PDA

View Full Version : ADS-B + Subsidy - It's on the table - Submn's close 31 Oct


Scurvy.D.Dog
11th Aug 2007, 07:07
The subsidy is firmly on the table ..... read the doc's .... ... it affects all of you no matter what you fly of fly-in as a pax.
.
... these opportunities come around once in a lifetime :ok:
.
Mod's Any chance of a sticky and a simple poll i.e.
.
Q .Do you support:-
.
- Scenario 1 (Status quo)
- Scenario 2 (Subsidy with 60% VFR fleet fitment)
- Scenario 3 (Subsidy with 90% VFR fleet fitment)
.
Some relevant extracts below:-
.
Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation & Surveillance - Joint Consultation Paper
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airspace/jcp/jcp.pdf
.
9.6 Airborne systems cost and funding
.
The relative costs of legacy ground-based infrastructure and satellite technology provide an opportunity to support GA participation in the transition through provision of cross-industry funding to facilitate light aircraft equipage with approved avionics.
This could be managed as a cross-industry funding transfer via Airservices, whereby enroute charges are maintained at today’s levels for a set period, and the additional funds that are not required to maintain or replace the asset base can be passed on to light aircraft owners in the form of cross-industry funding.
Provision of ADS-B OUT capability, including installation, is expected to cost less than $10,000 for a typical GA VFR aircraft. Provision of ADS-B OUT and ‘solemeans’ GNSS navigation, including installation, is expected to cost less than $15,000 for a typical GA IFR aircraft. Obviously costs will vary with the individual choice of avionics and complexity of installation in the particular aircraft, as will the value to the owner of replacing existing avionics made redundant by the new equipment. It should be noted that these figures are based on relatively small quantities of avionics in the near term, and may not be representative of high-volume production costs.
.
CASA equipment surveys indicate that under the proposal outlined in this document, approximately 7,000 light aircraft will be required to equip with ADS-B avionics by mid-2012, with an additional 4,000 aircraft equipped by mid-2014(note 4).
.
Significant work has been done by the ASTRA ABIT5 on the concept of cross-industry funding to ensure light aircraft access to airspace where ADS-B avionics are required. A cut-off point of 5,700 kg MTOW was agreed, with any affected Australian aircraft with an MTOW less than or equal to 5,700 kg eligible for the cross-industry funding.
.
For more sophisticated aircraft, the costs increase relative to the scale of integration required and the size and type of operation of the aircraft. Many of the ADS-B related costs for large aircraft operators were quantified for ASTRA during the development of the ADS-B Cross Industry Business Case (which is available from http://www.astra.aero6), and are still relevant.
.
9.7 Cross-Industry Funding
.
A key issue for all sectors of the aviation community will be the cost of ADS-B avionics. In the event that the proposed transition timing is agreed, and CASA issues a mandate for ADS-B avionics that would support decommissioning of enroute radars and navaids, it is proposed that Airservices would facilitate a cross-industry funding arrangement.
.
Essentially, Airservices’ customers would fund the acquisition and installation of approved avionics for light aircraft. This would not involve any additional charges to customers, and will be ‘revenue-neutral’ to Airservices.
.
Airservices would draw upon the savings achieved through not replacing existing enroute radar and navigation aids until the avionics costs were covered. Once the avionics costs are met, the ongoing savings would be passed on to customers.
.
The funding would provide avionics for aircraft with a MTOW less than or equal to 5,700 kg, and would be managed via a voucher system with the following characteristics:
.
• A voucher would be issued after formal application was made by the aircraft owner along with a certified true copy of the maintenance release. The voucher would be redeemable when accompanied by evidence of permanent installation of acceptable avionics and provision of the avionics serial numbers.
• There would be no ‘new-for-old’ avionics exchange requirements, and any replaced equipment would remain the property of the owner.
• Vouchers would only be issued for airworthy aircraft on an Australian civil aircraft register, and no voucher would be issued for aircraft already equipped with acceptable avionics.
• A voucher with a maximum value of $15,000 would be issued for IFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics and TSO-C146 GNSS navigation equipment. IFR status will be determined from the aircraft’s latest maintenance release.
• A voucher with a maximum value of $10,000 would be issued for VFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics driven by a TSO-C145 GNSS engine.
• Vouchers would be valid for three years from date of issue and would not be issued for applications received after 30 December 2013.
• The maximum voucher values would decrease to $13,500 & $9,000 respectively (90% of their original value) for applications received between 1 July 2011 and 30 December 2013. This measure is to assist in spreading the installation workload to earlier dates.
.
Note: Airservices would observe strict privacy protocols in using and verifying information provided for cross-industry funding purposes only.
.
Cross industry funding vouchers would also be provided for aircraft with a MTOW greater than 5,700 kg, where the aircraft was solely used for charitable or humanitarian purposes
.
4 Note that since the CASA equipment surveys were undertaken, the number of aircraft on the Civil Register has decreased by approximately 4% due to the Part 47 implementation process, therefore these numbers may be over-estimated.
5 ABIT includes representatives from Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, Defence, international airlines, domestic airlines, regional airlines, airports, general aviation, sports aviation, recreational aviation,
avionics manufacturers & installers, flying training, and search & rescue.
6 Note that ASTRA’s Cross Industry Business Case considered different time frames for a transition to satellite technology, and is therefore not relevant to this Joint Consultation Paper in its entirety.
.
Project ATLAS - Cost Benefit Analysis - Access Economics
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airspace/jcp/analysis.pdf
.
Funding Mechanisms and Military Aviation Considerations
.
An option that has been raised is a possible cross industry funding mechanism for GA fitment costs (for aircraft <=5,700 kg). This would affect the distribution of net benefits accruing to different stakeholders, but does not change the overall net benefit to the industry. As such, these distributional effects have not been modelled, pending a decision on this issue. That noted, the costs and impacts of cross industry funding can be readily gleaned from the aircraft fleet numbers in Table 4-6.
While the total fit-out cost of military aircraft to be compliant with Project ATLAS is estimated by the DoD at $90 million to $180 million, this cost is excluded from Access Economics’ analysis. The exclusion is because our understanding is that Project ATLAS is a civil aviation initiative. Only civilian aircraft are required to comply with civilian aviation rule making. DoD may elect to adopt ADS-B and GNSS if it sees a net benefit in doing so, but equally, DoD can choose not to adopt ADS-B and GNSS if it does not expect to see a net benefit. Our understanding is that some DoD aircraft are already being upgraded (eg with Mode S transponders) to comply with ATM technology in Europe and elsewhere.
In the event that equipage of DoD aircraft with ADS-B technology occurs on a different schedule from civilian equipage, civilian ATC can procedurally separate DoD aircraft from civilian aircraft on the occasions when non-compliant DoD aircraft need to traverse civilian airspace. There will also be some DoD operations that are necessarily exempt from civilian requirements, as is the case today. Either way, it is important for DoD navigation and surveillance needs to be clearly separated from an industry-funded upgrade in civilian ATM technology, to avoid any situation where military ATM investments might be cost-shifted to the civilian aviation industry, or a situation where large benefits to thousands of civilian aircraft cannot be implemented because a few military aircraft are unable to comply.
.
.
Some personal observations
.
Three scenarios are exercised:-
.
1. Status quo (replace radars and navaids) … no subsidy .. A,C and S TXPDR’s
2. ADS-B (phased withdrawal of some radars and navaids) …Subsidy … resulting in 60% VFR fleet fitment
3. ADS-B (phased withdrawal of all – 2 radars and non back-up navaids) … Subsidy ….resulting in 90% VFR fleet fitment
.
COMPARISON OF NPV OF TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ACROSS SCENARIOS
.
Page 27 of the report is telling … scenario 3 has huge differential benefits for cost and safety!
.
I strongly recommend everyone read these documents carefully … do not leave the ‘scenario’ decision to chance …. Fill in and send your feedback (page 35 of the JCP) closing date 31 Oct 07’ … it will not take that long to do … and is extremely important!
.
This is one of the biggest opportunities this industry has ever had to embrace technology that will cost little for those who can least afford it, provide the alerting system RPT and IFR want, and deliver cost savings through infrastructure and ATS efficiencies.
.
How to respond
.
Please forward your response to DOTARS by 31 October 2007 by one of the following means:
.
• Fax Attn: ADS-B Proposal (02) 6274 7804
• Post ADS-B Proposal, Office of Airspace Management,
Department of Transport and Regional Services
GPO Box 594
Canberra ACT 2601
.
The Response Form is on Pages 35-38 in the JCP
.
To print out those pages ….. Print pages 47 -50 (of the PDF Document) to your printer
.
Or;
• Email [email protected]
.
DO NOT SIT ON YOUR HANDS ON THIS ……………. PLEASE ;)

Jabawocky
11th Aug 2007, 10:48
SDD

You are missing the 100% fleet fit out option. Unless it has feathers it should have ADSB out.

Along with that is wide spread VHF repeaters to give the kind of coverage that was originally promoted.

Then some really good software enhancements and some better procedures and tools for ATC, and we will have it all!

J:D

Scurvy.D.Dog
11th Aug 2007, 10:57
.. I hear ya ... I hear ya :E .... this is a pretty good start though :ok:

Jabawocky
11th Aug 2007, 11:33
Come on guys and girls, this is something importand and a genuine well meaning ATC'er is trying to get reform from the right side of the fence, 100+ views and only 4 votes:=

Power to the people!

