit of hindsight (and specific training) it is now being trialled for self-separation but we are miles way from "point where you like and play dodgem cars to get there". ICAO are only just now talking about using ADS-B and TCAS for oceanic in-trail climbs!

Icarus2001
27th Feb 2007, 23:19
Dick you are becoming more and more difficult to follow. Is your desperation to leave a Smith Aviation LegacyTM as you enter your Autumn years so strong that you will change your argument daily?
Why don't you answer MY questions to you?
With Class G airspace (and the Class F that you have in Australia), pilots must do their own separation, usually to no real standard and at best to a variable standard. As you correctly point out pilots need extensive training, The same separation that WE HAVE TO DO in circuit areas anyway! Happy to separate myself from known traffic, it is the unknown VFR in E airspace at FL200 that scares me.

What area of aviation operations DOES NOT require extensive training?

Rest assured, one day out West in the Goldfield/Pilbara, with all the FIFO activity and lots of aluminium mixing in G and E airspace, there WILL be a VFR go sailing through, blissfully ignorant of the IFR waypoints being referenced by the IFR aircraft and there WILL be at best an AIRPROX. When it happens Dick, you will of course turn it around to claim that this dirt road airspace caused the problem. In reality it is VFR's in non radar E that are the issue.

Dick Smith
27th Feb 2007, 23:54
Scurvy.D.Dog, as an air traffic controller from a Class D tower, you certainly can become very angry. I can sort of understand why – you have been bashing along at this for years and you find that you cannot even put your real name to your beliefs. I would imagine you feel that your career would be affected – this is really shocking if so.
You may be interested in knowing that at the time the decision was made to bring in the mandatory transponder requirement in Class E airspace, there was no requirement for a regulatory impact statement or for a safety study. Plain commonsense said that safety would be improved.
I’m not sure if things have changed since then – perhaps they have. I know there has been a move to bring in the most prescriptive requirements for subjective safety studies which seem to be primarily there to stop any change.
For others who have open minds, I can assure you that the resultant regulatory standards for turboprops like DHC8s and SF34s are different to the resultant certification standard for a Boeing 747.
I realise there is a group of people who constantly deny this fact – because to accept the premise means that the law of affordable safety applies. That is, if you have 30 people in an aircraft they cannot pay for the same level of safety that 400 people can. This is the only reason we have different certification standards for aircraft of different sizes.
Remember the primary amount of money for safety in any aircraft comes from the passenger ticket money – the higher number of passengers means that more ticket money available for safety improvements. Of course, our regulatory system reflects this quite different level in safety standards between large and small aircraft.
Nowhere have I suggested that the downturn in general aviation is primarily because of our different transponder requirements. What I am showing is that if we now add an additional expensive transponder requirement for all aircraft in Class G, that there will be a further downturn in general aviation participation rates.
The prime reason for the downturn in GA flying (especially when you see the boating market, with boat sales of up to $1 million booming) is the gradual increase of costs and complexity for GA flying. This has forced flyers into lighter aircraft which do not meet the certification standards that we have been able to afford in previous decades.
I am amazed that instead of supporting the idea of airline aircraft having TCAS – and thus improving safety even with the existing level of transponders – you head off in a direction of saying, “Let’s add even more costs to GA.”
Other countries in the world have mandatory TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers, yet they do not have mandatory transponder requirements in all Class E and G airspace. Why is this so? It is because they know that safety improvements are incremental and that by having more TCAS, which will operate with the existing transponders, that safety is improved.

gaunty
28th Feb 2007, 01:10
Ahh dear this is really becoming quite tedious, but necessary to keep the actual truth up there.

I can assure you that the resultant regulatory standards for turboprops like DHC8s and SF34s are different to the resultant certification standard for a Boeing 747. Really?

Might be a a confusion of terms BUT the Dash 8 and B747 400 are required to meet exactly the same FAR 25 certification standards, the ONLY differences being those that relate to the method of propulsion and maybe number of seats but the intent and basis remains the same.

I haven't got the time to ge right into it but the Dash 8 is up to a later FAR 25 amendment No (72) than the B747/400. the B747 and in fact the new 747-8 are actually grandfathered off the original 1960's B747/100 certification. Go figure.

Ergo the Dash 8 and any aircraft >5700kg share the same certification standards.

The regulations may be a different matter but only in relation to operation and maybe seat capapcity.

It is because they know that safety improvements are incremental and that by having more TCAS, which will operate with the existing transponders, that safety is improved. and they know their airspace arcgitecture, geography, mining industry and population densities are quite fundamentally different to Australias UNIQUE AIRSPACE.:rolleyes: US almost wall to wall radar, Europe, wall to wall cities.

Oh and so you allege Mr Scurvy.D.Dog is an air traffic controller from a Class D tower, so what, here, his views are at least as valid as yours and as far as ATC matters are concerned certainly more qualified.

This is PPRuNe you live and die by the quality of your argument, not who you are or might profess to be. PPRuNe has defrocked many an imposter, enthusiast, mightbe and wannabe. There is simply too much actual knowledge and real experience around to be able to get away with anything.

I would imagine you feel that your career would be affected – this is really shocking if so. I quite agree, but from whom do you imagine it might be so, Airservices perhaps? If you do know, surely you have a responsibility to bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities??

No sooner did the requirement come in that certain airline pilots then said, “We are now not going to support Class E airspace and we now want all VFR aircraft to fit transponders in Class G airspace as well.” That is, a one-way ratchet of adding costs to general aviation and therefore reducing participation levels. Look at this graph. looks pretty clear to me but then I guess my mind is closed. In defence you might play semantics and syntax, I say see above.

And in terms subjective try this statement;
I’m not sure if things have changed since then – perhaps they have. I know there has been a move to bring in the most prescriptive requirements for subjective safety studies which seem to be primarily there to stop any change. and you actually have evidence that proves this to be so, surely you have a responsibility to bring this to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Now I'm going to get back to doing something really useful.:mad:

GaryGnu
28th Feb 2007, 01:28
Capn Bloggs

For a preview at what UPS plans have a look at this http://asas-tn.eurocontrol.fr/tn2wksp3/session1/session1_6Bob.ppt

If you cant be bothered going to the link here is a brief description of the presentation from the report of the conference.

UPS in conjunction with the FAA, NASA, DOT, MITRE, ACSS (Aviation Communication and Surveillance Systems), and Boeing plans on implementing Sequencing, Merging, and Spacing next year at the Louisville International airport. Initial implementation will occur in low to medium density traffic involving only UPS aircraft arriving from the west. The airborne Merging and Spacing (M&S) tool will be an implementation of the EUROCONTROL CoSpace algorithm. The ground based Sequencing tool is being developed by NASA and MITRE and is called Airline Based Enroute Sequencing and Spacing or ABESS. ABESS will be operated from the UPS Global Operations Center until it is mature enough be implemented by the FAA.

Constant Descent Arrivals (RNAV arrivals connected to the approach for each runway) have been built from the west. These can be flown with very low power settings by the various aircraft types involved. ABESS builds a sequence of aircraft and assigns airspeeds to the aircraft to obtain approximately the required spacing until the aircraft are within ADS-B range. ABESS then assigns each participant the aircraft to follow and the appropriate spacing to be set in their M&S system. The aircraft use M&S to follow that aircraft to the runway within a much more constant manner. Using time-based wake turbulence separation standards and moving the responsibility of wake turbulence separation to the aircraft enables further capacity gains in almost all weather conditions.

This system will increase capacity and efficiency while reducing noise and emissions. Future phases of the implementation will include high-density operations from all directions during the main UPS hub operation. The M&S system will be upgraded with a combination of the CoSpace algorithm and a NASA developed algorithm which will allow multiple merges on the arrivals and more flexibility in allowing aircraft to pick their own top of descent for the arrival.

I would be very concerned if ICAO are looking at Oceanic In Trail Climb Procedures using TCAS. The FAA tried introducing them years ago and got very little utilisation. I believe it was abandoned in 2004.

The FAA have reprised the In Trail Climb concept using ADS-B and ADS-C though, based on the separation standards used in the TCAS version.

tobzalp,

I think you might be getting to the heart of the matter here. Methinks that Dick's sudden interest in wider TCAS installation is to pave the way for a push to (re)expand the use of Class E airspace.

Capn Bloggs
28th Feb 2007, 01:54
Gary,

Don't get me wrong. And yes, I am bothered and I will look at the link.:ok:

As I have said before here, I think ADS-B is terrific. I am just pointing out that just putting ADS-B IN to our cockpits will not be the end of all problems traffic-wise. As you point out, there is now a massive amount of support technology that is now only just being trialled eg the M and S gear to make this "I'll just follow his ADS-B paint myself and all will be hunky-dory" actually work safely. As UPS found out a few years ago, unless you have all of that, things can go pear-shaped quickly.

gaunty
28th Feb 2007, 02:19
Bloggs 'n all

Just in

Proposed Canadian ADS-B Network Detailed
More details about Canada’s proposed ADS-B network have been disclosed. As reported last week, Sensis of Syracuse, N.Y., won a Nav Canada contract covering up to 200 ADS-B stations for selective deployment across the country. Six dual installations are planned around Hudson Bay, currently non-radar airspace. The Sensis units support either ADS-B or multilateration, an alternative technique that accurately positions aircraft by triangulating their transponder responses. An eight-station multilateration network will cover Fort St. John, in northern British Columbia, and 11 stations will serve Vancouver’s Inner Harbor and its approaches. Both locations lose radar coverage at lower altitudes, due to intervening mountains and, at Vancouver, downtown high-rise buildings. Fort St. John is an oil drilling center, with increasing low-level fixed-wing and helicopter operations, while Vancouver has extensive private and commercial seaplane and helicopter operations that cross the approach and departure paths of its international airport.

I'm sure I posted the UPS article recently just cant find it and yes it was
Constant Descent Arrivals (RNAV arrivals connected to the approach for each runway) have been built from the west that was responsible for the remarkable fuel savings and the view that applied airline fleet wide would have the single biggest fuel saving effect ever.

Bring it on.

I'll keep looking as I cant remeber my password into the source.:rolleyes:

Wizofoz
28th Feb 2007, 02:20
I am amazed that instead of supporting the idea of airline aircraft having TCAS – and thus improving safety even with the existing level of transponders – you head off in a direction of saying, “Let’s add even more costs to GA.”


So, the idea of improving saftey with increased cost to GA operators (such as yourself and the bulk of your support base) is taboo, whilst increasing the cost to regional airlines (who actually employ people) is fine as they are a bottemless money pit....

