Airservices GBAS announcement – a disaster for GA

[Dick Smith]

Airservices Australia recently announced a
global agreement to develop Ground Based Augmentation Solutions (GBAS) (See here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/media/press_releases/pr.asp?id=pr3_07)).

It appears this agreement with Honeywell Aerospace will lead Australia once again into a unique system for augmentation – another AWA DME.

Many people would know that if you buy a current Garmin GPS, included at no extra cost is WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System). This will operate anywhere covered by the satellite based augmentation system and gives incredible ILS type accuracy. All modern aircraft with the Garmin 400 or 500 series, or with Garmin 1000 systems (even the new Citation Mustang light jet) will be provided fully equipped with WAAS at absolutely no extra cost.

But this will be useless in Australia. From the look of it, Australian GA operators will have to purchase an Airservices/Honeywell Aerospace system so they can perform ILS type approaches.

As far as I can see, this is a disaster for Australian general aviation. I wonder if the Minister has been told of the implications?

It appears that Airservices Australia and their executives will be able to make extra money by Australia going down this unique path. I understand that some of the people at Airservices have claimed that this system will be able to be sold around the world and a royalty would be paid back to Airservices Australia. Perhaps someone can confirm if this is true. Of course, the system will only be sold in countries that don’t put in a US compliant Wide Area Augmentation System.

Remember, that with the Wide Area Augmentation System, the augmentation signals come from a geosynchronous satellite over the equator. Whereas with the Airservices Honeywell system there is a small VHF transmitter placed on the ground near each airport.

Both Collins and Universal are now offering WAAS equipment – fully approved. Once again, this will not work in Australia.

I wonder if the decision to go to a unique Australian system comes from the statement:

GBAS exceeds the ICAO requirements for precision approach That is, the US Wide Area Augmentation System does not exceed the ICAO requirements, it probably just complies with them. If we exceed the ICAO requirements, we must be better.

It appears that there is a Japanese satellite that could provide US WAAS compatible signals, however this has to be proposed, discussed and properly organised.

It is clearly another disaster for general aviation. All of the WAAS compatible equipment provided in new aircraft will be useless. I understand the cheapest Honeywell receiver is likely to cost over $30,000 plus installation and certification. Compare that with “already included in the price” and you can see the problem.

[En-Rooter]

G'day Dick,

How are ya mate?

:)

[SM4 Pirate]

Or perhaps GBAS/GRAS was developed at a request of the key Qustomer (and a key airline producer, Boeing) to take advantage of the equipment in modern aircraft; I believe this enables a much lower decision altitude than the ILS with more accuracy on the glide path and localiser... Stick one of these on the end of an RNP-RNAV AR and you need never go around unless there is a problem with concrete occupancy/conditions.

Maybe this is where the world is actually headed....?

Who cares about GA complying with the requirements of this system; it's not for GA I would guess. It currently is in SY only; and there are plans to take the system to RPT destinations; where there is no current ILS; for cheaper than ILS establishment cost and essentially no maintenance, even you Dick must applaud this safety improvement... But then again you need to spin everything is my guess.

I wouldn't hazard a guess at what the airborne costs are for a GA operator; but I'm guessing it wouldn't be high; it's just another way of receiving a GPS signal...

[Quokka]

Ever had a satellite or three drop-out in your GPS? How many times has a GPSRNAV aircraft lost RAIM? All it takes is a CB in a direct line between your aircraft and that equatorial satellite on Final, in IMC and... :{

[peuce]

Dick Smith said:

"It appears that Airservices Australia and their executives will be able to make extra money by Australia going down this unique path. I understand that some of the people at Airservices have claimed that this system will be able to be sold around the world and a royalty would be paid back to Airservices Australia. Perhaps someone can confirm if this is true ... "

I don't know about Executives, but does the fact that Airservices might, or might not, make some money (in line with it's shareholder's directions) make the equipment any less useful?

[Scorpio69]

Yep you're right, well researched Dick.

"A disaster for Australia", "a unique system for augmentation", "It appears that there is a Japanese satellite that could provide US WAAS compatible signals, however this has to be proposed, discussed and properly organised."

While you are proposing, discussing and organising, Airservices will be busy getting on with the job of making Australian skies safer. Oh, by the way, this "unique Australian system" has already been sold in Germany.

HONEYWELL SELECTED TO PROVIDE GROUND-BASED AUGMENTATION SYSTEM AT BREMEN AIRPORT IN GERMANY
First Contract Win to Install Safer, More Reliable Satellite-Based Landing System

MINNEAPOLIS, M.N., February 6, 2007 -- Honeywell (NYSE: HON) announced today that it has been selected by DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (DFS) to install its SLS-4000 Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS) at Bremen Airport in Germany. The contract marks Honeywell’s first sale of the innovative new technology.

Honeywell’s satellite navigation system will enable precision aircraft landings by enhancing the accuracy of Global Position System (GPS) signals. Initially a prototype system will be installed at Bremen Airport in April. It will be replaced by a certified SLS-4000 system in 2008 following Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Category One approval.

“Our GBAS will help increase safety and reliability during precision landings based on satellite navigation.” said Scott Starrett, Vice President, Military Aircraft, Honeywell Defense and Space. “In the future we expect this new technology to help aircraft land during adverse weather conditions, reduce delays and decrease airline operating costs worldwide.”

Honeywell’s system at Bremen Airport will provide aircraft with landing approach information and GPS satellite corrections. In some places of the world the Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) currently in use face technical limits including frequency interference and adverse multipath effects. Most major airports currently utilize one ILS at the end of each runway. A single GBAS ground station will support an entire airport and provides additional flexibility.

Honeywell International is a $31 billion diversified technology and manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. Based in Morris Township, NJ, Honeywell’s shares are traded on the New York, London, Chicago and Pacific Stock Exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. For additional information, please visit www.honeywell.com (http://www.atcmaastricht.com/page.cfm?HyperLink=http://www.honeywell.com/). Based in Phoenix, Honeywell’s aerospace business is a leading global provider of integrated avionics, engines, systems and service solutions for aircraft manufacturers, airlines, business and general aviation, military, space and airport operations

[gaunty]

Mr Smith

another AWA DME,

I am surprised that you are so disparaging of a unique Australian invention by a singularly unique Australian company that solved a unique Australian problem so neatly and competently.

May I suggest that you do not have the long term experience or knowledge of the actual and may I say it again unique Australian aviation environment at the time of its invention to offer that comment nor respect to the inventors they are due.

FWIW AWA as a company, were the backbone and pioneers of the Australian RF environment across all areas from aviation, the home and industry to our great Australian outback.

The aphorism "Necessity is the Mother of invention" springs to mind.

Furthermore Honeywell who are a highly respected and seriously large company rarely make a mistake in the choice of partners and technology. Airservices enjoys the same level of respect in the ATC environment. You would be well aware of the large numbers of the ex DCA/Airservices "diaspora" who have been forced overseas or poached by overseas service providers and technology companies for their nonpareil Australian ATC trained skills, every single one of them a loss to Australia. We Australians are really very good at and highly prized by other external companies for being able to think outside the box. The giant Boeing Aircraft Company seem to agree also.

So if this is an example of "another AWA DME" and a unique answer to a unique Australian or other countries aviation environment then more power to them I say.

I wont claim it be so because my memory is a bit scratchy on it, but I think AWA actually invented DME period. Maybe someone can help us here.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Certainly an Australian invented DME...memeory fails but I think he may have been 'forced' overseas in the time honoured Australian tradition...and the Australian DME was better than the International copy.:ugh:

Dick the dream of GPS replacing all precision ground based aids was a dead duck years ago...GPS is good but it aint THAT good and does NOT have the system integrity to provide precision approaches to CAT 1 minimas, let alone Cat 2/3.

All it takes is a high level of sun spot activity and you can end up wanting with GPS.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

I have heard it is an election year.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, you say:

I don't know about Executives, but does the fact that Airservices might, or might not, make some money (in line with it's shareholder's directions) make the equipment any less useful? Yes, it may do. That is because there is a clear conflict of interest. That is, the organisation that appears to be making a decision that we go ahead with this unique system also makes money from it.

Naturally, they are going to push the system which increases their profits the most. After all, that is the job of directors and executives – increase the profit of the business.

By the way, as far as I understand, the top executives of Airservices receive a bonus (or part of their package) geared to the profits of Airservices. That means every decision is tainted.

It may be the most profitable way to go for Airservices and its executives, but not the best way to go for the country.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

The Executive Bonus system.

Another successful import from our beloved USA.

Home of the NAS.

Land of the free.

[Dick Smith]

Chimbu Chuckles, you state:

All it takes is a high level of sun spot activity and you can end up wanting with GPS. If that is so, the Airservices system will have the same problems. I understand with the Airservices/Honeywell system, differential signals are transmitted on VHF to correct the GPS position. If the GPS signal fades out, the Airservices system won’t work.

By the way, I’m not criticising AWA for their invention, I just believe we should learn from history. That is, if we go it alone with our small population we could end up wasting a lot of money.

Whether we like it or not, we cannot use an AWA 200 MHz DME in Australia today. That is because Airservices (or their predecessor) removed all of the ground stations and harmonised with the US/International system. We don’t want to make the same mistake again.

Also, there has been no proper discussion regarding the pros and cons of going to the US WAAS system or going to a ground based differential system.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Dick

Are you sure you have this right (knowing you, you probably do!)?

My understanding was that the US WAAS system uses a network of ground based transmitters in addition to the satellites.

FTDC:cool:

[Wizofoz]

We don’t want to make the same mistake again.


You're not listening , Dick!