J:ok:

Much Ado
11th Aug 2007, 13:03
I wasn't going to activate the 'let voters be seen' mode but since two people have voted for the status quo:ugh::rolleyes::eek: I have changed my mind.

Edit: Bug-ger...too late to activate that function it seems...I would have been real curious to see who seriously feels that status quo is sustainable/desirable/vaguely likely-possible:rolleyes:

ForkTailedDrKiller
11th Aug 2007, 13:35
Heh Jaba, should I get all of my multiple personalities to vote?

tail wheel
11th Aug 2007, 15:29
No! ........ :mad:

Creampuff
12th Aug 2007, 04:47
Hmmmm….. Federal election soon …. fist full of Federal dollars on offer …..

I think I will abstain until a year after the election.

Scurvy.D.Dog
12th Aug 2007, 05:23
Creamie .... hmmm .... in my waters too :suspect: .. mind you, it would be hard to mandate after the event if they have accepted a cross industry funding arrangement is required to support mandating now .. whats the worst that could happen .. status quo .... Australia (government more specifically) would look like dills if that were the result!
.
Some other issues of discussion Re RPT (including regionals)
.
JCP
.
8.9 Air-to-air applications
.
As well as providing a viable low cost alternative to traditional enroute surveillance, ADS-B implementation provides a foundation for air-to-air applications that can be conducted either independently or in complement with traditional ATC. ADS-Breceivers and airborne ADS-B applications are currently in development around the world. Many of these applications, including ADS-B based merging and spacing and in-trail procedures, are seen as essential in addressing the airspace and air route congestion problems that are foreseen for many parts of the world. Widespread ADS-B OUT equipage sets the required environment for future operations based on electronically enhanced air-to-air surveillance. These future operations will help to ensure that airspace and airport efficiency (as well as safety) can be maintained despite traffic growth.
ADS-B has the potential to provide pilots with dramatically improved situational awareness that can be used for tactical decision making in addition to traffic avoidance. TCAS is unable to provide similar capability due to limitations of range, azimuth accuracy and displayed data. TCAS will remain a last line of defence collision avoidance tool.ICAO is working on standards to enhance TCAS using ADS-B signals.
.
9.6 Airborne systems cost and funding
.
For more sophisticated aircraft, the costs increase relative to the scale of integration required and the size and type of operation of the aircraft.Many of the ADS-B related costs for large aircraft operators were quantified for ASTRA during the development of the ADS-B Cross Industry Business Case.
.
Questions and Answers (JCP)
.
2 Operational Implications for Aircraft Owners and Pilots
.
Q: Will foreign aircraft operating Australia also be required to carry and use
ADS-B and GNSS avionics?
.
A: Yes. The body that represents international airlines supports ADS-B and GNSS implementation. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) strongly supports the cost-effective early implementation of ADS-B. IATA has noted several times that “IATA Member airlines have expressed their desire to use ADS-B at the earliest time.” IATA has supported ICAO work on ADS-B through the Asia Pacific Air Navigation Planning & Implementation Regional Group (APANPIRG) and has stated that they are supportive of ADS-B mandates from as early as 2010. They have also stated that any cost benefit studies for deployment of ADS-B out should ignore the cost of airliner avionics fitment, because the aircraft of their member airlines will be equipped as a matter of course, in order to meet a range of future applications.
.
CBA
.
Capital Costs
.
The avionics costs refer to installation costs forADS-B OUT only (including GNSS components where required).For large aircraft these are based on discussions with airlines in the preparation of the previous Access Economics cross-industry business case. For example, the avionics cost for aircraft between 12,000 and 20,000 kg is based on the numbers from the earlier business case as follows: avionics $25k, installation $2k, total STC costs $46.5k (rounded up to $50k and divided by number of aircraft for this round). For smaller aircraft, values are based on information obtained from industry.
.
Aircraft Avionics
.
It is assumed that by 2012 half of all existing and planned new aircraft with MTOW above 20,000 kg are already fitted with ADS-B avionics, regardless of any mandatory requirements. The rest of these aircraft will need be progressively fitted with this equipment between 2009 and 2012.
For aircraft weighing between 5,700 kg and 20,000 kg, it is assumed that none are currently fitted with ADS-B avionics. However, all of these aircraft will be progressively outfitted between 2009 and 2012.
.
Re: TSO-C145a, TSO-C146a
.
AC 21-45(0) MARCH 2007
.
AIRWORTHINESS APPROVAL OF AIRBORNE AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE BROADCAST EQUIPMENT
.
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/DRAFTac021-045(00)_0703.pdf
.
8.4 Positional data
.
8.4.1 Accurate positional data is essential for the ADS-B system to operate in a “radar like manner” and be the basis for the allocation of separation between aircraft. Valid GNSS data input provides an acceptable accuracy and integrity for separation purposes with the delivery of position information at a periodic interval of less than or equal to 1 second.
.
8.4.2 GNSS equipment compliant with TSO-C145a, TSO-C146a or an equivalent standard acceptable to CASA are suitable for use with ADS-B.
.
8.4.3 Particular navigation packages that do not have a TSOA, but can be demonstrated to achieve the accuracy and integrity values required, may be acceptable to CASA. In assessing the suitability of GNSS avionics that do not have a TSO-C145a/146a authorisation, CASA may consider the system differences to the standards documented in RTCA/DO-229C (or later version), with particular regard to the following criteria:
��The system’s capability of delivering position information with a periodic interval of at least one second; and
��The system can continuously output the HPL value to the ADS-B transmitter or notify the pilot of an interruption due to availability issues (RAIM); and
��If the system is intended primarily as a pilot navigation system with positional information being provided to the ADS-B system it needs to meet the requirements of AC 21-36(0); and
��The system takes advantage of GPS selective availability being set to zero.

OZBUSDRIVER
13th Aug 2007, 10:43
Worthy of support. Will ensure a submission is sent with much favour for 100% ADS-B. This is a great tech step toward a scalable traffic control system that is soooo useful to both controller and pilot alike.

You would have to be blind not to see the benefits.

Dick Smith
14th Aug 2007, 00:28
OZBUSDRIVER, you state:
The proposal is “worthy of support”.
Of course one of the advantages for Airservices, is that there will be 10,000 VFR aircraft all automatically identified by call sign in the ADS-B computer. Imagine the potential, a VFR aircraft flies near Charleville or Ayers Rock and a bill can be automatically sent out for the traffic information service that could be given – note that it could be done quite inexpensively $2 or $3 a go, a bit like an e-TAG on the tollway. It would be quite a good little earner for air traffic controllers and Airservices Australia – and the Government, and it wouldn’t cost VFR aircraft very much, say possibly $20 or $30 a year – who would notice such a small amount, considering the extra safety of the traffic information service being provided by air traffic control!

SM4 Pirate
14th Aug 2007, 02:30
Really, is that it? Is we can see you we can bill you all you are really worried about; well then all this spoofing rubbish was just a diversion, huh?

There are no plans, repeat no plans, to charge VFR for anything they don't currently get charged for. The savings in removing MSSR radars in the longer term would significantly pay for all of this; then there are the ground based aids that can be decommissioned due to all those in cockpit GPSs that are needed to power the data for the ADS-B units.

Why bring a BS argument like that into this thread?

Dick Smith
14th Aug 2007, 04:19
SM4 Pirate,
If there are no plans to charge VFR, why are they being provided with a “free” ADS-B unit.

We all know that even the most modern ADS-B equipped Boeing and Airbus airline aircraft use TCAS, not ADS-B for displaying nearby aircraft – of course, TCAS works with any standard mode C or mode S transponder.

TCAS is good enough for airline aircraft to be given traffic information by, why does Airservices want a more expensive ADS-B unit, which transmits the call sign of the aircraft back to the Airservices computer and this will only happen in about 10% of Australia at low levels?

SM4 Pirate
14th Aug 2007, 05:00
We all know that even the most modern ADS-B equipped Boeing and Airbus airline aircraft use TCAS, not ADS-B for displaying nearby aircraft – of course, TCAS works with any standard mode C or mode S transponder. No TCAS isn't for the purposes of traffic displays, it for traffic avoidance after all else has failed. To turn off the MSSR radars (enroute) it will require the best part of the fleet to have some other sort of surveillance, will it not? Or are just proposing that aircraft get separated procedurally in your fabulous Class E airspace? Won't matter what sort of transponder you have if you are more than 100NM from a Class C tower then you'll not be 'painting' on an ATC scope without ADS-B.
TCAS is good enough for airline aircraft to be given traffic information by, why does Airservices want a more expensive ADS-B unit, which transmits the call sign of the aircraft back to the Airservices computer and this will only happen in about 10% of Australia at low levels? Do you understand this stuff at all; really, you proclaim certain levels of savvy and expertise yet the basics demonstrated right here are fundamentally flawed. 10% coverage is a furphy; there will be 25 ADS-B sites for the upper program and depending on how this process goes up to something like 80 others... That's going to be a little more than 10% I'm sure you will agree.

You have previously claimed with 9 or so MSSR sites that Australia has 20% radar coverage; yet with 25 ADS-B boxes giving the same (or better) range the coverage will be less; it doesn't stack-up and you know it.

Poor little terry towel hat heads will be seen by those naughty ATCs, the sky is falling the sky is falling! Give it a rest man!

why are they being provided with a “free” ADS-B unit.Any chance that it's to replicate the existing levels of safety; i.e. "VFR traffic, 10 o'clock 2 NM intentions unknown.; rather than your favourite un-alerted see and avoid.