Oh yes, and everyone has a vested interest except you.....:rolleyes:

Dick Smith
28th Feb 2007, 03:00
Capn Bloggs, you state:

you just have to listen to the shamozzle over the Pilbara every day. Can you explain this further? I presume you mean that using our 1950s system of radio arranged separation it becomes a shemozzle? If not, please explain what you mean. Do you believe the only way of solving it is to go to ADS-B, or do you think that there may be other ways of preventing this shemozzle?

By the way, does the shemozzle mean that there are times when a radio announcement cannot be made because others are talking? I look forward to your advice.

gaunty
28th Feb 2007, 03:25
Bloggs 'n all

This is the quote that leapt out of the Nov 2006 UPS article

On this night, UPS was not running any trial of its future goal--en route merging and spacing of its freighters so they arrive in the Louisville area single-file and ready to begin continuous-descent approaches in sequence.

"Consistency is one thing that gets you [more] capacity," said Bob Hilb, UPS's advanced flight systems manager. In an earlier discussion, he said the aim is to drive in much closer to the big UPS hub before pulling the throttles to near idle and coming down fairly quickly to touch down within seconds of the expected arrival time.

This tactic avoids the problem of descending to low altitude and being vectored around by ATC as controllers work to line up aircraft with the right spacing for landing. "All of that low-attitude vectoring is pure cost and no benefit at all," Hilb said, adding that if just 10% of the low-altitude maneuvers that are now occurring in the U.S. were eliminated, most airlines would be making a profit.


here is the link
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=74830&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchanne l_comm_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2Faw110606p1.xml

Just imagine that applied to the airways system as a whole. The internet is barely ten years old who knows where next.:ok:

Quokka
28th Feb 2007, 03:39
I think Capn Bloggs might be refering to Procedural Control (no RADAR surveillance) in controlled airspace as well as high traffic in Class G Airspace in the mining areas... and remember, WA is one big minesite.

Dick,

I would suggest that ADS-B in WA would provide an instant solution to the significant restrictions that are currently placed on IFR aircraft in controlled airspace due to airspace saturation. There are two fundamental problems in this airspace:

1. Too many aircraft.

2. No surveillance (ie. no RADAR).

There is an immediate solution and the solution is ADS-B.

The excellant service that is currently being provided by overworked, understaffed and under-resourced Air Traffic Controllers on West Procedural Group in the Melbourne Centre (WA sectors within YMMM) would be improved instantly if the Low-Level phase of the ADS-B project was implemented this year, both in Controlled Airspace and in Class G.

You won't find a charter company or anyone in the RFDS who would disagree. They know that there will be savings in operating costs and a significant improvement in safety that would flow through to the companies immediately... optimum cruising levels, unrestricted descent to destination, more room to divert around weather and traffic, surveillance-based traffic information on IFR and VFR in Class G and E airspace instead of Procedural control and traffic information on IFR only.

But the biggest benefit of all... improved traffic management when the charter flights to the mines depart on their return to Perth and mix it with airline traffic jostling for position in the landing sequence that can only currently be calculated and adjusted after all inbound aircraft are within RADAR coverage.

More information through increased surveillance + earlier intervention = less restriction = cost savings to the industry.

Please Dick, ask the industry in WA what effect years of being denied increased surveillance coverage has had on their operating costs and safety.

Capn Bloggs
28th Feb 2007, 04:19
Thank you Quokka. The only thing I will add is that if it was all non-radar or non-ADS-B Class E to the ground, the whole state would stop.

Dick if you really need to be filled in on what goes on in the real world, I suggest you remove yourself from the airspace debate because you are unqualified to comment, especially in public.

Gotta go flying...to PBO. I hope that lighty there has a transponder...:{

gaunty
28th Feb 2007, 04:33
Quokka exactly touche and thanks :D :D :D :D :D :D

Yes and all with 1950's radio technology operated by professionals := := :p AND wait for it, yes TCAS does give us part of the story but without everything that's flying nearby operating a transponder for the full picture we must rely on the good 'ol 1950's radio technology to enable the "unseen" to make the "recommended" :rolleyes: call. Unlike the 1950's in the modern world see and avoid is now only one of the tools.

Nah unless you spend some actual time in it you really have no credibility in a discussion on it.

I believe the standing invitation to jump seat for a period of time throughout the region still stands.

Scurvy.D.Dog
28th Feb 2007, 14:10
It gets funnier :} Scurvy.D.Dog, as an air traffic controller from a Class D tower, you certainly can become very angry. …. you clearly wish I was angry :} ... no cigar I’m afraid! ;) .. I’m tickled pink that the mainstream know exactly what is going on with aviation policy and why!
.
... The arguments are made. The ever growing number of people and professionals aware of and participating in this place (and others) will ensure communication and exchange of ideas/information continues into the future unabated! ..that can only assist with the transparency of aviation policy decisions made in future! .. you and I cannot change that from here on in (to my great relief)! :E ..... a peer review pool without parallel if you will! .... the horse has indeed bolted :D
.
..back to ‘whack-a-mole’ .. come to think of it, this is the way it always ends eh!... no retort, resort to playing the man …. who cares … seems pretty obvious who is cross right now … :E I can sort of understand why – you have been bashing along at this for years and you find that you cannot even put your real name to your beliefs. not putting names on things .. a bit like using sacrificial ‘officers’ to take the 'post farkup' blame for ideological follies past! … you know the type I mean, that class of people (‘the 5 minute millionaires’) that are heard to cry “ …it was not my decision, it is not my name on that piece of paper … I have no recollection of that” .. don’t you think?! I would imagine you feel that your career would be affected – this is really shocking if so. … my views, in my name on these and related issues are recorded over many years and in official correspondence .... but that ain't the rule of PPRuNe is it? ..... you just hate people being able to tell it how it is ... in any event, no one is threatening me!
.
… desperate times call for desperate measures though eh! :hmm: …. as far as I am aware, you are the only person imagining my career would be affected ….. yes … I can well imagine why you might think that! … how shocking for you! … your imagination really does need a ‘major’! ... in fact, its timely you raised the issue of careers … much to my pleasure, my lot in life is about to get a whole lot better. This all despite it being apparent to most that I am not terribly concerned about the consequences of blowing fire instead of sunshine up the food chain! … nor with humouring sleazy political ideologues! ... strangely wishes do often come true (more on that later).. I digress!
.
.. back to ‘whack-a-mole’ You may be interested in knowing that at the time the decision was made to bring in the mandatory transponder requirement in Class E airspace, there was no requirement for a regulatory impact statement or for a safety study. .. could you point to a basis in law that supports this?! …. and whilst at it, you might also mention the process used and the competencies of those that took that decision?! Plain commonsense said that safety would be improved. does that same common sense of yours include considering cost to industry, the lack of ATS surveillance, the number of aircraft at the time that were not TCAS equipped?? … did that common sense extend to considering the reduction in safety the removal of ATS IFR – VFR separation services in ‘C’ (replaced with ‘E’)?I’m not sure if things have changed since then – perhaps they have. .. and perhaps they have not?! … oh dear! I know there has been a move to bring in the most prescriptive requirements for subjective safety studies which seem to be primarily there to stop any change. … you really have nothing do you? … stop any change? :rolleyes: … stop any ‘less safe’ changes perhaps!
For others who have open minds, … phhhf :} ..yeh OK I can assure you that the resultant regulatory standards for turboprops like DHC8s and SF34s are different to the resultant certification standard for a Boeing 747. … cheers Gary!I realise there is a group of people who constantly deny this fact – because to accept the premise means that the law of affordable safety applies. …. Nurse … yer not required this evening … there is a classic comedy re-running on PPRuNe …. That is, if you have 30 people in an aircraft they cannot pay for the same level of safety that 400 people can. This is the only reason we have different certification standards for aircraft of different sizes. … really … those 30 paying passengers are paying for less safety are they …. Rubbish, All RPT operators are contracted (by the pax) to get their arses to the destination intact rather than in a petri dish! From an aircraft design safety point of view (your argument), they must all meet the same basic cert tests as Gary has pointed out!Remember the primary amount of money for safety in any aircraft comes from the passenger ticket money – the higher number of passengers means that more ticket money available for safety improvements. … cccurrap …. The ‘more money’ is spent on the higher costs to operate the bigger aircraft, as well as things such as returns to exec’s :yuk: and shareholders, insurance, fuel, airport fees (for infrastructure to handle the big aircraft), staff, etc … the money is generated by scale and networks!Of course, our regulatory system reflects this quite different level in safety standards between large and small aircraft. .. a reference thanks!Nowhere have I suggested that the downturn in general aviation is primarily because of our different transponder requirements. ….. no, you would not would you?! :hmm: What I am showing is that if we now add an additional expensive transponder requirement for all aircraft in Class G, that there will be a further downturn in general aviation participation rates. …. transponders you mandated did not hurt GA yet … transponders in G would??The prime reason for the downturn in GA flying (especially when you see the boating market, with boat sales of up to $1 million booming) is the gradual increase of costs and complexity for GA flying. .. why do you suppose that is? This has forced flyers into lighter aircraft which do not meet the certification standards that we have been able to afford in previous decades. …. you know (as do all of us) why this has happened .. confirm for us that you acknowledge that complexity and costs are responsible!I am amazed that instead of supporting the idea of airline aircraft having TCAS – and thus improving safety even with the existing level of transponders – you head off in a direction of saying, “Let’s add even more costs to GA.” … tell the truth Dick, ADS-B (if subsidised) will reduce significantly the costs for GA, ATS and create an unprecedented opportunity to make huge leaps in safety and efficiency!Other countries in the world have mandatory TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers, yet they do not have mandatory transponder requirements in all Class E and G airspace. Why is this so? … explained soooooo many times that you could not possibly misunderstand why the compared countries have effectively 100% transponder carriage due their airspace density, and do not need to mandate it in E and G as they all carry it!
.
….. compared to the great Australian expanse?? …. you know it is apples and turnips! It is because they know that safety improvements are incremental … the speed in to service, costs and advantage gained are the increments at issue! and that by having more TCAS, which will operate with the existing transponders, that safety is improved. … but not nearly as effectively as ADS-B fleet wide! not only to the commuters raised in the initial question but all ….. think of comparative cost effectiveness!
.
.
.. being the benevolent fellow I am, I would not want this to end with you being the only kid in class to have left without a ‘chocolate smile’! …. so here is yours for the road:-
.
…. we may in the end be thanking the Avionics Ginger Beers that ADS-B got up! …. your ‘old tech’ love affair rubbish is merely a convenient side show distraction to the real safety threat ahead. Just yesterday the seeds were sown atop the single straw on the camels back !
.
Cryptic I know, but be sure of this ….. either by error or design, the policy makers have delivered many of us recalcitrant air traffic controllers a delicious choice!
.
… the wagon train is headed in a new direction don’t you know, somewhere down near AWA …. I heard that down there they have 4 weeks notice, self managed fatigue, no rest/duty minimums and maximums! ….. ****e me says, it is hard enough doing the job with both legs and one arm tied behind yer back, let alone doing it with a bomb strapped to your arse as well! ... nah, I’m not particularly enamoured with leading a wagon to that destination!
.
… ah the bliss ...... days off being just that, uninterrupted by the job! ….. family time meaning just that family time! ……. they grow so quickly, I ain’t gunna miss out on that!
.
… no more 24/7 contact about every dam’d thing!
.
… doing what I enjoy most … operating on the line without distraction!
.
.. no financial hit! … what’s not to like!
.
.. so there you are …… you and I may sleep well tonight sound in the knowledge that I will not be re-applying for a chalis of poison! :ok: …. although ... it would also mean more nocturnal time available to swim around in the happenings in this place! …. I just love a game of ‘whack-a-mole’ :E
.
… how much time you got?? ;)
.
… nite all!