200MHZ DME was NOT a mistake! It got us a DME system YEARS before the rest of the world, allowing operations that could NOT have taken place without it.

I don't see many steam trains around today. That doesn't mean that using them, rather than waiting 200years for the diesel, was a mistake!

In any case, this time WE are using the latest, up to date system, while the yanks are investing in obsolete technology.

You are being worryingly general in you comparison of the two GPS systems (apart from the usual USA=Good, anythingelse= Bad). Could you outline the IAP minima possble with the the two systems?

[Quokka]

Australia has a long history of innovation to be proud of... it also has a history of attacking Australian innovation.

C.Y. O'Connor was a brilliant engineer and visionary in WA who has been imortalised in that state's history for his innovation... and for the community's antagonism towards his idea of a water pipeline from Mundaring Weir to Kalgoorlie... antagonism that may have contributed to his death... a death in the days before the water flowed out at the end of the pipe in Kalgoorlie. Today water still flows out of the Mundaring Weir to Kalgoorlie pipeline, and no-one would suggest that it be de-commissioned.

The Black Box is the perfect example of an Australian innovation in aviation that has become a globally adopted technology that has saved many lives... and saved many dollars.

But the Black Box was a financial impost on the aviation industry.

Dick, would you suggest that the Black Box is an unnecessary financial impost on the aviation industry?

I wonder how many more lives and how many more dollars would have been saved over the same period if Australia had mandated installation of the Black Box in General Aviation aircraft.

[gaunty]

Wizofoz

Thank you, you too seem to remember the actual environment when it was an NDB/DME environment and the excitement when VANX became available. My charts from that period are long gone but if my memory serves me correctly in WA at least, there were maybe 6 VOR in total. Glad we didn't have to wait for the diesel trains.:}

Mr Smith

That is, if we go it alone with our small population we could end up wasting a lot of money. it cuts both ways, we could also end up saving a lot of money.

200MHZ DME was a unique solution to a unique airspace problem and it wasn't cheap either. But considering that many aircraft of the day were not equipped with VOR nor were there all that many, it was even then a very cost effective solution for our unique Australian environment. The subsequent Int DME add on, colocated and integrated with installations of new and existing VOR as the traffic and equipment fit progresed was also a cost effective move. Correct decisions made professionally by experienced people in the context of the existing environment

You would have to admit Australians are very good at making do in the context of available money available to them and their environment. It is a fact that in GA we use mostly US designed aircraft in a manner and at a utilisation rate that the manufacturers never intended. Australians then complain at the cost of maintenance. Our 19 to 30 passenger fleet is largely superannuated and with old avionics technology in the cockpit. You must agree the costs of ugrading the avionics technology is in many cases more than the value of the aircraft. The ugrade however isn't reflected in the used value.

Maybe Airservices have recognised that and are providing a cheaper more user/cost friendly technology.

I also find your continual harping about imagined Airservices executive bias towards their bonuses not only offensive but not worthy of you. Many are my personal friends and many more aquaintances, to a man they are internationally respected professionals dedicated to the provision of excellent service. They are also businessmen not only subject to direct Senate scrutiny on ALL their actions, but by the market place. You must also agree that as businessmen if they dont get their technology decisions right the market place will punish them mercilessly.

[tobzalp]

Let me rephrase. Every thing that flies must have TCAS, ADSB, VHF, Mode S transponder, GPWS, and GBAS. Paid for by the owner. The end.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

There must be some wizard funghi on your planet!

[peuce]

Dick Smith said:

" ...By the way, as far as I understand, the top executives of Airservices receive a bonus (or part of their package) geared to the profits of Airservices. That means every decision is tainted... "

Ergo:

Every decision that the QANTAS Board makes is tainted
Every decision the GARMIN Board makes is tainted
Every recommendation from a Dick Smith Electronics salesman is tainted
Every business decision/statement you make is tainted

My point:

If we follow your reasoning, we shouldn't trust any decision or advice provided by anyone who's likely to make a buck out of it.

Reality:

There are forces other than financial gain at play in the world ... such as accountability, safety management, risk management, shareholder oversight, professional pride and most importantly ... moral responsibility.

I hope you are just conveniently ignoring them to push a point ... the alternative would be sad.

[sosouth]

Dick is right.
A huge amount of aircraft has Garmin 430/530 units and more aircraft every day are getting them. They have WAAS. That is the real world now. Now Airservices in the unreal world tell us we are going to use this GBAS that no one has.
Who is going to pay?
Pilots here talk how good the system will be but they won’t put there hands in their pocket and pay for it. In fact they complain how much it cost to hire an aircraft.
If Airservices stop charging me for a few years I will change my system so my aircraft is so much safer the Australian way.
A better way is charging every pilot $40 or $50 levy to bring it in and we will see how many people think it is a good idea then!

[Quokka]

Is this a VHS vs Beta debate? Or a PC vs Apple?

Or is it more a case of vinyl... then magnetic tape (did I spell that right?)... then laser disk... then CD... then DVD (Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound)... and MP3...4...?... HD Digital...

CD is a brilliant format for stereo music... DVD for Surround Sound... vinyl is and always will be an antique folk classic... magnetic tape died the death it deserved... MP3 was a compression... but hey, it fits in a tiny thingo on the cord around your neck and holds a lifetime supply of vinyl in it.

Each technology had it's advantages and disadvantages, but each innovation was a progression from the last, a lifestyle improvement, a lesson in technology.

Should we have stayed with vinyl until MP3 came along? One could argue that MP3 would never have been developed if magnetic tape (computer memory storage) had never been invented and adopted as a technology.

If GBAS is a superior technology... if GBAS is a technological progression... then we should adopt it in Australia.

Australia has been taking the lead throughout the history of aviation... why should we stop now?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A refresher course is needed for the various requirments in regard to WAAS and GBAS.

WAAS is a series of ground station and geosynchronos satellites to adjust the accuracy of the GPS satellites within a specified area. Accuracy is a minimum of 7.6m of true position 95% of the time. Nominally 1m laterally and 1.5m vertically. Integrity of the signal is certified that a bad signal will only occur for 3 seconds per year.

WAAS wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System)

GBAS is a similaer idea but uses a VHF datalink to transmit augmentation signals to aircraft within 30nm of a specified airfield. Benefits are that one GBAS can provide CAT I accuracy for all approaches to the target aerodrome. R and D are still working on accuracy down to CAT III. THIS EQUIPMENT IS STILL IN RESEARCH STAGE.

GBAS wikipeadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Area_Augmentation_System)

For CAT I approaches GBAS and WAAS deliever the same accuracy. WAAS requires a network of ground stations, an uplink station and a geosynchronos satellite. This will give 1m accuracy over the entire continent. GBAS may deliever CAT III accuracy within 30nm of a given aerodrome without augmenting the accuracy of the signal recieved enroute.

GBAS maybe accurate but will only be available for heavy iron and may be cheap to impliment for AirServices in only having to fit a transmitter at those sites requiring an ILS...absolutely no benefit in the GAFA. No improvement in accuracy enroute.

WAAS requires the network of ground stations as well as the uplink. We could access the Japanese satellite to complete the network. If this was implimented, we would have the accuracy for Approaches with vertical guidence at as many regional airports as there is required, way more accurate enroute navigation and ADS-B with better accuracy than ever possible with SSR.

EDIT- Just to add, There are 27 groundstations as a minimum for ADS-B rollout. These groundstations already have the requisite land line connection back to mother. WAAS groundstations could be fitted at these sites. An uplink at PH and BN would finish the network.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"Or is it more a case of vinyl... then magnetic tape (did I spell that right?)... then laser disk... then CD... then DVD (Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound)... and MP3...4...?... HD Digital..."

Vinyl? ........ Some of us can remember bakelite !!!!

FTDK:cool:

[ferris]

Dick said;It may be the most profitable way to go for Airservices and its executives, but not the best way to go for the country.
Are you suggesting that Government Business Enterprise policy is flawed, and that it may be fundamentally damaging the country? If so, how many politicians have you accosted over this? How many sitting members have been threatened? It is an election year!

Or is your view on reducing the cost of government........under review? Surely you would agree that it is in all of our interest to put an end to this method of aviation administration? Perhaps we could move to the proven, US method of administration?

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

Perhaps we could move to the proven, US method of administration? Better hurry, I think they're manoevering to move to 'ours'...

[NOtimTAMs]

WRT to GBAS vs WAAS, lets not get sidetracked in irrelevancies. The point is that CASA (which has shown its benevolence and competence beautifully through it's magnificent regulatory reform program) is choosing a system that will not affect aviation safety outside the major ports, when it has an opportunity to implement a system that would be Australia wide and is available now.
Regional Australia - Canberra and CASA has its back turned squarely to you.:( :mad: :*

[SM4 Pirate]

The point is that CASA ..... is choosing a system that will not affect aviation safety outside the major ports, when it has an opportunity to implement a system that would be Australia wide and is available now. What's it got to do with CASA? "Australia Wide" is a bit rich... The upper ADS-B program is about 30 stations; giving a 250NM circle from the base station which has coverage "Australia Wide" (excluding existing radar)to around FL300 and above; with a few small holes... How many sites would it take for "Australia Wide" coverage at A100, A050, SFC (assuming that you need to be in range of something)?

The ASA restructure will firmly put the Cost Benefit of making risk changes on the agenda. Something like $90M per year is spent on RS (towers and low level controllers + equipment to provide those services). The revenue from RS towers and controllers is around $25M... So the big end is cross subsidising this area now (yes they do use RS too).

The point is that under risk vs cost arguments (Bow Tie and ALRAP) you can increase risk (ie class E where D used to be) when you "really" save costs.... It won't be too hard to prove one way or the other come the completion of the ASA restructure, as all the RS costs will be in the same bucket. It also means that 60% of ASA staff will not need to be trained in all that low stuff; thus saving the implementation costs....