Scurvy.D.Dog
14th Aug 2007, 05:16
If there are no plans to charge VFR, why are they being provided with a “free” ADS-B unit. … so IFR (including RPT) can see them with or without a third party … It is accurate, AND (if you read the dam’d document/s) where third party services are required, ADS-B ground stations are low cost, (replacing multi-million dollar radars), which makes future surveillance roll-out much easier to afford FOR THE INDUSTRY!
.
WHY VFR ADS-B?
.
…. VFR have to be equipped to remove the need for existing SSR radar …..pretty basic! We all know that even the most modern ADS-B equipped Boeing and Airbus airline aircraft use TCAS, not ADS-B for displaying nearby aircraft – of course, TCAS works with any standard mode C or mode S transponder. … it is also not very accurate in azimuth and therefore will only ever be a last-line-defence …. Read the dam’d document/s Dick, and stop regurgitating the crap fed to you by the band of three!TCAS is good enough for airline aircraft to be given traffic information by, why does Airservices want a more expensive ADS-B unit, … who says ADS-B is more expensive than TCAS? which transmits the call sign of the aircraft back to the Airservices computer and this will only happen in about 10% of Australia at low levels? …. 10% (I doubt it) ....weren't you just ranting about E-tag type issues?? .. make your mind up!
.
The ‘current’ situation (Status-quo)
.
VFR (in or out of ‘radar’ surveillance and/or known via VHF transmissions)
.
- In CTA – Callsign known - receiving an ATC Service – No charge (unless associated with a towered airport landing)
- In E – Callsign known or unknown – No service - No charge (unless entering CTA associated with a towered airport landing)
- OCTA (F or G) – Callsign known or unknown – No service – No charge
.
IFR no change!
.
… you argument does not hold unless you expect a good little earner for air traffic controllers and Airservices Australia – and the Government to occur in the status quo situation also! … do you think that? http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/paranoid.gif ……get real!
.
.. once IFR (Regional RPT particularly) have ADS-B ‘in’ … the opportunity to reduce third party intervention (OCTA) becomes a reality … why would you not want that?
.
- is it because your expensive, half baked class E becomes even less relevant? ... or;
- is it that the removal of the cost of expensive SSR makes the class E V's C ministerial 'radar' directive even less effective in forcing class E through a CBA?
.
… E tag …. Goodness me Dick http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/Crap.gif
.
… what’s your real issue here … that others in industry formulated this? ….that you didn’t come up with the proposal yourself? … BAZAAR! :hmm:
.
“… nice little earner for Air Traffic Controllers” … http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/grinno.gif …… your prejudicial anti-ATC slant is shining through again! http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/poop.gif
.
.
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/lam.gif
.
SM4 .. sorry, doubled up on yours a bit :ok:

Dick Smith
14th Aug 2007, 06:06
SM4 Pirate,

You state:

“No TCAS isn't for the purposes of traffic displays, it is for traffic avoidance after all else has failed.”

Surely, you are getting mixed up between traffic advisories and resolution advisories. I agree a resolution advisory is for traffic avoidance after all else has failed. However, a TCAS traffic advisory provides a verbal alert in the same way as a traffic advisory by a controller.

What you are saying is that if an air traffic controller sees an ADS-B paint on the screen and then gives that paint as a traffic advisory to an airline aircraft all is hunky dory and safe. However if that same airline aircraft pilot hears a traffic alert and sees the traffic on the TCAS screen then it is no longer a safe system.

Personally, I would much rather use the traffic advisory without the middleman any day. That is because the middleman can be concentrating on other issues at the time.

SM4 Pirate, I am not suggesting for a second that we should not have ADS-B for IFR aircraft. I am just querying why you would want to fund $100 million worth of ADS-B for VFR aircraft when a mode C transponder will do the same thing in relation to traffic advisories and is a hell of a lot cheaper.

The money saved would allow for some real airline safety improvements. Things like employing enough controllers to give a proper radar control service in radar covered airspace to IFR aircraft, and dare I say it, to have a class D tower at busy airports such as Avalon.

Dick Smith
14th Aug 2007, 06:42
Scurvy.D.Dog,

You should be in management so you can make some real decisions in relation to this – by simply posting anonymously on a pilots website it is obvious your skills are not being used properly – I am serious on this.

You state:

“Once IFR (Regional RPT) particularly have ADS-B in - … the opportunity to reduce third party intervention (OCTA) becomes a reality… why would you not want that?”

Yes, I would like that. However, at the present time there is no such thing as a certified ADS-B “in” unit. As I have explained, even the new Airbus 380 uses TCAS to show traffic from other aircraft – it does not use ADS-B. There are a few gimmick “hand held units” which can show other aeroplanes but there is no aural alert, so the airline pilot would have to look down at the device all the time rather than looking out or looking at the instruments on the panel.

This is a serious issue. Why not put an existing and well proven TCAS in an aircraft and get the extra safety now rather than wait for another 10 or 15 years before ADS-B “in” units are available.

Whiskey Oscar Golf
14th Aug 2007, 09:20
I'm not getting into the argument on who pays for what, but as one of the few in country who have ADS-B in I'd like to make a few points.

1. ADS-B does not compare to TCAS. The range of data displayed is very different. With ADS-B I get name, alt, speed, trends and position on my display. With TCAS I get a number.

2. They have very different range limitations, with my ADS-B being vhf line of sight means I can tweak my range and get good situational awareness as well as prempting any possible problems.

3. It didn't cost nearly as much to fit and maintain the ADS-B as compared to the whizbang TCAS.

Now I will add I'm not flying the aircraft, that my display is a purpose built sytstem that has a different purpose to collision avoidence. Mind you it's nice to tell the boys up the front whats around them. I hope I'm not telling people to suck eggs but I am a fan of ADS-B given my experience of it, especially compared to TCAS. The other interesting thing is Merchant Vessels have been using a similar sytem, the AIS which gives the same sort of information, posn, course, speed, type. They have been using it for years as a collision avoidence system with no real problems.

Jabawocky
14th Aug 2007, 11:08
WOG

Maybe you and I and Scurvy need a get together. Maybe we can get Dick to join us and we can convince him to get on side. This is the chance to do something really great for Oz Aviation. And no, VFR would not need to pay. Just be seen!

J

GaryGnu
14th Aug 2007, 11:54
Dick,

If you seriously believe that TCAS Traffic Advisories (TA) are in anyway analogous to ATC Directed Traffic Information then you are even more deluded than I thought you were.

You cannot be rationally thinking that the Australian fleet should not be exploring the viability of an ADS-B mandate purely on the strength of existing TCAS installations.

OZBUSDRIVER
14th Aug 2007, 12:21
Europeans are producing ADS-B IN for both heavy end and lighties. Specification for the receiver connects to a CDTI for increased pilot SA.

bugga, cannot get a link to the PDF site.

cut and paste this into google and it should be the very first site to come up-

1090ES ADS-B/TIS-B light airborne system

Chimbu chuckles
14th Aug 2007, 15:25
:ugh: For years Dick has been claiming to have had ideas or implemented ideas that would/did save 100s of millions...when that was clearly BS!!

Now a technology comes along which will actually save 100s of millions and he is whinging like a 12 year old.

Nothing has changed then:hmm:

Quokka
14th Aug 2007, 19:45
If we achieve the full ADS-B project and de-commission the MSSRs then Dick loses his biggest argument against third party services and government regulation... cost.

Dick Smith
14th Aug 2007, 23:25
Gary Gnu,

No, I do not believe TCAS traffic advisories (TA) are analogous with “ATC directed traffic information”. However, I do believe that a TCAS traffic advisory is similar and sometimes better than a radar advisory given by ATC. This is for obvious reasons.

The TCAS is an automatic system whereas the radar advisory from ATC is pretty much a manual system and is affected by human frailties – which we all have.

I believe you should be looking at all safety improvements – not ruling out one particular safety improvement (TCAS) because ICAO allegedly made a decision on this 13 years ago when the technology was hardly proven. I totally support that we explore the viability of an ADS-B mandate.

We should take into account present technology that is available that we are not even using. For example Terry Wesley-Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, is pushing much of this ADS-B mandate to VFR aircraft. Mr Wesley-Smith would know that we do not even have a requirement for TCAS in existing 10-30 passenger airline aircraft. TCAS is available today and if there is a measurable safety improvement, it should surely be installed – I won’t dare say mandate it.

The latest cost benefit study, which has been produced in relation to the ADS-B mandate is clearly fraudulent. For example, it links the savings of an ADS-B mandate with removing the certified air ground operators at Broome and Ayers Rock. What a con – a local operator at an airport is quite different to an automated ADS-B system being operated from Sydney or Brisbane where the controller cannot see the aerodrome environment.

Dick Smyth
15th Aug 2007, 02:15
ADSB bad me good

Quokka
15th Aug 2007, 07:31
With respect Dick,

Do you accept that the data provided to pilots and the third party service providers (regardless of whether it's a CAGRO or an ATC) by ADS-B is more detailed and more accurate than the current MSSR system?

4Greens
15th Aug 2007, 07:58
The present satellites are ultimately controlled by the US military. If there is a period of heightened international tension (Taiwan?) they may well be detuned. It would be wise to preserve some ground based backup capability. Other than that it is all good stuff.

Quokka
15th Aug 2007, 08:48
I believe it is Airservices' intent to retain the primary and secondary RADAR installations in the terminal areas of the primary aerodromes.