Dick Smith
28th Feb 2007, 21:53
Quokka, what is to stop the Royal Flying Doctor Service, charter operators or airlines fitting ADS-B now? I understand Airservices is installing ADS-B base stations for the higher levels. These will obviously work with line of sight at low levels.

I would love to get your answer to this. It is almost as if someone is preventing your bosses from fitting ADS-B, when it is most likely economics – i.e. affordable safety that is preventing the fitment.

Surely if there was a genuine safety risk that ADS-B could solve, you would have convinced those who make the decision to go ahead and fit ADS-B in your aircraft. Airbuses that fly across Australia have ADS-B ‘out’. Why not get one of those units and fit it in your own aircraft?

What I am saying is that there is nothing that I am doing which prevents your company from fitting ADS-B right now. Surely you should explain why they are not.

gaunty
1st Mar 2007, 06:07
Mr Smith sir

Just for the record, to be fair and so we will not be guilty of shooting at the wrong person/s, did you have any involvement or influence, direct or indirect in the stopping of the Airservices low level ADSB implementation and tender process for airborne ADSB equipment. For one bright shining moment there it looked like Australia was going to do another first for the unique Australian aviation landscape like the DME.

A yes or no will be just fine thank you.

Biggles_in_Oz
1st Mar 2007, 09:45
Gosh gaunty...,,,, you are hopefull !

Quokka
1st Mar 2007, 13:40
Dick,

Both the Safety Case and the cost/benefit analysis left no doubt as to the necessity and viability of ADS-B in Australia.

With respect, I was on the ADS-B project team and the last conversation with the Project Manager left us both at a loss as to why the project was not proceeding.

Did you influence the decision not to proceed with the Low-Level ADS-B project?

Dick Smith
1st Mar 2007, 22:02
Gaunty, what a strange question! You ask:

did you have any involvement or influence, direct or indirect in the stopping of the Airservices low level ADSB implementation and tender process for airborne ADSB equipment I suggest that you look at my Dick Smith Flyer website under ADS-B here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_36.php) and then ask yourself the question again. The answer is pretty obvious. If you are actually asking if there was something going on that was hidden – no there wasn’t.

Quokka, you state:

Both the Safety Case and the cost/benefit analysis left no doubt as to the necessity and viability of ADS-B in Australia. The problem is that the safety case was flawed. See here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/8154.php).

If you were on the ADS-B team, why the secrecy, and why didn’t you suggest to the Project Manager that he either answer the postings on my website, or give me a phone call? Was it that he agreed with what I was stating?

I will say it again. If people who genuinely believe that we should be leading the world with a unique form of ADS-B want to be heard, they should be open and use their own names. Otherwise they have little credibility and people will judge that there is something to hide or something not quite honest going on.

I agree that there are many times when anonymity is necessary for PPRuNE – especially in the case of whistle blowing for important safety issues. However when it comes to something as rational and technical as ADS-B, there is no need for secrecy at all – it just takes away from credibility.

Capn Bloggs
1st Mar 2007, 23:03
Dick,
You really do get wound up about not knowing who you are talking to don't you? As has been said to you many times before: it doesn't matter where the argument comes from, it's the quality of the argument that counts. In fact, it is probably best NOT to know names, because even though they may be in positions of power, popular, or with lots of clout, they may be raving lunatics.

If you don't know who they are, you have only their arguments to judge them on. If the argument's lunacy, then it gets disregarded. If the argument's sound, then does it matter that they are a 500hr C150 pilot or a 20,000hr Chief Pilot of a jet operation? NO. Of course, to judge whether the argument's sound or not requires as significant level of expertise, experience and knowledge in the field being discussed. And as has been done before, some here play the man and not the ball when they find out who people are.

As has been demonstrated with ****su Tonka, there are some nasty people/bosses in the world who can't take either a joke or any criticism and will do anything to jump on the people who dare to challenge. No wonder people stay anonymous.

The answer is pretty obvious.
To save us all the pain of having to trawl through your website (I don't want to catch anything...) how about you just answer the question: Yes or No?

Now, please get back on thread.

WILL YOU OR WILL YOU NOT DEMAND THAT TRANSPONDERS BE FITTED IN ALL AIRCRAFT THAT OPERATE IN AREAS WHERE COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FITTED WITH TCAS OPERATE?

gaunty
1st Mar 2007, 23:07
:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

tobzalp
2nd Mar 2007, 02:29
Will You Or Will You Not Demand That Transponders Be Fitted In All Aircraft That Operate In Areas Where Commercial Aircraft Fitted With Tcas Operate?

Bob Murphie
2nd Mar 2007, 02:54
The ASTRA "Cross Industry Business Case" for ADS-B was haplessly (and hopelessly) flawed, and effectively disowned by the new management of Airservices.

It seems more than likely that the present ASTRA long term plan will go the same way.CASA did two Cost/Benefit cases for ADS-B back in '05, as I recall.The first showed wonderful savings for airlines, so GA was going to have to lump it on costs, with maybe a subsidy.


Then the decimal point in the wrong place was discovered, and the airline benefits evaporated.The second CASA study was equally inept, suddenly discovering all sorts of GA benefits that had been mysteriously missed the first time around.

None of the newly discovered benefit accrued to those who had to spend the money, they were all indirect benefits, as I recall saving 1.8 (?) or something similar statistical lives per year from starting searches closer to where "ADS-B" last detected the aircraft, all assuming nationwide low level coverage and every ADS-B return recorded by Airservices -- neither of which was going to be the case.

Very fuzzy costs were quoted for ADS-B OUT ONLY, then benefits for ADS-B IN were quoted as benefits, and so it went on. Quoting C145/146 GNSS benefits as ADS-B benefits, when you get those benefits right now, with a C145/146 GPS in your preferred aerial locomotion device.In fact, both CASA studies were more about the benefits of C145/146 GPS, not ADS-B at all, [ as was/is the CAPSTONE case] but those responsible (I am told they no longer work for CASA) simply didn't understand the difference, or alternatively, "why let the facts spoil a good story", when " Ye' got 'ol time religion" about ADS-B, with such faith, who need facts.The "left no doubt" case had costs of (again from memory ) for the program study period, $110m-200m v. highly dodgy indirect benefits of $22m -- with zero for those who would spend the money in fitting and maintenance.

Don't kid yourself about the benefits of the "5 mile separation standard" back of Black Stump, even the ASTRA 2025 projected traffic won't need "5m" to handle the traffic without delays outside the terminal areas. At no stage was there a defined hazard/risk to which ADS-B was the/an answer, let alone the cost/benefit justified answer, just a raft of un-quantified assertions.The savings claimed originally for not replacing some of the remote SSR head, and other "Airservices" benefits of the ADS-B program resulted in a 0.8% savings on the Airservices bottom line, is/was 0.8% going to produce big service fees savings for the big airlines.Hardly.

All this is public information.

Finally, would somebody please list all the 1090ES ADS-B IN equipment available NOW, for retrofit to, say, Regional aircraft (hint-have a look at the published program for QF Regional -8's, and what it produces in $$$ terms) and GA aircraft, and cost. Unless you are suggesting that retrofitting Collins TDR-94D transponders and new Universal navigators comes cheap. Crikey!

PS The ONLY RTCA standard that exists for using ADS-B/C 1090ES signals in TCAS 11 produces exactly the same readout/display/warnings as would a transponder Mode S input.

SCE to Aux
2nd Mar 2007, 03:28
Well done Bob! As I've often said, it will be time for Aus to think about rolling out low-level ADS-B when I can buy one from Garmin.

Dick Smith
2nd Mar 2007, 05:03
Capn Bloggs, I’ll make it pretty simple with a yes or no answer. If the people at Airservices read my letters to the Minister and postings on my website in relation to ADS-B, and that made them re-think their decision, the answer is yes – I did have an influence on the Airservices decision. If they took no notice of my letters to the Minister and postings on my website, the answer is no – I did not have an influence on the Airservices decision.

You then ask:

WILL YOU OR WILL YOU NOT DEMAND THAT TRANSPONDERS BE FITTED IN ALL AIRCRAFT THAT OPERATE IN AREAS WHERE COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FITTED WITH TCAS OPERATE? I will say again – my first aim is to get our airlines complying with the safety requirements that exist in other leading aviation countries. When we are up to speed on these safety requirements in Australia, I will certainly look at pushing for more onerous requirements for transponders. However I will not do this if it means that the GA industry is further damaged. That is a pretty simple and straightforward explanation. Do you understand it?