Hold on it's going to be fun...:\

[Capn Bloggs]

Timtam,

(which has shown its benevolence and competence beautifully through it's magnificent regulatory reform program)

What do you mean "it's"?? You mean Dick Smith's and AOPA's RRP...

[Dick Smith]

Gaunty, you state:

They are also businessmen not only subject to direct Senate scrutiny on ALL their actions, but by the market place. You must also agree that as businessmen if they dont get their technology decisions right the market place will punish them mercilessly. Normally I would agree, however Airservices is a monopoly, which at the present time has a regulatory responsibility. If they make a decision to go with a particular type of Ground Based Augmentation System, everyone else is forced to comply.

The other point is there is nothing in the Airservices Act which says that the Board members should foster general aviation. From what I can make out, they must give primacy to safety and give a reasonable financial return to Government.

In fact, because the Chairman and Chief Executive of Airservices are no longer GA pilots, there is a good chance that they could be convinced that general aviation is nothing but a nuisance.

I would imagine that Airservices makes all of its profits out of about 600 aircraft. The other 12,000 or so lose money for Airservices. As the Act is deficient, Airservices could concentrate on the profit making group (which I believe they do) and neglect the group which makes them no money.

Peuce, you compare Airservices with Qantas, Garmin and Dick Smith Electronics. You seem to have misunderstood the difference. Airservices is a monopoly. No one is allowed to compete with Airservices, whereas there is limited competition with Qantas, and enormous competition with Garmin and Dick Smith Electronics.

I am not for an instant suggesting that we shouldn’t trust any decision or advice provided by someone who is likely to make a buck out of it, I just believe that we must be careful if that organisation has been given the power of monopoly.

You may find that the Government agrees. That is why, after 10 years of procrastination and delays caused by the Department of Transport, a decision has been made to transfer the regulatory responsibilities of Airservices to CASA.

Quokka, you state:

Australia has been taking the lead throughout the history of aviation... why should we stop now? One of the reasons could be this graph.

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/hours-flown-graph1.gif

As you can see, general aviation is in dire straits, whereas it appears to be booming in the United States and New Zealand.

One of the reasons we have such problems here is that affordability seems to be ignored. Of course the airlines can add extra costs and inefficiencies on to the air ticket, and because there are so many people in each plane it does not make a substantial difference. However for general aviation, with frequently fewer than 5 people in an aircraft, the costs are so high that people are forced into other forms of transport and recreation.

Ferris, no I am not suggesting that the Government Business Enterprise policy is flawed – just that a Government Business Enterprise that makes profits should not be a regulator. That is obvious, and that is why the Government is making changes.

NOtimTAMs, I agree with your statement:

Regional Australia - Canberra and CASA has its back turned squarely to you. I don’t really believe this is intentional in relation to CASA, there just seems to be a constant denial from some people that cost should be looked at. Remember when I said the amount of money that can be spent on safety is limited by what society can afford. If you regulate so the safety costs are so high that people cannot afford the air tickets or the cost of flying, you end up with lower safety levels as people move to less safe forms of transport.

[En-Rooter]

Dick,

I DID ask you a question earlier on? So how are ya mate? How are things at home?

Take care,

:ok:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

SM4,

The revenue from RS towers and controllers is around $25M...

Thats because Airservices only charges $25M for those services.

One could argue that Airservices should charge the full $90M and then sink the other $75M in to reducing the UAS costs.

Somewhere in there, somebody (normally the government - in this case with a bit of a conflict being 'the shareholder'), has to do an 'outside of core business' assessment of the benefits of having this service 'affordable' to the regional areas... (hence the reduced charges for regional area below a certain MTOW etc.) Of course this becomes all political, with the Nats pressuring the Libs etc.

Likewise, location specific pricing is a very fuzzy logic.

I fail to see why network charging can not be made consistent with a realistic admission that there has to be some cross-subsidisation somehweee or another - call it economy of scale if it makes it more palatable. It's essentially the same thing.

After all, do you think Telstra makes money out of telephone box sitting on the street at Camoweal, Tennant Creek or Cobar? It's only the realisation that it is an essential infrastructure service that keeps it there (that and the USO!)

[ferris]

no I am not suggesting that the Government Business Enterprise policy is flawed – just that a Government Business Enterprise that makes profits should not be a regulator and
The other point is there is nothing in the Airservices Act which says that the Board members should foster general aviation By your own words, Dick, it's quite simple. Instead of being directed to make profits, AsA should be directed to foster aviation. Surely you would agree? All you have to do is reconcile the philosophy of being a GBE with the idea that a "business" isn't the best entity to perform the function of a public service. That's essentially what you are saying? That AsA has a conflict of interest between doing what's best for aviation, or doing what's best for the bottom line. No matter who regulates what, that's the rub. Or; If the bottom line isn't paramount, why be a business?
There would have to be a proven model somewhere in the world for the answer, wouldn't there?

[peuce]

I agree (to some extent) with Dick Smith and Ferris has hit the nail on the head. To summarise:

ASA has a mandate to ensure primacy of Safety, not to foster GA. Dick, your graph shows a decline in GA activity. That is of no relevance or interest to ASA operations. Not their problem.
ASA is also a business, placed there to make money for its one shareholder ... which it is doing vigourously
The Regional Services disconnect between expenses and income sounds very familiar to the same argument that ensured Flight Service was closed
Like Telstra, the only reason ASA is providing services to the non-paying end of town is because of possible political backlash ... but I don't believe the fear of that can be sustained

Bottom line .... that's the way it is. Live with it, or change the laws.

[Capn Bloggs]

that's the way it is
That's the way he made it.

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, you state:

That's the way he made it This implies that I had some involvement in the way that Airservices Australia has been set up. Just for the record, I had no involvement in the original set up of the Civil Aviation Authority. I wasn’t asked and didn’t know about it. In fact, I did not read the Bosch Report until after the decision was made to set up the CAA.

In relation to the split between ASA and CASA, I was not involved in any way. I was not part of any discussions and did not know about it until I read of it in the newspapers.

[peuce]

Maybe not Dick, but you were instrumental in closing Flight Service .. as it was alledgedly not pulling its financial weight and was cross subsidised by the big end of town.

It's a bit rich to be bleeting now because GA isn't provided with services.

As intimated by SM4 Pirate, it could be about to get worse if your model for closing uneconomic services is extended to ATC Regional Services

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, I cannot believe it. You state:

It's a bit rich to be bleating now because GA isn't provided with services. I’m not complaining because GA isn’t provided with services. In fact, in many cases GA is over serviced and that is why the costs are too high. For example, a tower which costs over $3 million per year to operate at Bankstown (and now with nearly a 50% increase in the tower charge) is not a way to ensure the viability of general aviation.

I did not close down Flight Service because it was :

allegedly not pulling its financial weight and was cross subsidised by the big end of town. A duplicated traffic service by ATC and Flight Service was quite ridiculous. They had two completely different unions (which seemed to be at odds with each other whenever they got the chance) and two completely different training streams.

Most importantly, ATC made sure that flight service officers were not allowed to use radar. That meant that in most of the radar covered areas between Melbourne and Cairns, below FL145 pilots could not receive the benefit of radar. This was obviously ridiculous and lowered safety.

You have forgotten that I facilitated a scheme where flight service officers could train as air traffic controllers. Many did, and are current air traffic controllers today – receiving even more money.

This duplicated system cost about $100 million per annum more than a system just run by ATC. That means we have saved something like $1.4 billion in the last 14 years.

Yes, it is correct that the airline industry said that they would not continue to cross subsidise flight service. It would have meant the complete annihilation of the general aviation industry if it was forced to pay the full cost of flight service.

I liked the flight service system – especially when you could land at a place like Charleville or Longreach, have a cup of coffee, get assistance with your flight plan and make arrangements for a taxi into town to stay at the best motel at the pilots’ rate.

To me, the flight service of those old days was like the manual exchange which I had when I first moved into my farm at Ross Glen. It was a far better service, but once people insisted on the user paying, it was a time to move to a more efficient system.

I am fortunate. I could have afforded to continue to pay for my flying if the old duplicated system was kept. Unfortunately, many others couldn’t.

The situation at the present time is that we either have to go back to the Government funded system – which no party will support – or move forward and complete the reforms so we have an efficient system.

I know many air traffic controllers who would like to run towers, say at Bankstown, at a far lower rate without the huge Airservices Australia Canberra overheads. At the present time they have been prevented from doing this.

[Capn Bloggs]

ATC above FL145 cost $X. FS below FL145 cost $0.7X. Get rid of the lower-paid FS bit, make the higher-paid bit do ALL the work and save $100m a year. Rubbish.
FS cost $20m, even Peter ??? from AsA was quoted as saying FS cost $37m.
Stop spruiking nonsense Dick. You had an ideological hatred towards FS and you just had to get rid of it regardless.

It was a far better service, but once people insisted on the user paying, it was a time to move to a more efficient system.
You mean YOU insisted on User Paying. If GBAS is more efficient, let's go with it. To hell with the service to those who don't pay...:ok:

[SM4 Pirate]

This duplicated system cost about $100 million per annum more than a system just run by ATC. Tell me where exactly was the duplication? That means we have saved something like $1.4 billion in the last 14 years. This is classic "Whilloughby maths"... The fact is the many FS officers that were retrained in ATC (or given a payout) and quite often went to sectors that were 'exactly' the same as previous rated on in FIS; then getting a rating on the CTA above (an additional task) and then got a 25% payrise (eventually). When FIS was shut, how many ATCs were there, how many today (including how many we are short), how many if we hadn't of shut FIS and not brought in the fandangeled Class E?