Scurvy.D.Dog
15th Aug 2007, 10:19
The latest cost benefit study, which has been produced in relation to the ADS-B mandate is clearly fraudulent.
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/spam.gif
.
... we have heard it all before http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/icon_no.gif
.
Removed in the hope that dialogue will end the need for needling :)

Dick Smith
16th Aug 2007, 01:20
Quokka,

Yes, I do accept that. The problem is that a certified ADS-B unit does not exist at the moment whereas MSSR, mode C transponders and TCAS exists at a present time and are readily available.

I see a plan here for Airservices to constantly support a system that does not yet exist, rather than take the safety advantages now of the highly proven present system, and then move ahead with the better system, when decisions have been made in leading aviation countries where the equipment is proven and certified.

Quokka
16th Aug 2007, 01:38
Dick,

I appreciate your response. Do you understand why a TCAS only provides a Resolution Advisory in the vertical plane and not the horizontal plane?

Dick Smith
16th Aug 2007, 02:05
4Greens,

You make a good point in relation to the present GPS system – especially that it can be de-tuned or turned off at anytime. That is why I would imagine that Airbus and Boeing retain TCAS as their form of traffic display and resolution advisory in the cockpit.

Imagine if we went completely to ADS-B as so many people want us to do, and not only was the Airservice’s control system based on ADS-B, but also the aircraft to aircraft traffic avoidance and resolution advisory system. This is putting all our eggs in one basket, there would be nothing if the GPS system was interfered with or went down.

Of course, with transponder/TCAS even if the GPS system goes out and ADS-B does not work you will still have an extremely safe and proven back up to prevent collisions.

Quokka
16th Aug 2007, 04:39
Dick,

Not so long ago I passed traffic "for information" to a QF B737 on an aircraft that would pass close to the minimum applicable RADAR separation standard in Class C airspace. On RADAR the aircraft was passing on the right-hand side of the QF B737. The crew of the QF B737 reported to me that the aircraft was displayed on his TCAS passing on the left-hand side.

I passed the traffic information again as passing on the right-hand side and the crew visually sighted the aircraft passing on the right-hand side.

After some discussion in regard to the TCAS display error, the crew indicated that they were aware that TCAS information in regard to lateral displacement of aircraft is not reliable.

Co-incidentally, the very subject of TCAS display errors was included in an article in that month's edition of Flight Safety.

Chimbu chuckles
16th Aug 2007, 05:44
I have watched a TCAS target 'move' laterally 10 miles and back again in a few seconds...Dick that is why TCAS WILL NEVER be more than an absolute last line of defence against mid air collision.

Selective availability was turned off, from memory, during the Clinton administration...even when it was 'on' the DOP was only a few hundred feet.

With the entire world relying on GPS the US just cannot turn it off...and then there is the Russian satellite system and, I think, a European satellite system too. It's not just little ol' Oz moving to a satellite based ATM system...EVERYBODY IS!!!

Certainly there are issues of national soveriegnty...that is why a basic Radar based ATM infrastructure will remain in place around capital cities and why AsA are looking at GBAS/GRAS as oppsed to SBAS...TCAS will remain in place doing what it does now...last ditch collision avoidance...but GPS is the technology of the future...and it is here right now.

Despite your protestations there is a European company producing an affordable, certified ADS-B out/in with CDTI display unit that can go in everything from a glider to your Citation....I am sure Garmin/Honeywell will follow with something...they are probably beavering away on it right now. Just because Boeing/Airbus are not actively doing anything at the present means nothing..they are aircraft manufacturers...they buy their avionics off the rack just like we do...they will just get the required box from Honeywell or whomever and slide it into a rack under the cockpit...with some software updates problem solved...like they did with TCAS.:rolleyes:

In the meantime Dick your Airspace aspirations have been bypased by technology...I suggest you get used to the idea.

4Greens
16th Aug 2007, 08:21
1. With a complete ADS-B sytem there will be a temptation to reduce radar coverage on the grounds of cost.

2. Ground based aids such as the ILS may well go.

3. Until at least the European satellites are commissioned then the backup of keeping these systems should be a requirement.

OZBUSDRIVER
16th Aug 2007, 08:56
http://www.selex-comms.com (http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/1090%20MHZ%20Extended%20Squitter%20ADS-B%20TIS-B%20Light%20Airborne%20System.pdf)


Try this link for PDF. Italian company producing ADS-B IN

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories (http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories/14270.html)

Good avionics news. Garmin are manufacturing TSO ADS-B out transponders. So shot down on two counts Mr Smith. Note that Garmin is NOT a UAT transponder, 1090ES!

Scurvy.D.Dog
16th Aug 2007, 13:45
4Greens
.
From the JCP8.5 Future Backup Navigation Network
.
In the expectation that most aircraft will in time be equipped with suitable GNSS navigation avionics (as part of the ADS-B avionics system), Airservices proposes to decommission just under half of the existing NDBs and VORs, ensuring that a ‘backup’ network of some 165 navaids remains. This backup network would provide a continuation of navigation services in the event of a GNSS failure. It has been designed to ensure that IFR operations can continue if GNSS is unavailable.ILS does not figure in the Navaid decommissioning summary! … until augmentation is sorted there is unlikely to be any move on 'non back-up VOR and ILS .....there seems to be a ways to go with the SBAS/GRAS/GBAS stuff … there are pros and cons to each in the context of costs, resulting minimums V’s range, subscription etc etc
.
Re 1090ES TXPDR’s
.
I suspect Garmin have the inside running on events that might be announced in the US shortly. If the world is singing from the same ADS-B page, the number of manufacturers (worldwide) will be huge, and presumably the costs (economies of scale and competition), will make the equipment very very affordable!
.
… makes the possibility of bundled ‘in’ a real possibility within the target funding!
.
.. the only ‘if’ remains the cost of installation …. LAME … AME? … thoughts?

Dick Smith
16th Aug 2007, 23:36
Quokka,

Yes, I do accept that re TCAS and the vertical plane. However, that is a lot better than an ADS-B system which does not provide a resolution advisory in any way – of which has not been invented yet.

It is all theoretical.

There are a few hand held screens, which can be plugged into an ADS-B, to show the location of other aircraft. These are pretty much a gimmick, even though they cost approximately $15,000 each, because they do not give a verbal traffic alert or resolution advisory.

There are no plans at present for Boeing or Airbus to design an ADS-B system with resolution advisories as TCAS does it so well.

Dick Smith
17th Aug 2007, 00:56
Chimbu chuckles,

You state:

”In the meantime Dick your airspace aspirations have been bypassed by technology... I suggest you get used to the idea.”

This is a total furphy!

To put ADS-B in across Australia you need a proper airspace system, so air traffic control can actually provide a control service.

Are you suggesting that we have G airspace as we do now in radar coverage and let the pilots become the air traffic controllers and do the separation when in IMC using their ADS-B units?

I see most of this ADS-B push as one of delaying any change. How can you possibly have ADS-B unless you have a proper air space system where air traffic controllers actually act as airtraffic controllers and control aircraft when in IMC? For this, you need a minimum of Class E airspace.

I can assure you all I will get the Class E extended. Just watch – despite all the resistance to change!

peuce
17th Aug 2007, 01:06
Dick,

You said:

"Are you suggesting that we have G airspace as we do now in radar coverage and let the pilots become the air traffic controllers and do the separation when in IMC using their ADS-B units?

bingo! At last you've got it!:D

Dick Smith
17th Aug 2007, 01:06
OZBUSDRIVER,

What does the Italian unit cost including the display and an audio call out feature – if there is one? What would the cost of certification and installation be? I have a feeling you are probably talking of about $30,000. If there is not an audio call out feature are you suggesting the pilot flies along looking down at the screen?

Regarding the Garmin unit, it is interesting I have a Citation Mustang on order with the latest Garmin 1000 equipment.

It will be arriving April 2008 and they cannot supply ADS-B “out” in any form. So do not hold your breath.

Dick Smith
17th Aug 2007, 01:55
peuce,

I don’t think you have thought about this.

If the pilots are going to become the air traffic controllers and do the separation when in IMC using their ADS-B units, why do you need the expense of ADS-B ground stations?

Are you really suggesting that air traffic control is not involved? Have you checked this with Civil Air – or Scurvy.D.Dog? I think you will find their support for ADS-B will suddenly stop.

By the way, in anything other than very low-density airspace such as Bourke or Birdsville, I would prefer to be separated by an air traffic controller using a proper standard using either radar or ADS-B.

Normally I do not care if it costs me $5 or $10 more to have a proper ATC service provided from the en route controller when flying into terminal airspace at say Port Macquarie or Proserpine.

This “do it yourself” system is fraught with problems in the higher density airspace and there have already been some serious incidents. I suggest you look at what happened at Orange with the Rex aircraft.

Scurvy.D.Dog
17th Aug 2007, 03:37
.. once IFR (Regional RPT particularly) have ADS-B ‘in’ … the opportunity to reduce third party intervention (OCTA) becomes a reality … why would you not want that? ..I have made my (personal) view on this clear already!

Quokka
17th Aug 2007, 04:28
There is a significant amount of Australian airspace below 5000FT without RADAR coverage or with unreliable RADAR coverage. More importantly, there are large areas of unreliable or nil VHF coverage with ATS. The sooner ADS-B is in use by the entire fleet of Australian registered aircraft the better, for everyone.