Scurvy.D.Dog
2nd Mar 2007, 05:48
Bob,The ASTRA "Cross Industry Business Case" for ADS-B was haplessly (and hopelessly) flawed, and effectively disowned by the new management of Airservices.
.
It seems more than likely that the present ASTRA long term plan will go the same way. .. Serious questions:-
.
- Do you have information on the basis on which the ‘new’ management of AsA ‘disowned’ the business case?, also;
- what made it hapless and hopelessly flawed?
.
Re CASA cost/benefit’s,
.
I remember hearing similar (assumed to be the first CBA), never did have it confirmed nor saw a copy/s … the decimal point explanation is worrying if true. I assume there is some correspondence re same floating around, would be interesting to read! The second CASA study was equally inept, suddenly discovering all sorts of GA benefits that had been mysteriously missed the first time around. .. one wonders if CASA consulted with AsA? … the point being, if all the costs and benefits are not captured it is nigh on impossible to get a real picture!None of the newly discovered benefit accrued to those who had to spend the money, they were all indirect benefits, as I recall saving 1.8 (?) or something similar statistical lives per year from starting searches closer to where "ADS-B" last detected the aircraft, .. what were the other ‘benefits’ included? all assuming nationwide low level coverage and every ADS-B return recorded by Airservices -- neither of which was going to be the case. … I was under the impression it was based on the initial phase of ADS-B coverage below A100?!, the rollout to other areas was to be considered separately given the variable that might affect when other coverage came on line?!Very fuzzy costs were quoted for ADS-B OUT ONLY, then benefits for ADS-B IN were quoted as benefits, and so it went on. … Microair are quoting $2,800, how much less do you figure per unit if fleetwide and subsidy applies (less or more than a mode C/S TXPDR)?? Quoting C145/146 GNSS benefits as ADS-B benefits, when you get those benefits right now, with a C145/146 GPS in your preferred aerial locomotion device. In fact, both CASA studies were more about the benefits of C145/146 GPS, not ADS-B at all, [ as was/is the CAPSTONE case] but those responsible (I am told they no longer work for CASA) simply didn't understand the difference, or alternatively, "why let the facts spoil a good story", when " Ye' got 'ol time religion" about ADS-B, with such faith, who need facts. … and your objection to the navigation, surveillance, and future enhancements available (to GA particularly) are? … what .. I asume you would rather everyone pay less than 100% for the GPS/ADS-B were subsidy available!?The "left no doubt" case had costs of (again from memory ) for the program study period, $110m-200m v. highly dodgy indirect benefits of $22m -- with zero for those who would spend the money in fitting and maintenance. .. please correct me if I am wrong … your figures above vary from those I have heard (I have not got them to hand so I will not guess) … they do not include the fitment subsidy for GA, or the savings to the big end of town and the infrastructure reduction of ADS-B(wamlat) vice MSSR radar (including install, maintenance, at life replacement), and not just current MSSR’s, the others that presumably are still required where C approach is above D zones!Don't kid yourself about the benefits of the "5 mile separation standard" back of Black Stump, even the ASTRA 2025 projected traffic won't need "5m" to handle the traffic without delays outside the terminal areas. …. I would be very interested in seeing the data for this assumption! ….. outside the terminal areas … have you spent much time in the mining triangle or QLD? … or seen the procedural workload of enroute controllers managing these areas? …. mores the point, it is easy to calculate (in isolation, as an estimate), where conflict pairs might or might not be restricted … it is entirely different to measure the delay in relaxing separation when large areas are being serviced (procedurally). Calculations and cross-checking required before ‘proving’ separation! … in other words, the benefits (in this case) flow if you can see the traffic, its is faster, less talk time with crews (position reports etc) and far far more efficient! .. again, I am not sure (as I was not involved in or directly aware of the methodologies used with this stuff) if it is applicable in the context of the information you have, although I have seen those sorts of omissions before! … accuracy is reliant on subject matter expert review across all affected areas! At no stage was there a defined hazard/risk to which ADS-B was the/an answer, let alone the cost/benefit justified answer, just a raft of un-quantified assertions. … is this the CASA CBA’s you are referring to?The savings claimed originally for not replacing some of the remote SSR head, and other "Airservices" benefits of the ADS-B program resulted in a 0.8% savings on the Airservices bottom line, is/was 0.8% going to produce big service fees savings for the big airlines. Hardly. …. Again, those figures seem odd compared to those I have heard bandied about, not withstanding, what does .8% P.A equate to? …. (in millions that is)All this is public information. … I am not being obtuse Bob, could you provide some links as I am having some difficulty finding the stuff you have referred to!Finally, would somebody please list all the 1090ES ADS-B IN equipment available NOW, for retrofit to, say, Regional aircraft (hint-have a look at the published program for QF Regional -8's, and what it produces in $$$ terms) and GA aircraft, and cost. Unless you are suggesting that retrofitting Collins TDR-94D transponders and new Universal navigators comes cheap. Crikey! … that’s the heart of the issue! No one is gunna do the hardware/software mod’s unless there is a need (market for it) … the market exist now, it is being announced all over the place (Canada one example), yet we sit and wait! ……. unless you think 1090ES is not going to be the international standard, and a market is not there .. why would we wait? ……. so you can buy one from Garmin (US) for 100% of the cost??PS The ONLY RTCA standard that exists for using ADS-B/C 1090ES signals in TCAS 11 produces exactly the same readout/display/warnings as would a transponder Mode S input. …. which confirms Honeywell has seen the writing on the wall! .. if we 'assume' for the sake of argument that existing manufacturers of Commercial avionics have prepared for it, does that not provide a pretty big clue about 1090 intended use?? ..... so what’s the issue for GA … (particularly if scaled by subsidy) for those currently without the baseline gear?
.
… no strings attached Bob, just want to clarify the points you have raised! :ok:
.
Cheers
.
Dog
.
Dick
.
.... did you receive a resonse to your letter to the Minister?
.
.... did you talk to the Minister, Advisers or DoTaRS/AsA or AOPA :E around the time of the letter?

tobzalp
2nd Mar 2007, 07:10
When we are up to speed on these safety requirements in Australia, I will certainly look at pushing for more onerous requirements for transponders.

So you would also support the compulsory issuing of binoculars to blind persons. Sure they have the gear but they will not be able to see anything :D :rolleyes:

gaunty
2nd Mar 2007, 07:33
That is a pretty simple and straightforward explanation. Do you understand it? yeah it's really simple, whatever tobzalp said.:{
Whatever gets press.

Bob Murphie mate :ok:

Your post sounds too much like it was written by the ghost of Christmas past.

"The time has come the Walrus said to speak of many things
Of ideologues, polemicists and whether pigs have wings" :E

apologies to Lewis Carrol

Bob Murphie
2nd Mar 2007, 08:27
Scurvy.D.Dog: Too socially excited to get back tonight, but will.

gaunty: All my own work. Please don't make me go through another lecture. You know where I stand with this stuff for GA. I have so much data that I am beyond copying and pasting, so give me a bit of editorial originality between the statements.:=

Creampuff
2nd Mar 2007, 21:25
Despite the uncannily Leadsled-like ring to Bob’s post, and the uncharacteristic absence of Bob-like mixed and tortured metaphors, I think the substance of the post deserves serious debate (per SDD’s post).

CaptainMidnight
2nd Mar 2007, 23:09
Despite the uncannily Leadsled-like ring to Bob’s post, and the uncharacteristic absence of Bob-like mixed and tortured metaphors, I think the substance of the post deserves serious debateAgree - if the sources of the allegations are posted.

Otherwise .......

gaunty
2nd Mar 2007, 23:32
Bob

You know where I stand with this stuff for GA. of course and I respect that, lighten up.:ok:

But the days of accepting "received wisdom" from our self appointed betters are long gone.:}

I think Creamy feels a bit like SDD and myself, if there was a debate in the terms you discuss we didn't hear about it. One minute Airservices are selling low level ADSB like Persian carpet merchants, the esteemed and very professional Greg is wandering the bazzaars and souks (inc AOPA AGMs) spruiking the goods, even AOPA is canvassing for subsidised fitment, then KABLAAM It's stopped in its tracks.

Mr Smiths usual alarmist warnings about terrorist spoofing :rolleyes: are coincident.:eek:

It's all too neat for a cynical old bugger like myself.