Dick saying you personally saved such a massive figure is just plain wrong:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

The last official figure is very close to what bloggs had; much of which was directly transfered to the ATC bucket; ie frequencies and maintainence budgets and significant amounts of wages. 1.4b haaaaaa what a joke; also seems a bit rich claiming 14 years of savings already...

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

http://emoticons4u.com/happy/783.gif :E
.
…. and he knows it! http://emoticons4u.com/happy/1286.gif l http://emoticons4u.com/happy/1304.gif …. lots of people know what has happened to this industry and why .. simply saying the opposite after the event is not gunna fly! http://emoticons4u.com/happy/986.gif
.
http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/ .... some interesting comments on tech, policy and ADS-B (including funding), worth registering for a look ;)

[peuce]

Unless I'm reading the reports incorrectly, The Airservices Annual Reports 1998 (can't find an earlier one) and 2006 show the following:

1998

ATC: 211
FSO: 23


2006

ATC: 981
Flightwatch: 81

I'm not an accountant, but I don't see a lot of savings there.

[peuce]

As pointed out by a fellow Pruner, I DID misread the document.

Should be more like this:

1998

ATC: 1174
FS/Flightwatch: 275

2006

ATC: 981
Flightwatch: 81

Anyone lend me a towell ... so I can wipe this egg off my face ??

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

peuce ... screw the towel ..... see the figures :ooh: :( ... the clock ticks !!

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,
My dear chap, you really shouldn’t let your Richard Harold prejudices get in the way of the facts.
When the 1996 CASA Review started, Mr. Justice Bill Fisher was the Chairman of the CASA Board, RHS and his offsider basically opposed the whole shooting match.
When Dick became Chairman (one M. Vaile Esq., Minister) he didn’t exactly encourage the continuation of the Review, it was terminated.
Tootle pip!!

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

I prepared this reply for Bob Murphie's thread on the same but it dissappeared before I hit the send button. It provided a bit more detail to dick's usual hysterical dot points. Well I'm posting my reply here anyway.

All sounds sensible and reasonable, but how reliable are the assumptions involved? Japan and Europe are producing WAAS compatible satellites which will ensure adequate coverage for Australia What comprises 'adequate'? What portions of the country would not have adequate coverage?

It would seem most likely that these northern hemisphere countries would arrange the footprint of what coverage there is to suit them rather than us. Geostationary sattelites are not omnidirectional AFAIK. I'm sure they COULD be pointed in such a way to facilitate coverage, but is there any evidence to suggest they MIGHT? If not, how are the costings looking then?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just a tip for the unwary.
Don't confuse GBAS and GRAS (ain't acronyms accurate).
The way I understand it, GBAS is the new name for LAAS, the limited area cousin of WAAS, and works with a wide range of existing production equipment.
GRAS is quite different, and requires a VHF datalink to a suitably equipped aircraft, I don't think the GBAS mentioned in Germany has much to do with the GRAS Airservices is promoting.
The total number of available GRAS receivers suitable for GA aircraft is precisely zero, in contrast to WAAS as GBAS.
If I misunderstand, I am certain somebody will point it out.
Tootle pip!!

[GaryGnu]

I certainly would not agree with Bob's assessment of the article being excellent or with a lot of the assertions the article contains.
However, the point does remain that if Australia is to gain acess to APVs then some form of augmentation is needed. What form that augmentation takes?.......well I believe that is being investigated.
JFJ,
Have a look at here (http://www.mlit.go.jp/koku/english/06_airtraffic/index.html). It shows the MTSAT satellite systems as having an area of coverage over Australia. Whether the MTSAT Satellite Augmentation System (MSAS) will cover Australia...who knows.

Dick,

Leadsled makes a valid point.

Are you seriously objecting to the Honeywell GBAS like that in Sydney that will eventually be certified to provide CAT I approach guidance or is it really the Ground Based Regional Augmentation System (GRAS) that you have a problem with?

Your arguments will have more credibility if you get your facts straight.

[YesTAM]

What a pity! While I am never likely to fly an IFR approach, even my $120.00 GPS has WAAS - accuracy quoted as 3.0 m with WAAS and 15m without. We seem to be going down the usual Australian "Not invented here" track so that the boffins concerned can earn their Ph D's.

Frankly, in this case the tail is wagging the dog because there are a heck of a lot of people who would like their GPS's to have WAAS corrections and very few of them are pilots. The Federal Government should be doing a full blown economic analysis of the business case because I suspect the economic impact of WAAS outside aviation would be ten to twenty times the aviation impact. For a start, factor in the costs of the DGPS system used by the marine industry, let alone the agricultural industry.

So I again ask the same old question, beloved of good management, "Why the f&ck don't we simply buy an existing proven solution off the shelf, rather than exposing ourselves to the risk of developing a unique "Australian" solution, whose "advantages" may prove illusory and expensive if they exist at all?"

The usual result is hundreds of millions spent developing a technically brilliant solution that is 100% matched to the Australian environment. We then try and sell it overseas only to find that the rest of the world prefers a system that is a 90% fit to what the rest of the world wants at 50% of the cost of what we are proposing.

I eagerly await an answer. I guess Australian air must be different from the U.S., or maybe signals don't propagate through our brand of ether.

[Bob Murphie]

Airservices and Wide Area Augmentation System
Many may not have seen the excellent article written by Peter Wordsworth in relation to the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and why Airservices don't seem to be heading in the US direction.

It makes really interesting reading and can be seen here. http://mooney.org.au/files/GPS-the_WAAS_that_WAS_.pdf

[LeadSled]

GaryGnu,
Like I said, traps for the unwary.
Airservices has done a deal on GRAS --- not GBAS (nee WAAS/LAAS).
Therefore, unless you have the compatible TSO/STC VHF datalink (and undoubtedly the AA access code for charging you for the service) feeding the GPS you can't yet buy at any price, there will not be any augmentation for you in Australia.
Dick is objecting to GRAS, not the already widely used WAAS/GBAS.
GBAS gives the same result over as small area as WAAS over a large area, the aircraft equipment for WAAS/LAAS/GBAS is all the same.
As far as I can see, both systems will produce the same accuracies (GBAS is proven, GRAS is in development) for precision approaches.
Tootle pip!!

PS: DGPS is already widely available in Australia.

[YesTAM]

I hope you can read this Dick, and then send a letter to the powers that be because this is a disgrace.

I fail to see why one tiny little Government organisation (ASA) is making decisions about the provision of a service purely on the basis of its own tiny aviation requirements when GPS usage outside of RPT aviation dwarfs that activity.

Try the Mining, Agriculture, Transport and Marine industries for starters. What is the economic value of more accurate GPS to them? Where is the study?

Do you understand that agribusiness now uses GPS in harvesters to continuously monitor yields as it harvests grain? Do you know that this information is then used by similarly equipped fertiliser spreaders to maximise yields?

Do you understand that almost very taxi and truck in the country is fitted with GPS? Do you understand what supply chain management is? Do you understand about rail and road condition monitoring via high speed digital cameras linked to GPS?

There is an infinity of GPS applications being developed for industry and the economic effect of GPS accuracy on the overall economy needs to be estimated before ANY decision is made about WAAS, and it sounds once again that a tiny minority with a particular application that is hardly even needed is dictating policy that will effect everyone.

GPS and WAAS - Its not just about Aviation!!!!!!!!

Again what will probably happen is exactly what happened to Australian DME, and here is how it will happen;

This time overseas software developers will build a raft of software applications that rely on WAAS. Australian software designers will be locked out of this market because we don't use WAAS here.

Then five years from now, the Mining and Agriculture lobbies wanting to use the latest systems to maintain their competitiveness, will force the Federal Government to install WAAS - and then the "Australian" solution gras or whatever it is, will be another expensive waste of time.

DGPS by the way, involves an extra antenna and beacon receiver, both of which are a total inconvenience unless you are on a yacht. I'm not sure that Garmin even makes the GBR 21 anymore.

For fecks sake go for international standards, just about every GPS sold today is WAAS enabled. Japan is on Board, America uses it and I think Egnos may use it too. Why do we always have to be out of step?

[ferris]

If you are going to talk about big picture stuff, then you need to talk about the basis of policy.
Maybe the government should be doing what's good for the country, rather than what can be cost recovered under user pays? Round and round.....

[bushy]

I wish I could persuade a few million people to pay me lots of money to set up a monopoly business which then sells things to the same people and makes good profits from them.

Our government is involved in "cost recovery".
They should be making enough money to pay costs.
Their purpose is not to make profits from us. It is to provide necessary services to us and recover the costs.

[bushy]

It appears that our government agencies
(businesses) are only interested in the big operators that run up and down the east coast. So what's new. They appear to be setting up a unique system that is useful to a few operators, in a small area of the country. So that's where the money should come from. Totally. The major airlines should pay ALL of the cost of the GRAS and ADSB. It's only for them.
Conversly, if they were to install the wide area system (as they should) that is useful to most of Australia's population, and would almost certainly have prevented the Lockhart River accident, then the whole country should pay for it. It is a national asset.

A long time ago, there were many DME equipped aircraft flying around Australia that could not use their DME except in the vicinity of one or two capital cities, because the ground stations were of a unique Australian type that would not work with their on board equipment. Eventually the system was changed to the international system.
It looks like we are going to do the same thing again.

[Quokka]

ADS-B is not an Australian technology, it is an international technology.

ADS-B is not a new technology. It is currently in use.

ADS-B in each aircraft is a transponder, a Mode S - Extended Squitter.