My personal opinion as a controller... ATC should not be providing any services to aircraft in regional areas that do not have continuous, reliable VHF coverage in the entire airspace that the service (Class E or G) is "advertised" to be provided, down to ground level.

Chimbu chuckles
17th Aug 2007, 05:32
Indeed...and perhaps some of the savings from not replacing radars can be used to extend the VHF network.

Still relying on HF radio in the 21st century seems a little silly.

I can assure you all I will get the Class E extended. Just watch – despite all the resistance to change!

How interesting.

SM4 Pirate
17th Aug 2007, 05:37
I can assure you all I will get the Class E extended. Just watch – despite all the resistance to change! I'm not sure why these things are mutually exclusive?

If we had Class E down to A1200 everywhere an RPT regularly went and ADS-B out in all IFRs and the majority of VFRs or you could make ADS-B a requirement for flying in E... Then you only come across VFRs without ADS-B in a circuit.

Dick this 'resistance' is mostly about the unknown elements; usually brought about by lack of surveillance.... ADS-B could be a win win for airspace change. The restrictive 'procedural standards' that currently get applied outside radar; i.e. the majority of E airspace (assuming GAFA E is bigger than J curve E geographically) could be effectively avoided.

The worst case for a radar controller is currently TSPDR us; had one a few years back; it was a disgrace; no primary paints outside TMA, so procedural STDs to get it in; horrible.

The way this is headed right now is ADS-B may be effectively useless as the % flying with won't be high enough to risk not using procedural for all; or at least ADS-B won't be more than proving procedural stds.

Are you really suggesting that air traffic control is not involved? Have you checked this with Civil Air – or Scurvy.D.Dog? I think you will find their support for ADS-B will suddenly stop. As a controller, I think you should not be giving your opinion about what view Civil Air has regarding ADS-B; your implicit threat here is ADS-B is only coming with civil air support; reality not even close.

Where the controller is responsible for separation, then I can foresee no change; but in class G, or in other classes if you establish clear processes about assigning responsibility for that separation, I would have no concern about handing over that separation; exactly in the same manner in which I hand over 'visual separation' or 'visual headings below the MSA' almost every single day. I would be much more comfortable knowing the pilots has ADS-B -in display and avoiding traffic than willy-nilly going IFR pick-up or VFR climb/decent through the 'unknown'; using mark 1 eyeball, knowing that they are extremely unlikely to sight the traffic in their 5 o'clock high; even if I have passed that traffic.

The Boeing ATM concepts of "free-flight"; is that controllers are not involved in airborne separation, mind you pilots aren't either; it's all automatic, supa-supa TCAS; 4D etc.

Chimbu chuckles
17th Aug 2007, 05:58
The part I found 'interesting' was the man is railing against ADS-B on the one hand and 'assuring' us he will get what he wants, expanded E, on the other.

I would have thought ADS-B was an enabler of E airspace...but only if Enough aircraft have it.

That does not mean E should extend down to 1200 agl everywhere...there must be some airspace that is truly G which allows the real towelling hat brigade to excercise their pashion without being crammed into the most dangerous part of the air column...the bottom 1000'.

Dick there is no reason why this technology should be expensive...the whole world is moving towards this system of ATM...the US is moving to 1090 es as is the UK/EU. Pretty soon there will be so many manufacturers producing units the economies of scale will be such that fitment within the budget of the proposed subsidy scheme.

A Mode S transponder is no more expensive than a Mode C really. What % of aircraft don't have GPS these days? What % GPS units don't undate at least once every second?

OZBUSDRIVER
17th Aug 2007, 06:57
Dick, have sent off an e-mail to the people in question. Interested in seeing what costs will be considering the type of aircraft these units are going into in Europe. GA, ultralights and gliders are not known to cost the same as an 850 Hawker. Will let you know.

peuce
17th Aug 2007, 09:03
Dick,
I was slightly tongue in cheek, but my point is ... consider the end game!
You seem to be doing what you accuse all the fundamentalists of doing ... living in the dark ages, putting their heads in the sand.
If Boeing or Airbus or NASA had the policy of not moving forward unless the required new technology was here now, was tried and proven and had a 100% guarantee ... we'd still be flying Sydney to Melbourne in an Electra. In fact, they go out and create the need for the technology, sponsor it, help develop it, test it amd perfect it.
If we wait around for ADS-B, or whatever surveillance technolgy we decide to use, to be perfected ... it never will be ... there would be no incentive for Collins or Garmin or whoever to do that ... because no one is using it. Start using it and they will start improving it and competition will grow and prices will reduce.
BTW, what's wrong with, say, all aircraft above FL300 self-separating?
If you saved the Industry a gazillion by closing Flight Service, surely we could save 2 gazillion by reducing the ATC requirement... which we can't staff anyway.

Biggles_in_Oz
17th Aug 2007, 23:35
Why is the proposed subsidy only for ADSB-OUT equipment ?
I wouldn't expect the cost of the -IN gear to add a lot to the total hardware and installation costs, and if the GPS has moving map then it's a relatively minor feature addition to decode the -IN datastream and display any local traffic.

LeadSled
18th Aug 2007, 05:53
Folks,

WHAT ADS-B IN??

I thought I might inject a few bits and bytes of information.

All current Boeing/Airbus products can be delivered with a 1090ES ADS-B OUT capability, this has only been the case relatively recently, we all know that.

Neither Boeing no Airbus have any planes to offer ADS-B IN, any time soon, and the reason is quite straightforward ---- as a collision avoidance device, their customers are quite happy with TCAS II, and have no interest in paying for ADS-B IN that produces the same functionality as TCAS II. Thus, these manufacturers of “airline standard” equipment have no plans to offer “ADS-B IN”. If any of you have any doubts that this is fact, ring them and ask. As for Embraer, my Spanish/Portuguese ain’t that hot.

Most of us know that, potentially, a form of ADS-B would produce more accurate azimuth on threats, but a form of TCAS with turning, as opposed to pitching, RA escape manoeuvres, is not even on the horizon. You wouldn't want TCAS II and another device in the conflict, would you. The RTCA standard to process ADS-B signals into TCAS II exists, none of the TCAS manufacturers/ licensees have any plans to take advantage of this standard ---because there is no benefit, you get exactly the same flightdeck functionality --- nothing that you don't already get if the other aircraft has a Mode C or TCAS transponder.

There is quite a range of “ADS-B like” stuff floating around for Sports and Rec. aircraft, gliders, etc., they are “OUT” and “IN”, and all have one thing in common, they don’t meet the TSO/ATSO standards for an ATS-B. Generally, but not only, because they do not have a C145/146 TSO GPS feed. None are suitable for high-utilisation operations.

So far, there is (last quarter 07) one GA offering available, from Garmin, a version of the GTX330D transponder, with a GPS feed from a proprietary Garmin remote box (they have modified their UAT box to feed GPS data to the GTX330D – needs the D, not other versions, for “visibility”, ie; antenna diversity as required for TCAS II). Anybody who is interested can look up the Garmin web site, both boxes are estimated a titch under $8,000 each, plus fitting, at today’s exchange rate, probably no change out of AUD$30,000, assuming that the ADS-B enabled version are "only" the same price as the existing boxes.

Makes the $10-15,000 “subsidy” (ADS-B out for existing aircraft, only, after 2013 you're in your own -- and we complain about the cost of fleet replacement --- just add $30-40,000) a bit sick, doesn’t it?? As the equipment doesn’t differentiate between VFR and IFR, VFR pays $5g more.

Can anybody here actually claim that all the modifications to Eastern Dash 8 will give “ADS-B IN” (as opposed to OUT) and how much have the modifications (new transponders, encoders, FMCs, wiring) actually cost?? How is the ADS-B IN, if it is there, displayed??

A lot of the rational for “mandatory” ADS-B has revolved around Regional airlines aircraft having ADS-B IN and “seeing” other traffic in the flightdeck.

I (and probably many others) will be interested in the answer --- equipment make and model number, relevant TSO/ATSO etc. Please, not personal opinion or Yorta brand, yorta be able to do this or that.

What happens if TSO/ATSO/STC'd airline standard ADS-B IN avionics turns out to be like Lasseter's Lost Reef, a great story, file under fiction.

Tootle pip!!

Chimbu chuckles
18th Aug 2007, 05:55
I think I owe Dick an appology.

By reading more on this subject...both the documentation and the opinions of others I have come to the conclusion that this may not be as simple...cut and dried if you will...as I first thought.

I am starting to believe that this might be;

a/. Of no great benefit to the very big end of town as we spend 98% of our lives above FL330...and at night...and over water...and in International airspace where no other bastard is except other widebodies...and the odd bit of returning space junk. TAC around capital cities (and J curve upper airspace) will remain primary/secondary radar for obvious, and stated, reasons.

b/. Of benefit to the middle end of town (Dash 8s etc) but the cubic $ for ADS-B in might make it marginally beneficial on any searching cost/benefit analysis,

c/. Not earth shakingly expensive in my Bonanza, assuming subsidised fitment of ADS-B out, but of no benefit to me personally without ADS-B in (cubic $ and not subsidised) and of marginal benefit to Easterns/Sunnies etc because I have a Mode C already, (Mode S sooner or later, subsidy or no) it's always on ALT and they can 'see' me on TCAS...and I know what to say and when to say it on VHF. There is no safety case for ADS-B that is not already mittigated efficiently by the TCAS/transponder interface.

d/. Enormously beneficial to AsA.