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

Bob Murphie
3rd Mar 2007, 00:15
Fair go, I'm still in recovery mode and only half way finished the response to Dog. If my writing style hinders the discussion, a lot is copy from emails at hand. The various authors assure me they are not copyright.
How about you blokes dropping the conspiracy theories and blaming Dick, and think what the effect the reconstructed board and new senior management of Airservices has on consideration of ADSB. Is it merely a coincidence that the low level ADSB got 'KABLAAMED" soon after the new Airservices senior management got its feet under the table.
Check out their backgrounds before you blame anyone for my scribblings.
Dog;
At great risk of torturing some more metaphor's or sinning on my tax, I respond with what I can glean from my voluminous files and "lecture" notes, both longhand anectdotal, and copied.
1) Do I have information on the basis on which the 'new' management of AsA 'disowned' the business case.
It's not exactly a secret around the CASA/ SCC Airspace User Group/ Industry delegates/ AERU/ DOTARS/ Ministers Aviation Advisor.
2) What made it hapless and hopelessly flawed?
It consisted largely of unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions with a notable lack of hard facts and analysis. If you have read it and have some knowledge of the conventional processes for compiling a business case, and a reasonably detailed knowledge of Aust traffic distribution and airspace management, (as I think you do), it is all to obvious. One could be forgiven for the assumption that the 'case' started with the conclusion and worked backwards. That ol time religion again. Who wants to operate their aircraft on 'faith' rather than 'fact'. Not unlike over optimistic aircraft owners who decide 'the revenue will be' when what they really mean is 'the revenue must be or we go broke'.
3) Re CASA's cost/ benefits.
Have a really good look around the CASA website, most of the archives are now publicly available. Also the proceedings of the SCC and the Airspace Users group/ AERU. This information has been available to all the delegates to the SCC. Particularly look for Industry comments on DP's.
4) The second CASA study was inept.
No problems with costs there were costs aplenty, the cost/ benefit problem was the complete lack of benefits, starting with any quantifiable safety benefits that could be costed, such as X statistical lives times Y times $M (the value of a statistical life for regulatory purposes) saved from mid-airs that statistically didn't happen because of the ADSB program.
5) What were the other 'benefits' included?
Not much really, the 1.8 lives by the 'value of life' made up most of it, some claims to saved search costs, most of the rest was about GNSS benefits, C145/146 approved as a single aid at an alternate. All very 'constructed'. What was significant was the total lack of quantifiable ADSB benefits to operators. Lots of opinion/ assertation/ faith but little in the way of genuine data. Although masses of data is available, which data does not support the case. Have a look at the C v E levels analysis, that was properly done by Airservices, and the results were disregarded. Faith again, given thanks to ALARP for our deliverance from E-vil.
6) Initial ADSB coverage below A100 etc.
AMSAR/ AusSAR actually disputed the interpretation of their input (SCC records again) as 'interpretaed' by those now departed CASA. More to the point about coverage, if Airservices was not going to to track and record anything but IFR (in the system), and they have never said they were going to track VFR, unless somebody also paid for it, if VFR returns are suppressed, SAR wise the coverage doesn't matter.
7) Microair.
Please give me a written quote for a C145/ 145 GPS ADSB enabled Mode S transponder from Microair (not just their mode S transponder). You know, the 'real deal' and I will order them by the 100's and resell them to a Mate who will strip out the GPS chip and resell it for more than that.
8) Pay less than 100% for the GPS/ ADSB were a subsidy available.
No objection, but you cannot use the value of the benefits of GNSS that are relevant to ANY C145/ 146 GPS (Garmin 480) as benefits of ADSB, that is an invalid analysis, this is part of the problem, inexperienced people making up their own rules. Departments of Finance and The treasury are very good at cost/ benefit analysis, if you asked them for approval of a subsidy "for this bloody great idea', except that there is no business case, the numbers $$ don't stack up, without an almost 100% subsidy, nobody would buy it, what do you think the answer would be. ADSB isn't middle class welfare votes so forget it. There is no GNSS benefit of C145/ 146 to VFR, which is the vast bulk of aircraft in Aust, so you can't assert it in a cost/ benefit study for VFR. Please don't forget, no subsidy case was ever presented to the Airservices board, talks (propaganda) is cheap. Will there ever be a subsidy, I certainly don't know, nor does anyone else despite early assurances.
9) Big end of town and Infrastruction reduction.
Actually what savings to the big end of town? that was where the CASA first cost/ benefit fell down, when corrected for the decimal point error.ie. one tenth the originally claimed figures, the savings to major airlines were negligible. More to the point, even with all the original Airservices claimed cost saving, both capital and ongoing of fewer remote radars etc., with impressive $$$MMM claimed (now since greatly reduced because of that bloody decimal point), the net to Airservices was less than 1%, about 0.8%, for Airservices as a business. Who is going to turn a company on it's head, when it already has a very effective cash flow, for 0.8%. Certainly not the present management of Airservices I would bet. ADSB as long term evolution for it's major customers, yes certainly, but GA and the low level program well ?? Where is the data, the genuine demonstration of a problem to which 'mandated' ADSB is the answer.
10) The ASTRA 2025 projected traffic won't need 5m to handle the traffic.
Not an assumption but a conclusion by a major operator based on present and projected traffic levels. Perhaps the proper answer to this is not regulatory, but straight business, if there is a case for a change brought about in an area due to the mining boom, why not the same as roads and railways- everybody gets together to decide what they can all agree upon to do, and go spend the money and do it. The whole of Aust does not need to be visited with a solution needed in one area. Airservices is a commercial business, let it make an offer to provide the services claimed to be needed, if there is money to be made by the operators, won't they jump at it? High level en-route savings- if there are $$$ in it (like FANS-1 and RVSM) Qantas would be in like a shot, are they retrofitting ADSB to the big aircraft? No. If they come fitted great, but retrofit ??? ???
11) Is this CASA CBA I am referring to?
Start with the voluminous traffic data, and run the conflict models available. Not including the NAS 2b windback case- airline pilots with a 50% ATC error rate, but controllers with an error rate of 1:1,000,000 save me. No pilot is that bad, and the claimed controller standard is superhuman, ie bull$hit. See Professor O'Neills report for CASA on the NAS 2b safety case- A hazard for which mandatory ADSB is the mitigation simply doesn't emerge. And before you say it, I know NAS2b windback was not anything to do with ADSB but there was a lot of data analysis of actual collision data, the Airservices one was fun, 'somebody forgot' that most of the mid west of the USA is 5-6000' AMSL, all (but one) of the en-route collisions were at circuit height. What a 'Barney'. The VORTAC at Denver isn't called 'Mile High' for nothing. Gives a whole new meaning to the Mile High Club. Go to Leadville, you can join the Mile and a half High Club. (no I haven't been there).
12) SSR heads.
See above, just take the original wildly inflated claimed savings, as they were, and get a copy of the Airservices Annual Report, use their own figures, the usual conventions, DCF, capital return etc., you might well be surprised. Look also at the NZ example of radar replacement programs.
13) Public information.
Mostly look at the CASA archives publicly available, most will be there. Most of the ASTRA stuff is not too hard to come by, got any mates with a password to the AERU site for their information. Have a look for the published DP responses from AOPA, ASAC and other alphabets, particularly ASAC. It's a mass of stuff, but it's all there.
14) Standards and markets.
Thats not an answer to the question,is it. There are three ICAO ADSB standards. Most of the ATA standards equipment doesn't need anything better than C129A GPS because they are hybrid systems- IRS/ FMCS, where GPS is just an update, where the C129 stand alone RAIM limitations don't apply. There is no doubt that 1090ES will become/ is the international airline standard, for a new build aircraft, but what price for GA. There will be plenty of UAT, USA is the only 'mass market' but that won't be much use here. Don't discount VDL-4, it's vying with multi-lateration for the ground collision avoidance market, we wouldn't want every moving object on the airport squittering Mode S would we, given the very limited number of transponder codes. What would be cheaper, Airservices using dual/ triple mode re-transmitters (like FAA), allowing a choice of system for operators, or the subsidy route for 1090ES, because there is no non airline mass market to get the price down. So once again, where is the C145/146 ADSB enabled 1090ES transponder, OUT and IN/OUT I can buy now, at any price. A handful of aircraft in Aust isn't a market. As for subsidies where are they??
15) The issue for GA.
The whole point of the comment you refer is that most -8's and up will get no more than they get now with other aircraft having a Mode A/C transponder, and so far the 1090ES equipment you speak of is "only just around the corner' -- still.

gaunty
3rd Mar 2007, 02:25
Bob

And a right fine lot they are too.:ok: And without demeaning their obviously high level skills and abilities, how many Boards do we have to change before we get one that fully aligns with certain individuals views? :rolleyes:

You'll forgive, us but you must agree we have been fed a steady diet of rhetoric, polemic, horsefeathers and self belief by sometime airspace enthusiasts for too long.

Leave the professionals alone to do what they are good at and selected for, second guessing and running a half baked Greek chorus alongside their efforts is not productive.

The continual sniping and media heroics does nothing to promote the industry nor participation in it and the assumption that we somehow need "saving" from "them" is IMHO not only ill founded but extremely arrogant.

On the one hand we are told the US airspace system is the "gold" standard and on the other hand some of it "remains to be seen", confused I am.

Nobody, not one single individual has a right or mandate to dictate what should or should not be happening in any area of Govt or Public Service. That right belongs to Government and the professional Public Service ultimately at the ballot box. I think you and I might agree that the only way one can really make a difference in that regard is to take personal responsibility by standing up and actually being counted and that can only happen at the ballot box. There are only two ways to go, either hector and bully from the sidelines or get elected and take the responsibility and your chances. All else is puffery.

Back to the thread, so far we are still waiting for the circle of safety to be closed on TCAS for ALL Australians, including those that work in the mining industry who whilst very small number in relation to the total population produce a very significant portion of the GNP.

So far we are up to the point where Mr Smith is demanding TCAS for all Public Transport aircraft which includes the 10-30 seat FIFO operators, a move that would be difficult NOT to applaud, but will not unequivocally demand the very same safety standards from GA aircraft flying in their immediate vicinity :confused: tobzalp got it in one.:ok:

propnut
3rd Mar 2007, 02:53
I had a friend who was threatened to receive a fine by CASA for not having a radio operators certificate. Eventually he contacted the person direct to tell them that his Piper Cub does NOT have a radio as it has no electrical system. He was told that they assumed all aircraft had radios(and electrical systems)

I have several friends in this class of aircraft and they want to continue in this way.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!
AND if you aren't paying for it, don't expect me to!!

bushy
3rd Mar 2007, 03:23
Some years ago I flew a Luscome which also did not have radio, or a gyro instrument, a starter motor, or any electrical system. It's a bit hard to fit whizzbang electronics in those, just because someone else wants you to.

peuce
3rd Mar 2007, 03:57
Bob Murphie, you said about the ADS-B Business Case:

"It consisted largely of unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions with a notable lack of hard facts and analysis. If you have read it and have some knowledge of the conventional processes for compiling a business case, and a reasonably detailed knowledge of Aust traffic distribution and airspace management, (as I think you do), it is all to obvious. One could be forgiven for the assumption that the 'case' started with the conclusion and worked backwards."

I can't help but also attribute that description to the case put by creator of this thread ...

OZBUSDRIVER
3rd Mar 2007, 06:47
I detect some of my arguments against you on another forum, Bob. Mate, you know you are only arguing for your own personal form of aviating. Big brother couldn't really give a fig about what we do. However, what we do COULD cause a lot of heartache whilst we go about aviating with the least amount of costs and regulation.

My arguments on that thread for the case were also gleaned from learned peoples from other lands. The benefits are not fictional, they did exists. The stats are there. LIVES were saved!

Edit-another coincidence, ABIT is sitting again on the 15th to restart dialogue after a year.

bushy
3rd Mar 2007, 07:04
Quote
And I'll support mandatory TCAS for 10-30 seat RPT's and charter if you support mandatory transpoders in all aircraft sharing THEIR airspace.
Unquote

Who says they own the airspace. I thought the airspace belonged to the Australian public, not any particular group of operators.

gaunty
3rd Mar 2007, 07:21
OK lets try it this way then.

And I'll support mandatory transpoders in all aircraft sharing airspace with 10-30 seat RPT's and charter if you support mandatory TCAS for them.

I agree the airspace belongs to the Australian public in the same way as the national road sytem.
But nobody complains about Australian Compliance Standards for the vehicles that use them which although undoubtedly means extra costs undoubtedly saves lives. Or dont we need these excessive costs out there in the GAFA.

Scurvy.D.Dog
3rd Mar 2007, 23:12
Take the time folks, it is all here. Some of the downloads will take a while on slow connections …. Start em and get a coffee … ruff up the kids or whatever in the interim … it will be worth your while.

This will put the technical arguments to bed for ever! …… for UAT .. even the yanks have given it away by the looks!