There are a number of different debates in this thread that are merging and being confused with each other. ADS-B is simply the installation of a Mode S - Extended Squitter in each aircraft in Australia (subsidised by AsA), some training and a CASA approval for use with TAAATS. The plan, budget, training and installation commenced last year in Australia. If it had been continued, the end result would have seen the replacement of MSSR coverage and service with more accurate ADS-B surveillance and a vast improvement in the provision of service to the industry, including General Aviation. In fact, the Low-Level phase of the ADS-B project would have provided surveillance services to General Aviation across a vast area of Australia that will never see a surveillance service using RADAR... why? Because RADAR is too expensive, on a scale that some pilots may never understand.

ADS-B would have provided Australia something that it will never have with RADAR.... continental surveillance coverage.

And one more thing... RADAR is not, and has never been, an accurate technology throughout the coverage. RADAR is a WWII technology. RADAR is only accurate close to the RADAR site. RADAR accuracy diminishes significantly with range (ie. the further the aircraft or object is from the RADAR site, the less accurate the information displayed to the controller is).


ADS-B is accurate, regardless of the distance of the aircraft from the ADS-B antenna.

ADS-B is more accurate than RADAR.

ADS-B has no moving parts.

ADS-B in Australia is one letter-from-Dick Smith-to-the-Minister away from reality.

[Creampuff]

ADS-B in Australia is one letter-from-Dick Smith-to-the-Minister away from reality.Ya gotta love government decision-making in third world countries. So…hmmmm……….'efficient'.

[SM4 Pirate]

...including General Aviation. In fact, the Low-Level phase of the ADS-B project would have provided surveillance services to General Aviation across a vast area of Australia that will never see a surveillance service using RADAR But that is probably the issue, big brother will be watching...

Great post Quokka

Seriously we need to exted this WWII technology; it matches the airspace design; or at least where it is headed.

[bushy]

ASA and the airlines need it. They should pay for it.

Also, we have already seen how radio transmissions have been used for commercial purposes for landing fees, and this has reduced trust in what should be a safety system. There are demonstrated errors and problems with this.

Will ADSB be used as a commercial tool? Will this compromise it's percieved integrity, as has happened with radio?

[onthedials]

Much as I agree with what I think are Quokka’s sentiments, I must pick him/her up on the comment that ADS-B 1090ES is not GPS.

Only TSO-C145/146-compliant GPS receivers will be permitted in Australia for use with ADS-B 1090ES. (Refer NPRM 0601AS and draft AC 21-045). There is one (apparent) exception for general aviation, being the Honeywell KLN 94 and KT73 combination used in the Queensland trial, which was included in the last draft of the AC.

This requirement makes GPS a major factor in the ADS-B solution. Aside from the KLN94/KT73 combination, it appears that there are currently no certified general aviation solutions which would meet the requirements. There are a few products in development and there are some uncertified units on the market, but these would not appear to meet the Australian requirements. This is quite apart from the 1090ES transponder component.

It seems that Garmin is the only manufacturer of GPS receivers which can be realistically installed in GA aircraft and satisfy the TSO C145/146 standards. The vast majority of installed GPS navigators were manufactured to TSO-C129a (or lesser/no standard). Some Garmin 430 and 530 units will be upgraded to TSO-C145/146 but even if they all were, that will still only account for a portion of the installed base. It is not possible for any handheld or portable units to ever meet those standards. This means that we can’t have ADS-B 1090ES without replacing most existing GPS navigators or installing another, new, GPS navigator in general aviation aircraft.

I’d suggest that the most significant factor will be what happens to Raytheon’s bid to provide ADS-B services in the US. That company has basically told the FAA to forget UAT and implement 1090ES at lower levels as well as upper airspace. If that succeeds, the availability and cost of 1090ES ADS-B products for general aviation will become much more attractive very rapidly. Without access to the US market, it will be very difficult for 1090ES products in general aviation to succeed.

No matter how influential he or others consider he is, I doubt any number of phone calls from Dick Smith can change the outcome.

This thread is full of very muddled thinking. GBAS/GRAS presents entirely different problems to ADS-B. The same influential person who began this thread seems to think that using WAAS in Australia will only need some “arrangements” to use a Japanese satellite. What he doesn’t say is that for Australian coverage, those “arrangements” would need 25-30 WAAS reference ground stations. The cost of establishing these “arrangements” would be enormous. Who is going to pay for that?

Sadly, there is way too much emotion in this discussion to ever get anywhere. Many exponents, who should know better, seem happy to run these arguments with disregard for the facts of regulatory and market realities in the hope that the support of the naïve and ill-informed will somehow make it right. It won’t.

[gaunty]

Hmmmmmmm takes deep breath through nose and smells the fresh breath of sweet reason. :D :cool:

[Quokka]

Thanks for the clarification onthedials.

That was the best-written technical post on the subject in this thread that I've read so far. I was hoping to differentiate the RADAR vs. ADS-B debate from the GBAS vs GRAS vs WAAS vs everything-else-that-was-being-thrown-into-the-thread debate.

I oversimplified the GPS/Transponder aspect of it and I apologize for doing so.

[LeadSled]

Onthedials,
You'r getting close, but some caution.
The AC lists a number of "big end of town" items that are all only C129A GPS, not just the King. The fine print says they have to be phased out too soon to amortise, unless the GPS is just a feed to an IRS/FMCS typical setup.
Very few existing GPS boxes can be upgraded from C129A to C145/146, the internal workings are quite different. Despite all the smoke and mirrors, the only GA C146 Garmin is the 480, inherited from the takeover of UPS technologies. As far as I can see from the Garmin website, while future model 430/530 may have C145/146, I don't see any blurb about retrofitting existing boxes.
Likewise, very few Mode S transponders can be upgraded to 1090ES, probably because the manufacturers want to sell you a new transponder. My Collins TDR 94 transponders can't be upgraded, current production but "wrong" serial number, just like most of the Qf -8s, and a whole bunch of other Regional aircraft. A pair of TDR94D ain't cheap.
Microair is soldiering valiantly on, but the whole project depends on a C146 GPS chip at an affordable price. Will that happen ?, with only one source of supply, who knows, I hope so, but don't hold your breath.
Gaunty, GBAS and GRAS are not the same, Airservices is playing footsies with Honeywell over GRAS, not Honeywell GBAS products.
Tootle pip!!

[SCE to Aux]

The Garmin 480 now has some company in the TSO C145/146 arena.

Current Garmin GNS430/530 can be bought that are TSO C145/146 compliant. Garmin are performing upgrades on existing GNS430/530s for $US1,500 right now, one of mine is booked in with the factory on April 16. At current exchange rates, a new TSO C145/146 GNS 430 costs less than AUD8,000.

As I've said before, when I can buy one from Garmin, the time for Australia to think seriosly about low level ADS-B might have arrived.

I don't work for Garmin.

[LeadSled]

SCE to Aux,
That's the -W models of the 430/530, but the upgrade of some older versions of the 430/530 seems to be a well kept secret amongst the local agents.
From Garmin
*Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, Garmin’s GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary means" of GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. Garmin expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 issuing the software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader card. This required software update is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2007.
**The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for a large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness approval will be required. End quote.
Translated _-- It ain't all peaches and cream.
Likewise, FreeFlight (was Trimble) have been threatening an upgrade board for the 2101 Approach variants, but I think they want to sell me new units.
Tootle pip!!

[onthedials]

Leadsled, thanks for the caution. I should take a dose of my own medicine. I am not entirely familiar with the "top end of town". I wondered how those units got on the list! To your list of GA C145/146 units, add the GIA-63W component of the G1000. The GIA-63 however is a C129a unit. Good luck with the Collins transponders. I bet there will be other similar stories before this affair is over. How good would it be if Microair succeed - but it makes no sense to agree to a national strategy and regulatory regime until we have some evidence that there is a market to support them.

My own view is that Australia is jumping the gun on ADS-B 1090ES for lower levels (by all means, let's have it above FL180, since the new airframes have it anyway and the airlines can gain a significant economic benefit). But I also think there is little to lose with continuing the GBAS and GRAS (differences acknowledged) work.

Quokka - no apology necessary. From where I sit, you've started something dangerously useful. Imagine (gee, I'm sounding like someone else) having an aviation discussion where the participants attempted to become informed as to the facts pertinent to the subject...

SCEtoAux - yes, your C145/146 Garmin 430W or 530W may well meet the navigation source data requirement of the NPRM, but what will you connect it to? I don't think you'll be connecting it to the widely-unannounced GTX33ES, since that is a blind device that needs the user interface of a G1000 or GNS 480. If you decide to hook it up to a KT 73 (the only real GA choice), please let us know how you go. My reading of the AC is that the cost of CAR 35 and related work in doing so would be a very costly exercise for a GA operator.

My main concern is that Australia is attempting to mandate standards and specifications before any real solution for GA exists. This is a bad basis for policy, because (1) the result is a distorted market for compliant product that may not be sold otherwise; and (2) in the cost-recovery environment, the regulator and service provider are effectively committing and spending other people's money for which they will never have to answer.

I think all of us in GA need to lift ourselves above the notion "that because my aircraft can do it, there is no reason why it should not be mandatory". Two warnings here: (1) it is easy to be disappointed when you discover that what looked good on paper won't work (say due to s/w or PCB revision) or will cost $10,000+ to test and certify; and (2) in the long-run, all of GA needs to be able to access the solution if we will ever see real benefits. The originator of this thread suddenly changed his tune when he discovered there might be a solution for his forthcoming Mustang after all. That's good for him, but no help to anyone else except the handful of GNS480 and G1000 owners in Australia. I'll leave it to others to figure out the true commitment to the public interest demonstrated by such an approach.