Clearly AsA has no plans, nor capability, to subsidise QF/VB/J* etc (let alone foreign carriers) so fleet wide fitout in the big end of town will rely on fleet rollover to new technology aircraft such as 787 or whatever...that could easily be a ten year cycle.

I no longer believe that ADS-B generally has any safety benefit realisable in the medium term....long term, say 20 years, will be a different, but wholly unknowable thing, at this point.

If it has no safety benefit then why the haste from AsA?

Me thinks the time line needs pushing out to around 2025...which apparently is what the FAA is looking at but even they are not talking mandatory anything let alone mandatory within 5 years.

When you compare their national infrastructure and ours I am going to suggest we in Australia cannot afford NOT to sit back and watch...for maybe a decade.

If we were to do that it would not effect our ICAO relationship one bit...the international traffic inbound/outbound to Australia will not be ADS-B capable for the most part for at least a decade.

What we do or don't do in the rest of our airspace is irrelevant to ICAO or foriegn carriers because they don't fly in it...only we do.

I want to change my vote.:(

peuce
18th Aug 2007, 06:41
Chuckles,

Remember, there are two aspects to this:


Providing ATC survellance over most of the country. So that they can seperate you. You don't need IN for that. There is a safety improvement in this as all(most) aircraft will be visible to ATC. There is also a cost saving in this as enroute radar replacement can be reduced.
Providing self separation between aircraft. This requires IN and is a looong term goal. But the first step is to let the manuafacturers know that we intend to go down that path ... so they can start their creative juices flowing.

Much Ado
18th Aug 2007, 07:00
I changed your vote for you Chuckles:ok:

Anyone else want to modify their vote in light of a different/better understanding of the issues...or should I zero the counters completely and we start again on the poll?

OZBUSDRIVER
18th Aug 2007, 07:26
AirServices is the beneficiary. GA doesn't need the system. The system needs GA to fit. The system NEEDS to PAY for the fitment. IF CASA mandates then ALL BETS ARE OFF! This has been THE argument all along.

We can get all starry eyed with what the gear can do with all the bells and whistles attached. However, the main goal of equipping ADS-B OUT in an aircraft is to derive an accurate vector in space for ATC purposes.

Me? I can hardly wait! Viva Le Revolution!

LeadSled
18th Aug 2007, 07:45
Peuce,
Providing "surveillances" over "most of the country" ?? To what end, at what cost. Do have a look at the coverage charts in the consultation documents, they don't even come below 10,000ft.

If you are in E (IFR) C or A you are separated now, all ADS-B does is enable reduced separation, a possible economic benefit, nothing to do with "safety", it is safe now, and will remain safe in the future, not safer.

It might save AsA some money. Less than 1% on the bottom line--BFD---from AsA own figures, publicly available but hardly front and centre in the press releases. Most of the money saved in pulling out navaids (not SSR) is a benefit of C145/146 GPS, nothing to do with ADS-B. ADS-B needs C145/146 GPS, C145/146 GPS does NOT need ADS-B, and a large chunk of the estimated savings come form benefits of C145/146 to IFR operations.

ADS-B might (this is yet to be proven in practice) give better economics in cruise for high level operations, but what about the cost $$$$ for the 11,000 or so aircraft that derive no demonstrated benefit, even if there is an initial subsidy that, on present indications, will cover one third to one half of the initial cost,and nothing to ongoing costs.

Quite simply, there is absolutely no demonstrated present risk, by way of a safety case, to which ADS-B OUT, is the cost/benefit justified answer. That is an inescapable fact, not an opinion. Don't mix up economics and "safety". There is no benefit of imposing any of this on low level VFR, or to the SAAbs, Dash8s etc. that mix it with GA in the GAFA, but some bloody big costs.

If AsA and their major customers want to play at high level, that is a commercial decision for the players, if they are right, they make money, if not, money lost..

The Regionals (and there are more than REX) operate on seriously thin margins, if you were a pilot with a Regional, do you think it would improve your career prospects (and the vital service to Rural, Regional and Remote Australia they provide) by hitting the Regionals with big capital and on going costs, for a system that provides no measurable benefits, they don't even get reduced AsA charges, they don't pay any now.

The big benefit touted to Regional pilots, for immediate use, was ADS-B IN, where is it?? Now? 2010?? 2013???

I would suggest that the Australian market is so small that no manufacturer sees it as significant, as for being large enough to produce really competitive prices, we are far too small a market for that. Cottage industry is what the local market is!!

Believe me, a lot of the Regional pilots think they are getting ADS-B IN, real soon now, that's what the RAAA thought, until very recently.

As for pilot to pilot separation, have a look at the ASTRA plan (if you can stay awake) it only ever envisages ever greater ground control, not the slightest suggestion of the original concept of "Freeflight".

I really strongly recommend you do what Chimbu has done, he has got stuck in and checked the sources, rather than accept the blandishments of the spin doctors.

Tootle pip!!

Creampuff
18th Aug 2007, 09:03
If CC says wait, that’s good enough for me from the operational/safety benefit perspective.

I’ve therefore voted for the status quo.

My view of the political context was to wait and see the fine print of the proposed subsidy anyway, after the surreal stupidity of the election silly season had died down.

And I find myself in agreement with Leaddy, and disagreement with peuce, on at least on one point: the size of the potential market in Australia would be lucky to raise a yawn from any serious manufacturer, much less ‘start their creative juices flowing’. No offence peuce, but the demand for a new or improved avionics technology in Australia is never going to determine that the same technology will be demanded or adopted in other countries.

Chimbu chuckles
18th Aug 2007, 10:37
Lets take a logical look at the airspace column and see who is where and what benefits we might logically see within the local context.

First if you take a critical look at the backup radar coverage that is to stay in place in the medium/long yerm it doesn't look a whole lot different to what exists now...savings for AsA?

Sure but they don't look that enormous...not game changer type anyway.

Then if you look at the proposed ADS-B coverage between 10000' and 30000' it looks quite comprehensive at first glance...but!

The only people operating above FL290 are the top end of town...if you think low level outback is GAFA you should try high level outback...it is essentially empty for all practical purposes.

You're lucky to pass 3 or 4 aircraft between YPDN and YSSY/YBBN in the busier times...what on earth would we do with 5nm in trail spacing?

You put all those aircraft in 5nm trail and there will be 1000nm in front of and behind them empty.

By the time airline traffic are below FL290 they are well within SSR range of their destination and below FL200 within Primary radar coverage.

The last 80nm into destination are where the dramas start...what technology will increase YSSY capacity beyond what we experience for about 2 hours everyday now...that noise sharing won't nobble straight off the blocks?

Between FL170 and FL290 we have only a few turboprops operating...hardly a need for more airspace capacity there...ditto above when they are on descent into mainports.

Between FL110 and FL170 is essentially empty airspace...there are so few aircraft in this portion of the airspace column as to ignore it.

Below 8000' is 'Indian' country..and the top 3000' of that is fairly barren too...just people like me in Bonanzas/Barons/Chieftains etc.

We will ALL be outside ADS-B coverage virtually always.

Below 5000' is real indian territory...ADS-B out/in or sideways in this region will be essentially non existant with only 28 stations.

I would like to see an ADS-B coverage map for below 8000'...and then below 5000'...and the real kicker?

I want to see how many stations are required to give coverage at circuit height everywhere that is anywhere.

Tell me about the SAR life saving case again?

If the bulk of GA/Regionals spend their lives out of range of ground stations at the critical times how will the aircraft to aircraft self separation happen...assuming ADS-B in gets off the ground...or ATC separation for that matter?

So if to acheive the 'make you feel good about it' pfaff is going to require 200 ground stations and most of the radar installations remain in place where is the claimed huge savings?

ForkTailedDrKiller
18th Aug 2007, 23:10
I think I need to change my vote also!

ADS-B does not seem to deliver the benefits to me that I had previously thought.

I hereby allocate my proxies to Chuckles for any future polls. I am clearly struggling to see my way through all the BS.

Dr :cool:

ftrplt
19th Aug 2007, 00:10
You're lucky to pass 3 or 4 aircraft between YPDN and YSSY/YBBN in the busier times...what on earth would we do with 5nm in trail spacing?

Its not so much how many you pass, but the ones going in the same direction that get you stuck lower than you want to be for hours on end.

werbil
19th Aug 2007, 00:39
How about a bit of research before posting - it's all in the joint consultation paper that can be found at http://www.dotars.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/pdf/Joint_Consultation_Paper-Satellite_Technology.pdf. :ugh:If you don't have the time to read the lot, go to the FAQ's at the end.

Firstly, under the proposal ALL aircraft (except aircraft without an engine powered electrical system and some military aircraft) will be required to be fitted and used in E airspace and above, G above A050 and in CTAF(R)'s. This includes foreign registered aircraft, however only aircraft below 5700kg MTOW receive the subsidy.

Secondly the system will be using the 1090MHz ES which does NOT require a ground station for another aircraft to use the data - ADS-B IN receivers will receive and process the transmission from other aircraft - similar to ACASII. So an aircraft equipped with ADS-B IN will receive ADS-B out data from all aircraft that are within line of sight irrespective of ground station location.

As to cost - according to the paper it is revenue neutral and should cost aircraft below 5700kg nothing - according to the paper each aircraft should receive a TSO'd GPS as part of the package for no cost. According to the paper the airspace charges for the "big end of town" will be reduced which will recoup the cost of the installation for them.