Raytheon .. Feb 07’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentation%20-%20ADS-B%20workshop%20-%20Feb%2007/ROLFE.ppt

ADS-B Benefits for Commercial … Feb 07’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentation%20-%20ADS-B%20workshop%20-%20Feb%2007/GROPPFELDT.ppt

GA Avionics Development .. Feb 07’
http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentation%20-%20ADS-B%20workshop%20-%20Feb%2007/STEVENS.ppt

Sweden GA ADS-B … Feb 07’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentations%20GA%20ws/Session%202%20-%20What%20is%20in%20ADS-B%20for%20GA/Gunnar%20Frisk%20-%20Practical%20experiences%20in%20Sweden.pdf

IAOPA Nov 06’ …. Interesting views on freq saturation that has been addressed by Raytheon in the Feb 07 PPT

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentations%20GA%20ws/Session%202%20-%20What%20is%20in%20ADS-B%20for%20GA/Klaus-Peter%20Sternemann%20-%20AOPA%20expectations.pdf

Honeywell …. Nov 06’ …… has issues with UAT …. ‘in’ is in for GA!

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentations%20GA%20ws/Session%203%20-%20Avionics%20Solutions/Rick%20Berckefeldt%20-%20ADS-B%20avionics%20for%20General%20Aviation.pdf

Rockwell Collins Business Aviation .. Nov 06’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentations%20GA%20ws/Session%203%20-%20Avionics%20Solutions/Okko%20Bleeker%20-%20ADS-B%20and%20business%20-%20regional%20applications.pdf

Becker Avionics GA … Nov 06’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentations%20GA%20ws/Session%203%20-%20Avionics%20Solutions/Dieter%20Kunze%20-%20Details%20for%20the%20supply%20of%20ADS-B%20to%20GA.pdf

Selex Avionics (commercial and GA) … Nov 06’ Low cost GA Gliders etc

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentations%20GA%20ws/Session%203%20-%20Avionics%20Solutions/Gianluca%20Gabatel%20-%201090%20MHz%20Extended%20Squitter%20ADS-B%20and%20TIS-B%20Airborne%20System.pdf

Euro Telematik … Nov 06’ …. Avionics GA ….. yet another that saw the opportunities

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentations%20GA%20ws/Session%203%20-%20Avionics%20Solutions/Thomas%20Wittig%20-%20Avionics%20solutions%20for%20ADS-B.pdf

…….. and a host of other stuff here

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/public/site_preferences/display_library_list_public.html#5

…… the financial and safety justifications are far and wide .. in the Oz context, there are some revealing insights available …. I need to tin plate my ass before I post it though TBA.

….. I hope the baseless self interested ‘meddling’ of a few has not left our avionics manufacturers and the industry in general out in the cold … if so, heads should roll ASAP!

Cheers

gaunty
4th Mar 2007, 02:23
Scurvy me old.:ok:

Thanks for that.

Not sure I saw this one in the above list and it sure is revealing.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/documents/Presentations/Session%201%20-%20Strategic%20Perspective/Dunstone_toulouse_2006.pdf

The Airservices link in the last page seems not surprisingly to have disappeared??

I might be missing something but but it seemed to me that not only were we up there with the rest of the world on this but actually leading it in some areas.

Page 31 sorta said it all. I simply refuse to believe that we had it that wrong, but then you are only an anonymous therefore not credible un Australian Class D Tower controller and I'm just a dumb un Australian salesman, so what would we know.?:{ :E

I do hope the esteemed Mr Dunstone hasn't been banished to Christmas Island as the maintenance officer.:p perhaps we should send him some care parcels:ok:

OZBUSDRIVER
4th Mar 2007, 04:09
ABIT is meeting again on the 15th in Canberra. Mr Dunstone is still the appointed chair. Will be interesting to see what has developed over the last twelve months.

To Dick and Bob and Bill and Tony. Guys, you would have to be blind to see the benefits available now and in the future from this one system. Dick, I cannot understand why you continue to push for a system that may well be going the same way as NDBs.

The Big Sky Theory is dead, compliments of the GNSS. ADS-B plus whatever variety of VDL is going to be the future.

Bob Murphie
4th Mar 2007, 04:48
I have a cheap Betacord VCR for sale and a Van5 DME, any takers?:cool:

bushy
4th Mar 2007, 06:19
Haven't you blokes noticed?
For a long time now nearly all of Australia's civil aircraft have been fitted with mode C transponders.
Only a few have TCAS.

GaryGnu
4th Mar 2007, 06:37
For a long time now nearly all of Australia's civil aircraft have been fitted with mode C transponders. Only a few have TCAS

bushy

For what it is worth the only quantification of Transpoder Equippage for light (<5700kg) aircraft that I have seen showed only 54.8% of all aircraft types (VH a/c, RAA, gliders etc) had Mode C or better. Source: CASA 2004
Aircraft Equipment Survey page 32.

I cannot vouch for the efficacy of this survey, perhaps the AOPA brigade may care to comment on that.

Scurvy D. Dog

Thanks for the links.:ok:

The next ABIT meeting will make interesting reading/viewing in light of Bob Murphie's comments.

gaunty
4th Mar 2007, 07:23
I Gnu it.:rolleyes:

Thanks for that, it is about the number I had in my head, and doubt that the %age has changed much since then.

:} quick bit of 'rithmetic tells me there are therefore perhaps 4500 to 5000 of the "unseen" lurking out there AND I would 'spect mostly around them places where you needs most to seeum and where the highest concentration of 10-19 pax aircraft are likely to be.

The Big Sky Theory was really only ever in someones imagination.:ugh:

A bit like phlogiston and Einsteins constant, created to make the formula work properly.:E

Bob Murphie
4th Mar 2007, 08:21
OZBUSDRIVER

Big Sky --- dead and buried --- not by a long shot --- get onto the
Minister's web site, have a very close look at his statement of 14
Sept.2006, Class G as the default, and anything more only by a proper
risk assessment and cost/benefit justification. That's Cabinet policy
for Australian NAS.

Don't confuse traffic density in EU and Australia, UK, Ireland, most
of Western Europe and a swag of the old eastern block will fit into NSW.
Supporting a major extension of "controlled airspace", as AOPA now
seem to be doing, will further shaft rural and regional air services
that are already marginal, quite apart from what it will do to
remaining AOPA owner members and what's left of light GA.

How do you reckon Rex's or ******'s accounts would look on the
thinner routes, if they didn't get the present "under 15t" exemption
on charges, and had to support D or higher services everywhere to ground.

" Notwithstanding, air transport and most business aviation
operations should be contained within airspace within which positive
air traffic control services are provided to all aircraft (i.e. Class
A,B, C or D)". ---- From an ICAO report that AOPA seems to support.

None, as in nil, naught, zero, bugga all of the studies done here produce
credible benefits for mandatory ADS-B, Australia is not the US
Aluminium Overcast or NSW sized EU/ECAC.

BTW, I have refrained from commenting on airspace matters here or on other forums because I don't feel qualified to do so. On this now discussed matter of ADSB, you have noted that I possibly have a personal interest due to owning a $30,000 rag and tube aeroplane that someone wants me to spend $10,000+ on some new 'gadget' that won't give me any benefit. I do feel I have the right to an opinion on such matters, don't you?

bushy notes the bloody obvious and something I subscribe to. My Colt has a Mode C transponder simply so anyone with a TCAS can see me. Surely gaunty agrees that I shouldn't have to install a TCAS to have extra security.

I haven't got through all Dog's links, I have enough homework for this weekend on a slow computer.:8

Scurvy.D.Dog
4th Mar 2007, 11:20
Bob someone wants me to spend $10,000+ on some new 'gadget' that won't give me any benefit. …. That’s the point of the discussion I guess … if it was 10G+ and no ATS DTI or ‘in’ then I agree (except for the ADS-B TCAS guys, but you already have a mode C so …)
.
At the end of the day, it does not matter ‘who’ is right or wrong, rather that we all know ‘what’ is fact or fiction. These discussions would not be necessary if we had faith in the processes from the pollie bunker in CB right thru to things such as the assessment of the suitability of airspace at the ALA that Bushy’s mates Luscome resides, through to the terminal area in YSSY. …. I can hear everyone exhaling with exhaustion (me too) .. but unless we sort the chaff from the wheat, and agree (based on comprehensive input), we will continue to have the cancer of half baked single interests changing the ebb and flow of policy forever…. AT WHAT COST!
.
a general side note ….. been asking myself too often of late … why bother having these debates, is it better to leave fate to the hunter?..
.
… this morning for instance, went to work feeling quite hollow thinking about the issues we face, not any singular issue, rather the whole …… damn it .. pessimism does not sit well with me .. chin up me says it’s gunna be a beautiful day..
.
… A320’s, B737’s, chasing each other around (nice job with that tandem visual approach sight and follow to 14R and 32L respectively chaps) , DHC8’s and C404’s, the red rat charters, old mate wheels off at sparrow fart for a days tuna fishing at St Helens, Ag drivers smoking along down in the weeds, helo’s back and forth giving punters the most spectacular view of the beautiful Tamar valley, the Aeroclub folks off to Bridport for lunch (nice), or a scenic down to Coles Bay in the SR20 (nnnice), training flights in the new Jabiru’s .. just to name a few …. even a quiet moment to watch QF63 o/h at FL300 on the great circle (must have had a wash, the belly was clean :p ) …. a reasonably busy shift …. everyone played with good humour, and most importantly with confidence and enthusiasm …. … some days are diamonds!
.
.. at shift end, walking away from the glass tree I had pause to reflect on that which occupied my mind on the way in to work at dark o clock … why is such a dynamic and exciting industry bleeding? .. some would have us believe it is inevitable .. a ‘pipe dream’ to think otherwise ….. is it really at risk of disappearing?? ….. there are problems no doubt … it is all too easy though to accept the pessimistic howls from vested non-flying interests …. Nup… …. most days are diamonds .. for me today was just one of them …. this is what keeps me (us) going in the face of the perceived adversity ….it’s simple really … we ain’t gunna let it happen … are we?!
.
.. clearly there are those who do not see what we see and think aviation is all just a smoke and mirrors game for the rich? … this misrepresentation of the GA majority has been allowed to happen for too long and needs immediate refocus …. we need to drag these non flying policy making buffoons (that load our GA industry with cost after cost) to a fly-in … meet the real people …. see how many of them are your typical hard working Aussies, many of whom beg and borrow to pursue their love of flight .. driving clapped out Datsun’s, wearing socks with holes just so they an afford to hire that C172 to keep current with the goal of sharing the privilege with friends and family whenever possible …. looking forward to those outings as if each was indeed a diamond!
.
….. each time I attend events such as Narromine, (Mangalore, Aviex, Camden Aisrhow for the Kids 2001, RAA fly-in etc), but particularly in recent times Narromine, it is like medicine.
Watching the common purpose of numerous volunteers working like one arm paper hangers doing everything from parking aircraft, to feeding the masses, to administration … for my small part … it is bloody eye opening to see the number of aircraft in the circuit at times (reminds me of BK before LSP .. but don’t get me started on that) …. RT words will only go in edgeways …. with a few tricks learned it is surprising the number of aircraft that can be moved safely at these events …. can it be done better than the ‘pseudo’ Unicom …. no doubt …. is it easy to promulgate CAGRO or D for temporary events …. **** no … for a whole host of reasons not least volunteers and time available beforehand ……so we work with what we have ….. hours spinning the melon around trying to keep an eye on the circling area, watching proximities as best one can with that many aircraft, adrenalin is an amazing thing … madness … why do it I hear you ask?
.
…. after last light when the props have stopped, ….. I grab a cold beer and have a walk around, quietly looking and listening to the cheer in voices of aviators of all types of aerial conveyances from the Roulettes to Supa Connie, Neptune, Mig15’,RV’s, Technam’s, to our friend in the flying donut and everything in between.. The camaraderie between strangers is palpable, the din unstoppable, pouring over equipment, sharing a meal and a cleansing ale or 3, learning a thing or 2.. folks from all walks of life, together to enjoy the common affliction of flight, ….. some days are diamonds!
.
….. how many of you have watched friends and acquaintances throw their hands in the air and walk away from flying in recent years … I have, all too often. Some of them people who have in the past been prepared to do anything to be part of the whole that is aviation!? … this is what has my advocacy juices going .. it is the glimpses of what this unique industry could/should/use to be like. I want to know from all of you (who clearly give a ****e as much as I do by simply turning up in this place and others year after year) …. is it worth the time? .. are we achieving anything???…..
.
… I consider myself most fortunate to be able to work for the industry I have spent the better part of my life living and breathing …. tell me I am not wasting my time! :confused:
.
Cheers
.
Dog
.
P.S. Yeh saw that bit Gary, thought I would leave it out to see how many were actually looking at the info ….. as usual you passed the test with flying colours! :ok:

gaunty
4th Mar 2007, 14:54
Bob
Surely gaunty agrees that I shouldn't have to install a TCAS to have extra security. he does, never said nuffink otherwise. Wot I said was all the TCAS in th eowrld is no good wivout peeps having Xponders.:ok:

SDDmost days are diamonds :ok:

Dick Smith
5th Mar 2007, 00:18
Scurvy.D.Dog, an excellent posting and excellent information (the posting with all of the downloads). It shows what a complete nightmare ADS-B is at the moment.

As I have stated before, it looks to me to be the Betamax/VHS problem all over again. I particularly noted the posting by the International Council of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Associations:


· Most GA can NOT afford dual link equipage
· The most prominent technology – successfully tested over the last 15 years is VDL Mode 4 …
· What is wrong with using something which has been invented in Europe if there is no single system worldwide?

Also note the very important comment under the “What GA needs” page:

ADS-B, if not properly implemented, it may become a black hole for more millions of €s.

It is still early days of course. When I ordered my CJ3 I asked to have ADS-B ‘out’, but from what I could make out (I could never get a definite price) it was going to cost over $100,000.

I have now written to Honeywell to find out the cost of an ADS-B KT73 transponder for my Cessna C208B, and I have written again to Collins for an updated price on ADS-B ‘out’ for the Proline 21 system in the CJ3. I will post the answers here. I have a feeling that they are either going to be staggering prices, or not yet available. We will see.

The first link with the Raytheon submission seems to me to make a lot of sense. In fact, I just can’t see the FAA going ahead with the dual system now that they have XM WX weather to transmit real-time weather information etc. When they came up with the UAT Capstone Project, there was no such thing as direct satellite weather to the aircraft cockpit at low cost. This changes everything.

I have a feeling that we may see the US go to ADS-B Mode S squitter and rely on TCAS for aircraft to aircraft resolution advisories.

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens internationally. Personally I cannot see what the desperate hurry is for Australia to be one of the leaders in this.

OZBUSDRIVER, you state:

Dick, I cannot understand why you continue to push for a system that may well be going the same way as NDBs.

OZBUSDRIVER, that is just it. I have never pushed for a system. I am the person who says we should wait and find out what is going to happen in other leading aviation countries. Where did you ever get an idea that I was pushing for a particular system? I do agree that I have said that I believe ADS-B is the way to go, however it would be very risky for Australia to leap in too early – it will be a disadvantage for us.

UNCTUOUS
5th Mar 2007, 05:11
Dick S

If, subsequent to the AFR article and in consequence of the many postings on this thread, you'd like to submit a further article....

I can offer you as many column inches (as you'd need) in a magazine read worldwide by aviation professionals.

Just email me at [email protected]


UNC

Capn Bloggs
5th Mar 2007, 06:18
Dick,

I will say again – my first aim is to get our airlines complying with the safety requirements that exist in other leading aviation countries. When we are up to speed on these safety requirements in Australia, I will certainly look at pushing for more onerous requirements for transponders. However I will not do this if it means that the GA industry is further damaged. That is a pretty simple and straightforward explanation. Do you understand it?

I'll give you a straight answer straight up: YES. Your logic totally escapes me, but yes, I understand your point of view. Thank you very much. At last, you have answered the question that has been asked many times on this thread over days and days. Do us all a favour next time and just answer as soon as you are asked please! :{

Of course, I will agree with you when, together with all the safety requirements that these other countries have, we also have their infrastructure (eg radar coverage) which serves to make their systems safer than the 1950s "eyeballs out" system you had wished upon us but which was fortunately knocked on the head by realists. Let's have the whole kit and caboodle, not this "pick this bit" and "add this bit" nonsense that you have been pushing for.

Scurvy.D.Dog
5th Mar 2007, 13:52
There is a huge opportunity here …. indulge me for a few more minutes! It shows what a complete nightmare ADS-B is at the moment. …. on balance, the technology was only ever going to go this way (with a couple of MINOR variations) … that was what we were trying to tell you last time around. As you can see from the growing list of manufacturers .. the only ‘nightmare’ (if it is one) is sovereign counties working out how best to fund fleet wide … sure there are various views ….. at this point!As I have stated before, it looks to me to be the Betamax/VHS problem all over again. …. jumping on the UAT bandwagon would have been the Betamax all over again!
ADS-B, if not properly implemented, it may become a black hole for more millions of €s. … that’s exactly right …. The bottom line is pretty simple IMHO ….. it has to be funded (fleet wide) …. It has to go to tender (this is where Oz manufacturers could do very well here and abroad, Xchange rates being what they are ….. best unit price?) …. It has to be ordered in bulk (economy of scale … further reduce unit price dramatically) …. those who do not have mode C get it first! .. whilst the units are being installed/delivered (installation factored in), the ground stations (WAMLat/ADS-B) going in where MSSR is due for replacement, any additional units prioritised for areas based on AeroStudy priority (the triangle etc) …. The avionics already developed will support SAT for the other stuff (arguably better anyhow for bandwidth protection of the important part .. traffic!)
.
.. was it Senex that had all the bases covered for GA?!?
It is still early days of course. … yep, lets get moving, lets put the cost savings (safety and efficiency, for commercial and GA) on the table … Mr Howard receives a handsome dividend each year from ATS … this program will be saving on future maintenance and purchases of RADAR heads, traffic management efficiencies, huge leap in SA safety … someone correct me if I am out of the ball park … even if you roughed out the worse case costs of roll-out … how long do you think it would take the Gov’t to recoup the outlay from offset savings?? .... those with the gear (commercial) are winning already, as will GA when installed! …. from then on …. funds for further improvements or back to industry or whatever!I have now written to Honeywell to find out the cost of an ADS-B KT73 transponder for my Cessna C208B, and I have written again to Collins for an updated price on ADS-B ‘out’ for the Proline 21 system in the CJ3. I will post the answers here. …. Have you written to any non-US manufactures?? I have a feeling that they are either going to be staggering prices, or not yet available. We will see. …. It will make a good starting point for price negotiation (for existing com glass systems as well as GA install)!The first link with the Raytheon submission seems to me to make a lot of sense. In fact, I just can’t see the FAA going ahead with the dual system now that they have XM WX weather to transmit real-time weather information etc. When they came up with the UAT Capstone Project, there was no such thing as direct satellite weather to the aircraft cockpit at low cost. This changes everything. …. :ok: I have a feeling that we may see the US go to ADS-B Mode S squitter and rely on TCAS for aircraft to aircraft resolution advisories. ..maybe for the glass kero burners … GA will get much the same from other manufacturers …. Unless Honeywell compete for GA as well … in which case the invoice had better be lean and meanIt will certainly be interesting to see what happens internationally. … unless I missed something, it seems pretty clear where the world is headed with ADS-B Personally I cannot see what the desperate hurry is for Australia to be one of the leaders in this. …. wasn’t this thread about urgency of adopting international best practice (effective, efficient and affordable) anti-collision safety measures?
.
… nite all!

Dick Smith
5th Mar 2007, 21:12
Scurvy.D.Dog, I am fascinated and have one question. If you are so convinced that ADS-B is the way to go, why is your employer spending millions of dollars in installing a multilateration system in Tasmania? Could it be that there are people at Airservices who are not convinced that ADS-B, transmitting a GPS position, is the way to go in the short to medium term, and that is why they are going ahead with multilateration which will work with standard Mode C transponders?

I would love to have an answer on this.

It should be noted that Airservices has ADS-B ground stations going in across Australia. They have obviously decided to use multilateration Tasmania.

By the way, you state:

… unless I missed something, it seems pretty clear where the world is headed with ADS-B I cannot agree. If you look at all the postings there seems to be a lot of interest in the Swedish VDL Mode 4 system for GA. The International Council of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Associations states:

The most prominent technology – successfully tested over the last 15 years is VDL Mode 4 Of course, Airservices are not planning VDL Mode 4 for GA. Do you have a comment on this?

Scurvy.D.Dog, you state:

…. wasn’t this thread about urgency of adopting international best practice (effective, efficient and affordable) anti-collision safety measures? No, it was actually about Australia harmonising with world requirements for TCAS for 10 to 30 passenger aircraft. This TCAS exists today and can save lives today. Any ADS-B system (even if the decision was made today) would take several years before it could be certified and the safety benefits of ADS-B ‘in’ could be achieved.