A serious technical discussion of all the implications of ADS-B, GBAS, GRAS and WAAS would be really worthwhile, but I think all of us (including me, Leadsled) should leave our baggage at the gate.

[gaunty]

onthedials

A serious discussion without polemic?? I agree :ok:

Most of the gear we operate is current whizbang technology, but we have recently ordered a brace of Garmin 530A's for retro to satisfy some Oceanic Nav requirements on some of the older aircraft that are "in transition" to the graveyard.

We are required sometimes to operate in some seriously third world conditions and belt and braces with handhelds as well are de rigeur.

It seems to me the sooner we can get the universal FANS going and if I recall it correctly ADSB was the foundation and cornerstone for it, the better. It might yet be Buck Rogers stuff but the thought of having an Australian controller riding shot gun in some of the more interesting areas to our North is comforting.:}

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

…. are there issues with the speed of ‘certification’ of ADS-B equipment? … particularly where it can be argued that any device (such as those mentioned in the TCAS thread) is surely better than nothing/none! … the solution must be cost effective to reach into the sectors you highlight (quite rightly) i.e. smaller aircraft (1) the result is a distorted market for compliant product that may not be sold otherwise; … is there any doubt about 1090ES as the international standard?? … and (2) in the cost-recovery environment, the regulator and service provider are effectively committing and spending other people's money for which they will never have to answer. … you lost me here!
.. The regulator and the service provider are still wholly within the Fed Gov’t (the Oz people) purview, by charter they are required to maintain a watching brief over risks to aviation! .. this obviously includes assessment of new (existing) and emerging technology, particularly where the improvement in collision risk mitigation is so large. The options for investment must be looked at very carefully!
.
… it would be a very foolhardy organisation that:-
.
- recommended public money be spent without thorough research, market knowledge, certainty and simplicity of regulation and;
- a funding solution
.
... it would be equally foolhardy not to spend the public money if the cost/safety benefit clearly warranted it!.
.
… an organisation owned by the public (gov’t) cannot spend any amount of public money without transparent justification, and quite properly so … and must definitely be able to account for it ... thank goodness the people own the revenue source than could pay for it!
.
… the Gov’t must decide appropriate policy and expenditure .. if the numbers add-up .. they should have no reason to knock it back!
.
- 100% subsidy for ‘out only’ boxes (poverty pack)
- Equivalent dollar subsidy for others (already equipped with gear to accept ‘in’)
- WAMLat (A, C, S, 1090ES) replacing MSSR and additional areas as required by A.S (CASR)
.
.. how much?? .. who knows unless you know how much each box might cost!
.
.. in the meantime ??
.
.. who is paying who for GBAS or GRAS?(1) it is easy to be disappointed when you discover that what looked good on paper won't work (say due to s/w or PCB revision) .. s/w or PCB ??

[onthedials]

I should have explained more clearly.

"… is there any doubt about 1090ES as the international standard?? …"

Yes, unfortunately. The FAA has selected UAT for low level ADS-B in US airspace and not 1090ES, mainly because it wants it to be used to upload graphical weather products. As I mentioned in the earlier post, the Raytheon bid would change everything if it succeeds. The result would be much lower costs and greater choice in 1090ES GA products since the market volumes would not be split between 1090ES and UAT. My suggestion is that we wait to see which way the US goes before committing ourselves to subsidised products which may not turn out to be superior and in which aircraft owners may not have adequate choice.

Re cost recovery: I agree that expenditure is visible and transparent, as well it should be. My point is that it is easier under cost-recovery for the regulator at the behest of government to require all manner of things if it knows it will not need its minister to secure an appropriation. As an example, in 2005 the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee asked why there were no appropriations to fund the minister’s promised additional radars. The answer was that the money would be spent over several years and that Airservices could choose to use funding from private equity markets. I should have chosen my words better – there is obviously scrutiny, but it is not the same as applies when all expenditure is funded by and subject to the appopriations process. You’re right – they would be very foolhardy not to properly research the matter before spending.

s/w = software
PCB = printed circuit board (hardware).
The revisions of these things (and even part numbers) within devices marked as the same “model” can vary widely. It is not uncommon for interdependencies to apply between the two, such as limitations on a software upgrade that exclude early hardware versions. I'm just cautioning that there may be expensive small print that should be thoroughly researched before assuming that equipment will interoperate or be upgradeable.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A point I have made elsewhere, there are three(3), ICAO ADS-B standards.
So far unmentioned (unmentionable ??) is VDL-4. As far as I have been able to determine, VDL-4 is the only one of the three in daily used for actual ATC purposes at present, right now, at this time, as we speak --- as opposed to "trials", and that daily use is in Scandinavia. The "Mediterranean" trial is also VDL-4.
Most of the US trials, including all the work in Alaska, and all the United Parcel Service demonstrations of pilot managed approach sequencing, have been UAT. Right now, a big FAA UAT installation program is under way, it is going in across a number of the US eastern seaboard states. The whole value of the Alaska Capstone program was about the advantages of C145/146 GPS, moving maps and a broadband datalink, aircraft to aircraft "collision avoidance" was a relatively minor issue/bonus.
Most of the Northern European/CIS states have announced the adoption of VDL-4, whether it will happen is another thing altogether. How does that fit with Eurocontrol/ECAC ??--- it will keep an army of bureaucrats happy spending our ATC fees and large volumes of taxpayer's cubic Euros on busywork for years --- just like Galileo, really.
VDL-4 seems to be the market leader for on-airport ground collision avoidance, including the US, interestingly VDL-4 has been adopted by the US Marines as standard for its practice ranges, for tracking.
The good thing about ES1090 --- it's just an addition to a TXPD Mode S signal.
As all the Australian propaganda said/says, just a simple connection from a GPS (or FMCS) to a Mode S transponder --- remember the Airservices brochure for airlines, that showed a piece of wire and a 1.44 floppy for the software.
The bad thing about ES1090 --- it's just an addition to a TXPD Mode S signal.
With all the limitations of very restricted band width compared to UAT (~WBCDMA) and VDL-4 (more or less GSM 2.5), and only 4096 channels for the basic Mode A signal ---and --- (ask QF)--- the cheap, quick and easy retrofitting for airlines "ain't necessarily so".
Indeed hardly ever, unless the 747/744/767/757/737/add long DC/MD list was ES1090 capable ex-factory. Early (less than the last several years delivery) Airbus, I don't know, but I rather suspect the same, retrofitting ES1090 is very expensive (complete recertification of a new FMCS/ADC fit) and hard to justify in an older aircraft -- and that just for ADS-B "out". Integrating ADS-B "in" with TCAS 11 is a whole new ballgame, again unless it was delivered ex-factory ---- Unless the aircraft are really old, where all the avionics are separate boxes, like most GA aircraft, just update the boxes, a bucket of $$$ for the STC, $0.25M for a 100/200/300 B747 or other "707 vintage" stuff.
ES1090 will never cut it for ground collision avoidance as is being proposed.
As for Raytheon's proposal to dump UAT ---- Mitre Corp. (FAA) will probably have something to say about that, because of the "The bad thing --" above, particularly the 4096 limitation. Given the number of aircraft in US (and airport vehicles) it wouldn't be too hard to see more than 4096 transceivers in line of sight.
Tootle pip!!

[Quokka]