Chimbu chuckles & ForkTailedDrKiller - care to reconsider your comments in light of the above?

As to the argument about not being provided with a verbal warning or instructions on ADS-B in equipment - do we really need it? There can only be one system that does this, and that should be ACAS (TCAS) (ACAS can be improved by including ADS-B data, I believe ICAO are looking at this). We will have to treat ADS-B IN the way we use the mark one eyeball and most of other aircraft instruments - by including it into our scan to increase our situational awareness.

Given the improvements in battery technology and the likely low weight and power consumption of the equipment wouldn't this be the ideal time to include aircraft without an engine driven electrical system as well? If so the subsidy must be sufficient to cover the complete cost of the installation.

I agree with Scurvey.D.Dog that this a great step forward, at effectively no cost to light aircraft, it's a step forward like the introduction of radio, the introduction of radar, and the introduction of mode C transponders.:ok:

Chimbu chuckles
19th Aug 2007, 04:26
I have read the blurb on the AsA website.

ADS-B in is not mandated/subsidised only ADS-B out. A TCAD fit for a typical GA light aircraft is about USD20k++...I have no reason to suspect 'in' will be lot cheaper...even if it is 1/2 TCAD it will still be USD10k.

ADS-B for GA will be purely a surveilance tool.

Don't get me wrong...satellite based ATM is the way of the future...but why the (seeming) undue haste?

I get the feeling the are trying to sell us something quickly so they can decommission some radars in the next cycle of scheduled replacement rather than the one after that. It has a 'NAS2b' feel about it....rushing it in shouting it's benefits from the roof tops and hoping people don't ask too many difficult questions.

After the first 28 stations are commissioned the low level ADS-B coverage will be sparse to say the least.

What is the time frame and how many stations required to extend ADS-B down to levels where the GA aircraft they are mandating fitment operate...<8000'?

What will ADS-B give those few aircraft that wil have 'in' (eventually), High end/regional turboprops and jets, that they dont get now from TCAS?

The requirement for turbine carrying more than x passengers to carry TCAS going to be withdrawn?

Why do I need to know where aircraft that cannot effect my operation, because they are outside the range of my TCAS, are?

If ADS-B is not going to have any effect on capital city terminal airspace capacity, because of noise sharing/runway constraints that ADS-B cannot address, and the enroute airspace in Australia is not crowded as is that in the US/EU why the rush?

One of the drivers, if not THE driver, for the FAA's move to satellite based ATM is they have convinced themselves that their airspace is going to be inundated with many 1000s of VLJs...the way the US economy is going that very much remains to be seen...and who cares anyway it won't effect Australia...we might see 20. The US probably has a real need even without 1000s of VLJs but they are not rushing in mandating everything capable of sustained flight has ADS-B within 5 years...why are we?

Why don't we just wait and see what Australia needs rather than base decisions on what countries with truly busy airspace feel they need?

Australia has such a tiny aviation industry compared to the US/EU/Asia etc...the last thing we need to be doing is behaving like trendsetters in this area.

What imperative does mandatory ADS-B out in GA answer?

LeadSled
19th Aug 2007, 05:02
Creamie,

M'learned friend, a question for you.

ICAO has no plans to mandate any or all of the three competing ADS-B systems.

In the absence of such an ICAO mandate, can the Commonwealth of Australia ban non-Australian aircraft from Australian airspace, contrary to the provisions of the freedoms established by the Chicago Convention, if they do not carry a form of ADS-B that meets the proposed Australian mandate.

Put another way, does the Australian Constitution give the Australian Government the power to make such a rule that is enforceable on non-Australian aircraft.
Tootle pip!!

Scurvy.D.Dog
19th Aug 2007, 06:14
Chuck .... the time frame for SSR replacement is (as I understand it the driver) .. and the funds available if that does not factor.
.
Interesting the points made, either way, the traffic will still move!
.
... NAS2B like ..... you suprise me Chuck
.
... ASTRA (including industry reps and experts) have been working on this for years ...they have put the cards on the table for comments (hope many have, for or against) explained the funding window and why .... how does that compare with NAS2B?
.
Stick with TCAS and MSSR ... don't bleat when the inevitable happens ... the predictive quote from the oracle is telling!
.
.... lets run a book shall we?
.
- Cost of ADS-B (including 'in') for GA?
- Whether Boeing and AB et al will have 1090ES TCAS 'in' interface within 12months?
- Whether locations like Broome, Alice and other regional Jet locations will have surveillance to ground level in the two senarios i.e. ADS-B or MSSR is the norm into the future?
- Whether 'effective' pilot self separation (IFR and VFR) will occur OCTA?
- Whether aural alerting included in ADS-B 'in' becomes the norm for GA?equipment at affordable levels (given the subsidy)?
.
.... its up to ewe's
.
WX in NRM was good! :E
.
Werbil :ok:

Chimbu chuckles
19th Aug 2007, 06:49
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything...and please guys I feel uncomfortable with "If CC says it is so that is good enough for me". I appreciate the sentiment but I'd be much happier if you look at what I write critically, do your own research that answers the questions I pose or statements I make based on MY understanding of an issue...and then challenge me if you don't agree....that way we all learn something...I love learning new stuff...I have learned lots in the course of this thread.

ADS-B is great in and of itself...the local context is the question.

SSD...answer my questions based on your understanding of the issues.

They are not rhetorical questions designed to put doubt in people minds.:ok:

My first vote was for option 3...the more I read and thought about the issues as I experience them in my work and fun flying the more questions I had...I now prefer option 1 within the Oz GA context and in the short to medium term.

Upper level ADS-B makes all the sense in the world within the local regulatory context of providing ATM coverage across a vaste continent to cheaply...how many current generation Boeings/Airbus will be ADS-B capable remains to be seen...I remain to be convinced about the practicle/political realities of low level ADS-B.

With no time line for low level ADS-B you can not logically have a time line for mandating GA fitment.

WhatWasThat
19th Aug 2007, 08:36
Q - What does ADS-B Out do for me?

A - Most of OZ is currently not surveilled, this means aircraft must be separated by ridiculously large, inflexible procedural standards. Procedural standards are typically 6 times larger than surveillance standards as well as being much more complex to apply. If ATC can see you we will say no to your requests much less often (about 85% less often)

Air Route design is dictated by the silly procedural standards - this costs you time and money as well as forcing aircraft onto two way routes over existing ground based NAVAIDs which is dangerous and stupid - Surveillance means more direct tracking as well as racetrack patterns. Racetracks make clouds less lumpy.

Procedural traffic information is better than nothing - but not that much better. Which would you prefer? "IFR traffic is ABC passed somewhere sometime ago estimating somewhere else sometime in the future" OR "Traffic in your 11o'clock 4nm crossing right to left"

Extension of control area protection below F180 is very difficult without Surveillance - assuming there is enough traffic to warrant control area protection. If Dick were to get his way, and class E was extended down to 1200ft outside radar coverage, you can expect the system to grind to an immediate shuddering halt. Start clearances anyone?

Apart from keeping our customers from encountering a lumpy cloud, one of the ways we ATC's earn our pay is to assist in some small way if an aircraft gets into trouble. Take it from me there is a hell of a lot more we can do for you if we can actually see you.

Of course I am an ATC - and therefore may be involved in the great government/union/alien ADS-B conspiracy to control the minds of iconic entrepreneurs everywhere - feel free to detune your radio and don tin foil hat.