Scurvy.D.Dog
6th Mar 2007, 00:11
Dick … I did give you the answer/s …. Go back and read page 3 and 4 again!
.
It is my view (not necessarily representative of AsA’s view, although I would be surprised if it varies) that WAMLat was commissioned for TAS for three main reasons:-
.
1. It is to a ‘proving’ trial for system accuracy and reliability .. with eventual roll-out to the terminal area in YSSY to replace PRM which is approaching life end!
2. To have comparative data available it had to be put somewhere where RADAR exists (Temporary RADAR like LT is the natural choice given the RADAR will be removed at some point in the not to distant future)
3. Once commissioned the coverage will improve and remain for air traffic in TAS (there is a lot more of it than people think). Since the introduction of surveillance services in TAS during AusNAS2b, the increase in efficiency of services being provided by ATS i.e. HB TWR, LT TWR and ML centre is frankly huge. With traffic growth, it would onerous and restrictive to be doing these areas 'purely' procedurally …. Surveillance of any sort has paid for it self may times already … (it can be calculated and shown)
. Point 3 is the crux of what has been discussed for other areas (mining triangle etc)
.
Regarding VDL 4 …. I must confess to not understanding the Swedish position on this. Perhaps being 15 years in the testing, they feel they do not want to waste that! What is telling though is the other nations assessing options seem to agree that it is not necessary and other options are …. In any event, from my reading of the information, some manufacturers have open architecture so it can be included or not as the case may be. In our context, it will matter not as Oz owned equipment being compatible with the rest of the world.!
.
The final statement I would make about the ‘holes in the anti-collison’ cake is this …. Time wasted is additional time available for an accident …. Existing Mode C/TCAS WAMLat wil close some of that error opportunity until ADS-B is fitted fleet wide …. As far as I am aware that is the most effective and timely way of addressing these deficiency issues ….. had we started 12months ago, there would have been less holes than today! …. Lets not waste any more time! :ok:
.
Cheers
.
Dog
.
.. I'm off fishing for a coupla days :p ... see yas on the flip side :E

bushy
7th Mar 2007, 05:09
There is some magic emerging here. Instead of the all too common sport of dickbashing, regardless of what he says, we have some logical discussion and informative posts. There are intelligent, knowledgeable people posting here, and until recently some of their wisdon has been sadly wasted. Many of these latest posts are informative, and sensible. Unfortunately not all.
Scurvy
Your post no 186 was brilliant. I must comment on a couple of things. All days are diamonds sometimes we do not see the brilliance.
You obviously live in a coastal city as you forgot to mention he Cessna 340 that carries the cattle buyers halfway across the country where they buy eight million dollars worth of cattle, and fly home the following day,right across the country. Or the cherokee six that takes the architect and two engineers 150 nm out of town to a site where they are supervising construction of a small community, or the piper lance that goes 350 nm out of town to pick up a man who has serious dental problems, and has taken a file to his own teeth. The Lance flies him 700 km to the nearest dentist. Or the C210 that flies the mail and fresh bread and toyota parts out to many cattle stations. Or the Chieftain and Baron that flies teachers, medical staff community residents and freight to cummunities up to 700 nm away, and come back the following day. Or the Lance that flies electricians 300nm out to a community, where they fix lots of electrical problems and shut off power to a steel framed house that was live,(240 volts) and arcing to the fence. (they would have to fly back another day to fix that one) And all the while the RFDS PC 12's are busy dealing with the really urgent life threatening problems despite being uderstaffed and having to raise money from the general public to keep going.
Or the many flights out to the gold mines 300 nm away.Or the C172R that flies all day, most of the time below 500 ft agl inspecting a pipeline, and keeping oil company's insurance premiums down. And many many other flights.
There are a few 737's, mostly in the middle of the day, and some night freighters
When you talk of commercial flights, or GA flights this is confusing, as most of the flying out here IS GA, and nearly all of it IS commercial GA. Nearly all in class G airspace, and in some areas we cannot even use VHF radio as our authorities have not bothered to put in the equipment needed to talk to us They do not seem to care. They live in coastal cities..
Most city people (and that means nearly all Australians) think that aviation consists of big airlines and small aeroplanes that are used by silvertails or weekenders for fun. And within the J curve that is mostly the case. although there are a few flying schools doing useful work training pilots for overseas airlines, and a lot of small aeroplanes owned by people who are not silvertails.
But in the other 90% of the country there are lots of small COMMERCIAL aeroplanes doing all sorts of essential work. Most of them are piston powered, (and obviously not good enough for the flood of city trained airline wannabies who are flooding out bush to get a job)
The outback has been insultingly labelled the GAFA (great Australian F--- all) by some, and this attitude is all too common both within the aviation community and the regulator.(the regulators live on the coast) The gold and diamonds, uranium, zinc and lots of other things the city slickers use comes from the GAFA, and there is lots more out there still to be found and developed. It really is the great Australian wealth generator. And the people who fly around in the little aeroplanes are doing it. Our small charter operators and CPL's are an essential part of this development, providing the essential transport necessary for normal (and not so normal) things.
GA (that's a stupid term, which originated from sales people) includes much needed COMMERCIAL air services to people in 90% of Australia where the airlines cannot operate safely or economically. It is a major part of Australi's transport system which is almost invisible to city people.
All days are diamondsAnd most of the gold and diamonds the city people see comes from the Great Australian Wealth Generator

Dick Smith
7th Mar 2007, 21:35
Bushy, yes, “all days are diamonds.” Indeed they are.

What about heading off to Tarcoola in the C208, camping under the wing and watching those thundering trains going past. Now that is an experience. Then head up to William Creek and have a few drinks in the pub. Camp the night, go down to Arkaroola for a Ridge Top tour with Doug, then have a swim in the gorge. Up to the Dig Tree, camp under the wing again and then home. Now that is Australia.

Or what about camping beside the Warburton, just north of the Warburton Groove where it drops into Lake Eyre. I was there one night in the Jetranger, with a big fire going, when a 40 knot southerly wind came up and nearly burnt out the tent, the helicopter and the esky! That is Australia for you.

We may have differences of opinion but I’m sure we all want to see aviation in country Australia thriving again.

Scurvy.D.Dog
8th Mar 2007, 13:29
bushy …. Yer absolutely right about the interior …. worked at TW for 3 years, saw a lot of the bush traffic, no doubt there are many more flying invaluable services that coastal dwellers rarely see or hear about!
.
… the lack of services … OK, empirically, cost outweighed benefit (supposedly) … but with today’s technology, IMHO its time we had another look … SOON!
.
… things is …. I think enough doomsayers rhetoric and unfortunate happenstances have scared numbers of the punters away …. It would be interesting to poll the general populous about their views on travelling in what they perceive is a light aircraft!
.
….we all know that flying in most any device (that is registered in someway or another) is still a better chance statically of reaching the intended destination than most else! … a lot of the punters I suspect do not!
.
… if they knew that each and every one of you knew where the other was (and you made sure it was advertised far and wide) , it would relieve some of their anxiety? …. this enhancement will eventually make the chances of those unexpected (****e what was that) occasions a thing of the past in all classes of airspace … a minimum of automated pilot to pilot alerting (augmented with eyes) .. for remote areas where ATS are not!
…. It is too important and valuable (safety wise) across all types of operations not to fund it in the national interest … isn’t it?
.
I see your point re the term GA …. should your sector be referred to as Non-Scheduled RPT or Light Commercial or some other (as long as calling you something else does not invite bean counters to charge you for other things :suspect: :mad: )?
.
… so what do we do folks? …. can we get our collective industry ‘****e in one pile’ and get this happening?
.
.. what do you think Dick, Blogg’s, Ozbus, gaunty, bushy et al …. is it possible?
.
.. and for the record, I have not lived within 35nm (as the crow flies) of the coastline for 12 years! :p
.
Dog
.
P.S. Dick, .. when I read your last, I got this hilarious scene in my mind of you running around the camp fire in yer drawers, yodelling expletives, swatting out hot embers with your feet :} :D …. nothing mischievous about it I might add ;) … just very very funny :E …. Glad you, the tent and the Jet’y were OK! :)

bushy
11th Mar 2007, 07:34
You probably have a better understanding of Outback Australia than many of the coastal dwellers who post on here.
I remember taking railway engine drivers to Tarcoola, and we taxied across the golf course into town. There was often a brilliant display of Sturt desert pea flowers there. Another time I landed there with police on board to catch someone who had shot an opal buyer in Coober pedy, and was heading south.
I made many trips to William Creek. One time I remember taking people from Anna Creek to Quilpie, for a wedding (Two loads) and bringing them back two days later. I refuelled at Innaminka each time, and brought back a carton of beer for the friendly refueller. While at Quilpie I dropped some hay bales to some cattle that were marooned on an island. The area was flooded.
I flew to Arkaroola a few times, and went to a little strip at four mile creek lots of times during the developement of the Beverly uranium mine. (I also did the surveying there)
I never camped near the Warburton groove, but saw it many times when coming back from Melbourne, or Adelaide. I was fascinated by the bright red salt water algae in the lake. I
understand your fire story. One summer I was out in the Tanami desert (kookaburra country) with a 400 hp Fletcher, and a group of geologists. We camped in swags, and the Fletcher landed in the spinifex. The geologists used to go out across the desert in Toyota land cruisers and on motorbikes, using a pocket compass, and their odometer to navigate. I had to fire up the Fletcher and go to look for them sometimes, when they called in on radio saying they were lost.
One day two of them were happily driving along in there landcruiser, not realising that it was picking up spinifex which was accumulating against the exhaust pipe, and soon
it was on fire. They poured water on it, until they realised that water was all they had to keep them alive. They shovelled sand but could not stop it. It burnt their Toyota, and the battery and radio too. But we had a SAR system, and the trusty Fletcher arrived before last light to take them back to camp. One way or another the Tanami desert scared the daylights out of each one of us. We should not have been out there in mid summer. One night I got little sleep, as we were surrouded by spinifex fires.
Another time, I flew insurance people down to a station in South Australia where a tornado (yes those things that happen in Kansas) had gone through. There was a caravan there, but all that was left was the chassis and wheels. The rest was scattered around the plain like confetti, along with the remaains of two big polythene water tanks.. And a big trailer was moved about 30 meters. But a cessna 172 which lived outside was still sitting where it was left(not tied down).
As you say Dick that's Australia.
We must remember ALL DAYS ARE DIAMONDS. sometimes it's hard to remeber that.
But those pesky little aeroplanes are essential to life in the outback.