...so... UAT or VDL-4?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

A point I have made elsewhere, there are three(3), ICAO ADS-B standards.
So far unmentioned (unmentionable ??) is VDL-4. As far as I have been able to determine, VDL-4 is the only one of the three in daily used for actual ATC purposes at present, right now, at this time, as we speak --- as opposed to "trials", and that daily use is in Scandinavia. The "Mediterranean" trial is also VDL-4. … not quite, 1090ES is being used in Oz by ATC (for the majority of Turbo-jet RPT who are equipped), the only impediment to 5nm surveillance standards is dual path data commissioning (not far away)! Most of the US trials, including all the work in Alaska, and all the United Parcel Service demonstrations of pilot managed approach sequencing, have been UAT. Right now, a big FAA UAT installation program is under way, it is going in across a number of the US eastern seaboard states.
.. I must have missed something here, as the latest info available on their website http://www.adsb.gov/docs_10-27/briefing_package_10-27.pdf has the ‘final’ segment (remainder of segment 1 and 2) decision in July 07’ The whole value of the Alaska Capstone program was about the advantages of C145/146 GPS, moving maps and a broadband datalink, aircraft to aircraft "collision avoidance" was a relatively minor issue/bonus. .. yeh daft eh! .. the biggest single benefit?? Most of the Northern European/CIS states have announced the adoption of VDL-4, whether it will happen is another thing altogether. How does that fit with Eurocontrol/ECAC ??--- it will keep an army of bureaucrats happy spending our ATC fees and large volumes of taxpayer's cubic Euros on busywork for years --- just like Galileo, really. … whoah .. ya gunna have to explain that sweeping statement a bit .. which northern European states and was that before or after the bandwidth issues with 1090ES were addressed???VDL-4 seems to be the market leader for on-airport ground collision avoidance, including the US, interestingly VDL-4 has been adopted by the US Marines as standard for its practice ranges, for tracking. .. thats fine and beaut on a MIL range where the other bits like compatibility with other users is well not so importantThe good thing about ES1090 --- it's just an addition to a TXPD Mode S signal. .... and it does not require dual signal and/or rebroadcast like UAT and VDL4 ….. less complexity, less cost (particularly to GA)As all the Australian propaganda said/says, just a simple connection from a GPS (or FMCS) to a Mode S transponder --- remember the Airservices brochure for airlines, that showed a piece of wire and a 1.44 floppy for the software.
The bad thing about ES1090 --- it's just an addition to a TXPD Mode S signal. .. depends on your definition of bad! …. simplicity and compatibility with existing TXPDRS .. what’s not to like? .. the other datalink stuff the yanks want to uplift via UAT is range limited, requires dual band, rebroadcast therefore redundancy .. why is that better than Satellite for the other data (WX, NOTAM and other bits) whilst retaining 100% single band compatibility for all types for traffic (lots of which already have ES)With all the limitations of very restricted band width compared to UAT (~WBCDMA) and VDL-4 (more or less GSM 2.5), .. again ES is single band, augmented (for those who want the other stuff like WX) with Sat (no range issues) ….. is wider bandwidth of UAT or VDL4 worth the carriage of dual bands, not to mention range limits to ground stations for all the ‘other stuff’ (very pertinent in the outback Oz) and only 4096 channels for the basic Mode A signal ---and --- (ask QF)--- the cheap, quick and easy retrofitting for airlines "ain't necessarily so". .. the efficiencies available to highfliers of having the gear (software, cable etc) V’s procedural separation standards in remote areas …. Comon Indeed hardly ever, unless the 747/744/767/757/737/add long DC/MD list was ES1090 capable ex-factory. as far as I am aware (stand to be corrected though) most all VB and QF 738’s, JST A320 have it, not sure about B717’s in the west … in any event, that is what WAMLat is going to (in part) address (existing TXPDRS) Early (less than the last several years delivery) Airbus, I don't know, but I rather suspect the same, retrofitting ES1090 is very expensive (complete recertification of a new FMCS/ADC fit) and hard to justify in an older aircraft .. not that I don’t believe you, but have you got something tangible that supports the statement? -- and that just for ADS-B "out". Integrating ADS-B "in" with TCAS 11 is a whole new ballgame, again unless it was delivered ex-factory ---- .. so are you say that the FMCS in a VB B737 is sufficiently different from that of a VB B738 that requires a ‘recertification’ as you put it? Unless the aircraft are really old, where all the avionics are separate boxes, like most GA aircraft, just update the boxes, a bucket of $$$ for the STC, $0.25M for a 100/200/300 B747 or other "707 vintage" stuff. … wouldn’t the STC be common to type?? .. economies of scale and all that?ES1090 will never cut it for ground collision avoidance as is being proposed. rubbish, Multilat with A/C/ES …. See http://astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/ABIT-10_IP-008_Surv_Technology_Comparison.pdf As for Raytheon's proposal to dump UAT ---- Mitre Corp. (FAA) will probably have something to say about that, because of the "The bad thing --" above, particularly the 4096 limitation. .. are you suggesting ES out will also be limited to 4096 codes?? .. common Lead, you know the ADS-B we are talking about has 24 bit addressing .. how many codes is that ??Given the number of aircraft in US (and airport vehicles) it wouldn't be too hard to see more than 4096 transceivers in line of sight. …. As stated, ADS-B ES has a code allocated to the specific aircraft/box, these codes are many digits long! … if I have this wrong could you point to a reference!
.
Below is the latest link page from the Australian ‘propaganda’ as Leadsled calls it:-
.
http://astra.aero/ABIT/index.aspx ..comparisons of systems and other costing data etc
.
And for those that missed the stuff from Europe:-
.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3159081&postcount=178
.
Poodle Tip! :} :ooh: :E

[LeadSled]

Scurvy, Old Dog,
My dear chap, most of what I have drawn attention to is actually available on the links you so helpfully previously posted and reposted here.
Having a Mode S transponder is a long, long way from having ADS-B.
As to the ramifications of 4096 codes limitation, I defer to the opinions of the Mitre Corp. http://www.mitre.org/.
As to multi-lateration for ground collision avoidance, whether the positional accuracy will be good enough is an open question, quite apart from the 4096 issue.
The only other comment I will make is that the "ASTRA Cross Industry Business Case", (or whatever it is precisely called) does not qualify, even in the most generous definition of a cost/benefit analysis, as a cost/benefit analysis, let alone a "business case". Also have a look at the CASA efforts on the subject, it will tell you a lot.
In fact, I will make one other comment, there is far to much "faith" in something called ADS-B, and not nearly enough fact ---- until you get to the senior level bean counters at several well know local airlines --- where demonstrated competence in simple accounting arithmetic is a job requirement.
Tootle pip !!

[onthedials]

I wonder if ATC systems can operate without a Mode A 4096 code (or pseudo code for Mode S) to associate a target with flight details. Does anyone know if that happens now (anywhere)? Presumably the REG/ field in Australian flight notifications could be used to associate the Mode S address with the flight plan in addition to, or instead of a code.

[the wizard of auz]

Ever had a satellite or three drop-out in your GPS? How many times has a GPSRNAV aircraft lost RAIM? All it takes is a CB in a direct line between your aircraft and that equatorial satellite on Final, in IMC and...
very rarely........ but I guess you just hit the GA button and follow the published procedure, go and hold for ten mins and try again..... pretty accommodating things them cells......pretty predictable lifespan. :}

[bushy]

There has been some suggestion that sunspots may affect GPS.
Sunspots definitely affect HF radio at times, as they affect the ionosphere, and HF radio depends on the waves being reflected by the ionosphere. I have never heard of a case of VHF or UHF waves being affected by sunspot activity, as they are direct, line of sight, with no reflections.

[GaryGnu]

Onthedials,
Yes ATC can couple the FLTID obtained from ADS-B to the flight plan.
For more see here (http://astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/ABIT-10_IP-004_ADS-B_Operational_Update.pdf)

There is no need for Mode A SSR Codes

[onthedials]

GaryGnu, thanks very much. That's very helpful - and most encouraging. Like so many things AsA does (at least from where I sit), there is clearly a professional, measured and responsible approach being taken to its introduction, which does the organisation great credit. Maybe I'm missing something, but it's hard to see how the Mode A four octal digit limit could have any significance for ADS-B 1090ES in Australia.

Leadsled, I searched Mitre's site and could not come up with any specific reference to the Mode A address space limitation as an issue for implementing 1090ES in Australia in normal circumstances. From casual reading, I understand that (some? all?) US radars dump the FLTID parameter and that it does not make it through to their FDP system. Clearly that doesn't happen here with Eurocats. If you have them, I'd be interested to read any specific references to Mitre's concerns in this area...

[Creampuff]

Leaddy this is thread, Leaddy this is thread, do you read?

[LeadSled]

Creamy, old mate,
Now I do, I've just been tied up (not literally) with a bunch of your ilk, trying to persuade another bunch of similarly professionally engaged, that the third party, well know on this site, is wrong. Decision reserved.
Onthedials,
Sadly, Australian aviation is so small, that 4096 codes will not be an issue in Australia. It was a consideration for FAA, in going UAT v. VDL-4, and then handling dual, maybe triple, airborne systems.
I was really directing attention to the proposal of one of three FAA NGATS respondents to dump UAT, in favour of GA aircraft having to buy a separate datalink for "data" --- where it doesn't have any patents to exploit by going along with UAT --- Universal Access Transceiver ---- so lets take a technological leap backwards, go for an old and developmentally limited system, and scrap the already extensive ground and airborne investment in (relatively) new technology UAT.
FAA have announced that FAA/Mitre Corp. will examine the ramifications of the proposal to dump UAT--- ie; Why has anything changed since the original decision that FAA needed the dual system --- Including the future potential of the Universal Access Transceiver architecture (or VDL-X, for that matter) --- in favour of a minor and "limited in potential" adaption of a piece of 30/40 year old avionics --- was "cutting edge" in the mid-20th Century --- with the emphasis on limited--- very.
Tootle pip!!!

[gaunty]

LeadSled

And your point is?

OK so us dummies are suitably impressed with the slick polemics and how you are a card carrying member of the inner sanctum passing down recieved wisdom, but you may better employ your time here emulating our friend Ockham.:E

[LeadSled]

Gaunty,
My dear chap, hardly inner sanctum, or received/perceived wisdom, it's all very public information.
I'm sure Creampuff wanted reassurance I hadn't suddenly dropped off the twig, these things do happen.
And my point --- just a reply to/addition to previous posts, maybe it's a bit of a mystery to those not actually in the business, but are more your interested observer from afar, or who hasn't done much/any sharp end stuff in the last third of the last century, say since the initial 4096 TXPDR era. You know when I mean, before the internet, before the mobile phone, before PC meant politically correct or a new-fangled personal computer thingy. About the time the last VAR was decommissioned.
Go back a couple of pages on this thread, and you will find a most useful consolidation of web sites, give them a seriously good scrute, and all will be revealed.
I do hope your mates didn't buy the non-upgradable Garmin 530's you mentioned, but went to the -W, otherwise would not be a logical move at the present time.
Tootle pip!!
PS: You really love that word "polemic", don't you.
Polemics /pəˈlɛmɪks, poʊ-/[puh-lem-iks, poh-] is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach.
However, reasonably correct usage by you for once, the whole issue of the ES 1090 based ADS-B/C in Australia has become a bit of a sacred cow amongst some groups.

[gaunty]

Gets em every time, dream on, my case rests.:(

[LeadSled]

Gaunty,
My dear chap, I would be the first to agree that your case needs a bit of a rest, it is looking and sounding rather tired and dishevelled, hungover even?
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled??? I fail to see the linkage between 4096code modeA transponders and individually coded ADS-B modeS rigs.

UAT came before ADS-B. The yanks are able to utilise UAT to re-transmit radar data, as well as a good swag of met data. We do not have the luxury of blanket MSSR coverage. The problem still exists!

The only thing that we have that closely resembles a nationwide grid for data transmission is our digital phone network. A learned scholar wrote on these pages a number of moons ago how we could develop something similar to UAT here in Oz using the 3G network.

When you get outside the curve you may as well be flying in a very third world country. The upper airspace rollout is combating this for the first time ever. At a considerable saving of costs over a radar head positioned in the middle of nowhere.

But this is getting away from the thread. If GRAS is introduced over even a GBAS, it will be a financial disaster. A propriatory system unique to one country only? This would be too expensive, even for QANTAS!

[onthedials]

Ozbusdriver,
Your comment:
"UAT came before ADS-B. The yanks are able to utilise UAT to re-transmit radar data, as well as a good swag of met data. We do not have the luxury of blanket MSSR coverage. The problem still exists!"


leaves me wondering whether you are describing UAT or TIS. There is a very big difference.

UAT is a form of ADS-B. It involves broadcasts of positional data by aircraft and reception of those broadcasts by other similarly equipped aircraft and ground stations.

"Before" ADS-B was TIS. TIS involves retransmission of radar data by Mode S radars.

Weather data is being received by GA aircraft in the US either through a proprietary network of ground stations operated by Honeywell, the XM satellite service and UAT (unless Raytheon win).

A mere technicality, but it is easier if we are all talking about the same things.

I agree that there is enormous potential for 1090ES ADS-B in Australian upper airspace.

I am curious why you anticipate that GRAS will be a financial disaster in some manner different to GBAS? It seems to me that once more than two dozen airports are provided with GBAS, the GRAS solution might have been cheaper for the one airline that's likely to use either at airports not served by a conventional ILS.

[gaunty]

OZBUSDRIVER:ok:

When you get outside the curve you may as well be flying in a very third world country. The upper airspace rollout is combating this for the first time ever. At a considerable saving of costs over a radar head positioned in the middle of nowhere. is not something IMHO that seems to be fully understood by the likes of Lead Sled et al who fondly imagine the world ends somewhere near Dubbo.

Why this cannot be extended simply and efficiently to the lower levels in the areas where propbably 60+% of GA activity takes place in around and amongst RPT in the mining and remote locations is the mystery. With the aforementioned exception of the "transition aircraft" which we are currently upgrading before entry into service, all of our other equipment has dual everything glass gear (GPS inc) so we dont have all that many problems, except we cant see electronically or even hear on that fandangled Marconi valve gear the other aircraft not so equipped even down to the basic transponder.
Like Bloggs, they're the ones we worry about a lot in the Big Sky out there :{

Oh and BTW the GNS 530 has plenty of growth potential, as there are upgrade paths for WAAS compatibility, TAWS, and Terrain awareness. Pilots will enjoy the GNS 530 as an MFD, especially when it is coupled with traffic, lightning detection, and weather interfaces like Ryan TCAD, TIS from the Garmin GTX 330 Mode S transponder, or Goodrich SKYWATCH™, STORMSCOPE® WX 500. For the latest in graphical and textual weather information, the GNS 530 can connect to XM Satellite Radio's XM WX Weather Service via the GDL 69 datalink receiver. With the FDE prediction program, the GNS 530 may be used for oceanic or remote operations.

We, not my mates, only need it to comply with Oceanic and for redundancy otherwise. Why not the cheaper, but smaller display 430 which does substantially the same work? We have the real estate in the panel for the larger 530 display and made this decision for that reason long before the Lockhart River report. Will the extra cost drive us out of business,:rolleyes: I dont think so. The evidence points directly in the opposite direction.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"the GNS 530 can connect to XM Satellite Radio's XM WX Weather Service via the GDL 69 datalink receiver"

In Australia? Tell me more!

Dr:cool:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Oops, my bad. TIS is the system. UAT transmits TIS-B and FIS-B, FIS-B is a sepgarate system to both Honeywell and XM. UAT delivers large bandwidth compared to the 1090ES signal.

WRT to GBAS/GRAS, getting confused on acronym. Ground Based Augmentation System and Ground regional augemtation system. Both rely on VDB VHF Data Broadcasts in 108/117MHz range(Same as VOR)

Airservices study 2000 (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/projects/gnss/gnss_gbas_paper.pdf)

What GBAS is. (http://www.gnssapproach.com.au/pages/images/07_003GBAS.pdf)

What GRAS is. (http://www.gnssapproach.com.au/pages/images/07_004GRAS.pdf)

EDIT- where sovereign control over navigation is required
about sums it up.

EDIT- Just to clarify something here, are we arguing about a solution for instrument landings or radar replacement wrt GBAS/GRAS. If the argument is for an ILS replacement then GRAS/GBAS is a worthwhile initiative. Possibility of CAT III approaches is a good thing. WAAS will only deliver CAT I approaches everywhere that there is a SBAS coverage. More useful for regional Australia. However, the possibilities of delivering CAT III approaches for the likes of Perth for international flights for those lovely clear mornings would have to be worthy of investigation.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

it is interesting to note, the guys that bring XM wx to the cockpit couldn't provide a stand alone satellite system exclusively for aviation. WX is piggybacked on the much larger satellite radio market. The intention was for wx, the radio market helps pay for the service. NOTE to beancounters, even the septics need to cross subsidise a service to make it affordable for aviation.

[gaunty]

Dr

Nah you're right not in Oz, but if you happen to being swinging by the US of A why not.:cool:

[onthedials]

Ozbusdriver, (as nicely as I can say it) - No. TIS and TIS-B are unrelated to UAT. TIS uses the mode S radar data uplink capability to send traffic information from the ground station. TIS-B uses 1090ES-ADS-B-like messages from the ground station. Neither makes any use of UAT.

FIS-B is the FAA's system to deliver a range of information to the cockpit in the USA and is slated to utilise UAT as the delivery mechanism. Yes, UAT has greater bandwidth for these "one-way" transmissions than 1090ES.

There seems to be a fixation on fear and loathing for UAT by a number of people who have clearly not conducted even the most basic research (Google will do).

The GBAS/GRAS (and any other form of augmentation) discussion is about approach capability - specifically localiser-type approaches with vertical guidance.

Gaunty, the mystery as to why the upper airspace success cannot be "simply extended" is because of the complete lack of GA-suitable 1090ES avionics. I mentioned this earlier in this thread. Yes, the 530 and 430 are really powerful gear, but what would you connect them to today for 1090ES ADS-B? There is no GA-suitable Garmin transponder for ADS-B. Perhaps the Honeywell KT 73 would work but you would be the first, I suspect. OK, say you wanted to pair the KT 73 with something proven from CASA's list? Then you will choose the KLN 94. Problem there is that the KLN 94 isn't and never will be TSO C145/146 compliant and yet that standard was required by the NPRM.

GA operators just can't run the risk of investing in avionics with very short useful lives, whether due to eventual regulatory exclusion or technology development. Until product and market developments provide us with a choice of GA-suitable 1090ES avionics, it cannot be mandated for low-level airspace. But if Raytheon's bid succeeds in the US - things could be very different.

[GaryGnu]

OZBUSDRIVER,

Contrary to the tilte of this thread, I suspect that the real problem is GRAS.

GBAS provides a precision approach landing system to all points within a 23nm radius. There is a beta installation currently at Sydney just near the 34L threshold.

The GRAS is a more widespread form of augmentation. Airservices has moved ahead in developing the technologies and standards required based on their assessment that it is the best way to deliver augmented GNSS signals (and thus Approaches with Vertical Guidance - APV) at reasonable ground infrastructure expense.

The GA lobby - characterised on this forum by Dick Smith and Bob Murphie, among others- have rightly highlighted the potentially high cost of avionics needed to access the augmented signals from a GRAS. They point out that WAAS capability is already there in commonly available off the shelf avionics suties, thus costing the aircraft owner/operator much less.

Airservices counter that the expense of installing the required ground infrastructure for a SBAS (known in the USA as WAAS) is prohibitive.

So there you have it- this is not really an argument about the merits of one augmentation system over the other but really one about who bears the higher cost to gain/delvier the augmentation.

I believe politics has intervened in the process and the "Government" has decreed that all forms of available augmentation be examined not just GRAS.

Hope that helps

[OZBUSDRIVER]

GaryGnu, thanks for that. politics certainlly will play a part. GRAS will be a very narrowly directed system. I guess the carrot will be CAT III approach capability, and if you fit your aircraft with this receiver it will also give a regional solution out to 200nm line of sight. WRT the ADS-B option, a characteristic for the low level roll-out was to have as many hulls as possible transmitting a signal. Re-subsidy for ADS-B OUT would get fairly expensive if GRAS is the solution. GRAS solution will see lowlevel ADS-B killed in one fel swoop.

It would be interesting to see a cost benefit study comparing access to the Japanese satellite you linked in your earlier post and a constellation of VDB transmitters. Considering you need a network of receivers a processor and uplink for WAAS. GRAS, a network of receivers, a processor and VDB transmitter at a similar number of sites

onthedials, don't get me wrong because I make a slipup. ADS-B 1090ES ground units are receiver only. UAT re-transmits the radar data. UAT has the ability of transmitting data for TIS-B and FIS-B, ADS-B ground stations do not transmit.

An ADS-B equipped aircraft that also receives ADS-B will receive ALL ADS-B signals within line of sight, regardless of ground equipment. UAT equipped aircraft will only see other aircraft when they are within range of the ground station. ADS-B modeS 1090ES are already in heavy jet use. UAT was only envisaged for the US GA market. Because UAT was for the GA market there was no interoperability between GA and heavy iron unless within range of a transmitter. ADS-B as proposed here will have us all on the same page. (If GA gets the subsidy and WAAS and TSO 145/146 GPS and owner likes to pay for the receiver for ADS-B IN...I know I will be!)