Scurvy.D.Dog
19th Aug 2007, 10:18
My opinions onlyADS-B in is not mandated/subsidised only ADS-B out. … if in the process of fitting avionics that includes a GNSS as per the AC and ‘out’ .. does it exclude ‘in’ if it is part of the unit? .. not that I can see!A TCAD fit for a typical GA light aircraft is about USD20k++...I have no reason to suspect 'in' will be lot cheaper...even if it is 1/2 TCAD it will still be USD10k. …. Again, maybe … how will we know unless manufacturers know that a critical mass of units will be purchased? … if the standard is common across the globe …. Are we suggesting that GNSS/OUT/IN/Aural cannot be incorporated into one box? … how do the manufacturers answer that until they know there is a market? …. Is Garmin’s jump just a precursor? … maybe maybe not …. The naysayer’s were bleating about no units just weeks ago! … are Garmin the only ones that are gunna build this stuff …doubt it! ADS-B for GA will be purely a surveilance tool. .. partly, ATS DTI/ATC Serv to IFR, IFR CDTI (it will happen), VFR CDTI if enough people bark for it!Don't get me wrong...satellite based ATM is the way of the future...but why the (seeming) undue haste? .. it's in the doc’s … folks wishing to reduce delays in CTA and reduce third party intervention OCTA and reduce the chance of IFR smacking into VFR, or VFR smacking into VFR ….. sure, dependant on gear in the aircraft …. How many GA aircraft are not seen by TCAS?? … to suggest Mode A, C are even in the same ball park from an accuracy and reliability point of view is fanciful!I get the feeling the are trying to sell us something quickly so they can decommission some radars in the next cycle of scheduled replacement rather than the one after that. … it's no feeling Chuck, it is spelt out they have made that funding justification perfectly clear! …. I ask this, if the radars are replaced, and the funding is then not available …. How long unitl ADS-B is mandated do you think? ... a radar lifetime is 20+ years … and in that time how much are the industry paying in delays and ATS that are not necessary?? … has anyone asked that question? …. It has a 'NAS2b' feel about it ....rushing it in shouting it's benefits from the roof tops … hang on …. The thing is published, there is a media release, I read the docs’ and immediately put the links etc up here to stimulate awareness and discussion … shouting its benefits from the roof tops? :( … what, cutting and pasting relevant extracts is hoping people don't ask too many difficult questions. …. What difficult questions?After the first 28 stations are commissioned the low level ADS-B coverage will be sparse to say the least. … and where are the ground stations? …. I would suggest most of them are positioned to provide line of sight at regional terminals and high level coverage ….. why would you want big brother watching you cross the Simpson Desert at A085 … would ya?What is the time frame and how many stations required to extend ADS-B down to levels where the GA aircraft they are mandating fitment operate...<8000'? … depends on where the coverage is deemed necessary … I guess at first grab, RPT regional terminals, Regional D … but then how do you determine yet where to put low level ADS-B surveillance unless you have completed a CBA/risk analysis …. And you cannot do that for ADS-B unless aircraft are gunna be ADS-B equipped … otherwise it would need to be a CBA/Risk Ass based on MSSR …… So which would you put in place first … the chicken or the ADS-B egg’s? …… I mean god forbid making airspace decisions without the correct process right!?What will ADS-B give those few aircraft that wil have 'in' (eventually), High end/regional turboprops and jets, that they dont get now from TCAS? …. Demand would make it more than a few ….. and accuracy, reliability and truth in azimuthThe requirement for turbine carrying more than x passengers to carry TCAS going to be withdrawn? why would you do that? ICAO are working on standards now for ADS-B input to TCAS …. One assumes TCAS in the transition would receive A, C, S and ADS-B displayed/aural traffic …Why do I need to know where aircraft that cannot effect my operation, because they are outside the range of my TCAS, are? … you don’t …… do you need to know about the aircraft that can effect your operation? .. of course you do …. So if you have short range .. why would you not want long range for say Oceanic If ADS-B is not going to have any effect on capital city terminal airspace capacity, because of noise sharing/runway constraints that ADS-B cannot address, and the enroute airspace in Australia is not crowded as is that in the US/EU why the rush? … well that depends if the industry …. i.e. you want:-
- Surface monitoring with Runway Incursion alarms (the biggest single risk in air traffic management in the world today)
- Accurate surveillance that negates expensive kit like the PRM
- Less spurious TCAS events due TMA proximities
- multiple level target response in ACAS to things like Surface vehicles visible on your CDTI (low vis op’s, runway humps etc)
- Vehicles with a basic display to see you thundering down the tar in the fog!
.
.. just to name a few … no, no rushOne of the drivers, if not THE driver, for the FAA's move to satellite based ATM is they have convinced themselves that their airspace is going to be inundated with many 1000s of VLJs...the way the US economy is going that very much remains to be seen...and who cares anyway it won't effect Australia...we might see 20. … VLJ is but one aspect, I would suggest the existing saturation is more the point but to identify that as the driver would be to admit not having done enough … wouldn’t it?The US probably has a real need even without 1000s of VLJs but they are not rushing in mandating everything capable of sustained flight has ADS-B within 5 years...why are we? … because we can afford to fund the relatively smaller fleet …. Probably because we do not have the Primary and ATS infrastructure spending the US has to face because of years of indecision??Why don't we just wait and see what Australia needs rather than base decisions on what countries with truly busy airspace feel they need? …. Yes why not!Australia has such a tiny aviation industry compared to the US/EU/Asia etc...the last thing we need to be doing is behaving like trendsetters in this area. …. The trend is already known … What imperative does mandatory ADS-B out in GA answer? …. Because we cannot afford to fit the fleet and buy radar and put in ADS-B ground stations ….! And smart SMR radars (that are no where near as smart as ADS-B) … and remember those little squat switches for the TXPDR … hmm don’t need them with ADS-BSSD...answer my questions based on your understanding of the issues.
.
They are not rhetorical questions designed to put doubt in people minds. …. That’s the best I can give you seeing I have just returned home after being on the go since 5am Friday .. but that’s another aviation story!My first vote was for option 3...the more I read and thought about the issues as I experience them in my work and fun flying the more questions I had...I now prefer option 1 within the Oz GA context and in the short to medium term. .. and you have based that on assumptions and the opinions of a couple whose opinions arrive without any corroboration (links, quotes etc) … your call I guessUpper level ADS-B makes all the sense in the world within the local regulatory context of providing ATM coverage across a vaste continent to cheaply...how many current generation Boeings/Airbus will be ADS-B capable remains to be seen... not really, the manufacturers along with the services providers and regulators have been quoted in the documents that has the Australian Government imprimatur … as cynical as I am, I am inclined to believe IATA, ICAO, ASTRA and their composite representatives across industry (including the manufacturers) over the opinions of a retired 74 pilot with an axe to grind and another without any factual support for their assertions! …. But hey that’s me … ever the doubting Thomas! I remain to be convinced about the practicle/political realities of low level ADS-B. …. Fair enough then!With no time line for low level ADS-B you can not logically have a time line for mandating GA fitment. .. and without a timeline for fitment and funding to support that timeline … how do you timeline surveillance decisions before an aerostudy ... duplicate aerostrudies on the Australian airspace volumes? ..... yep thats gunna happen in time to make a smart decsion on buying 20+ multi-million dollar radar heads?
.
NO CHICKEN .. NO EGG .. NO CHICKEN :hmm:
.
STAUS QUO ….. Bargain!
.
AusNAS 3 here we come! :ugh:

LeadSled
19th Aug 2007, 13:31
Chimbu,

Looks like you're not on Scurvy's A list any more. Thinking for yourself !!, be careful, it might be catching. You might start a whole new trend.

Strange as it may seem to some, and contrary to Scurvy's assertions, I don't have any axe to grind, except that I have a great aversion to fantasy in the aviation world.

I much prefer to stick to facts. And for anybody who wishes to do a search, you will find I am a long time supporter of the original Freeflight concept, and the enabling technology, including ADS-B. Because of the potential economic and safety benefits - at high level. But Freeflight, not what is going on here. Those papers are to be found in the files of a well know pilot union.

And a great aversion to the idea that the bottom end of aviation, which is already struggling under huge cost and other pressures, being stuck with some very expensive equipment by mandate, that addresses no demonstrated safety problem, and from which no measurable benefit is derived.And certainly nothing to offset the initial and ongoing costs.

And a very great aversion to the fact that the ADS-B IN, which is implicit in the RAAA position, is nowhere to be found in the equipment of airline standard. Is there anybody from Eastern lurking, how are the Dash 8 mods. going? --- where is the ADS-B IN ---- anywhere?? The Bush gets it in the neck, again.

Any of you can get onto the web, and do your search, and have a look at the Garmin/Collins/Freeflight Inc./Allied Signals/etc. prices, just for Mode S ADS-B transponders--- and the tiny Australian market won't make much impact on the price ---- if it is mandatory, why would a rational salesman reduce prices and margins to a captive market. Then go looking for the prices of the matching C145/146.

Folks, even if the "subsidy" eventuates (ADS-B OUT only) look at the indicative prices, and it is not a permanent subsidy, only existing aircraft, so it will really help the international competitiveness of the training organisations on the world market (just one example) --- by increasing the price of a new aircraft, after 2011/2013, by somewhere between $20,000-30,000 ---- again, to solve which safety problem.

Tootle pip!!

Chimbu chuckles
19th Aug 2007, 14:37
I get the feeling I am pissing you off SSD...not my intention...just asking some questions is all...and airing my concerns as someone who uses the entire airspace column from very, very low:E to FL450:ok:

As you have stated this is the biggest deal in any of our careers...as you also stated it has come a little out of the blue...we are being asked to mentally shift gears from the attitudes of the last 15 years or so to some sort of potential airspace nirvana just around the next bend...and all for free when user pays has been the rules of the game for a very long time.

Thank you for your big picture answers.:ok:

I was reading through the JPC document again a few hours ago and noticed the final stage would be an additional 11 ground units bringing the total to 39...given that the coverage map showing 28 had only one unit on the east coast at/around BN I can perhaps be forgiven for wondering what was going to happen in the rest of the J curve ADS-B wise?

The final 11 units were characterised as final state 'full coverage' so I guess most of the 11 units will be sat on strategic hill tops in the J curve.

As you say we have several years of electronic developement to go before boxes are actually being removed from their packaging...IF the US GA market takes up the ADS-B 1090 es technology that will spur manufacturers like Garmin to come up with a cleaver box....there is no other way the economies of scale will make it affordable.

I suspect the costs will be a higher and the savings to industry perhaps not as great as depicted...ever known anything like this not to work out that way?...there will be much angst, mutterings and doubt cast about but we may just end up with something pretty reasonable.

And I bet when all is said and done I will be sat up at FL390 about to descend into YSSY with as much vectoring, speed control and holding as we get now...or maybe you will have given me speed control 1500nm earlier...faster or slower it doesn't matter...I will have been throwing fuel out the back at an increased rate over ECON:{:ok:

Actually I just thought of something really funny...ADS-B might benefit GA more than the big end of town...after all the biggest limiting factor for the airlines by far is tarmac...be that runways or parking...as you say ADS-B will make airport movements in bad weather safer...I don't think they will elevate rates much because taxiing in fog is scary enough at 10kts thank you very much...I dont care what gadgets they come up with I won't be taxiing at 25kts like I can on a sunny day.:ok:

I really think the upper level enroute savings are a load of hot cock...at best this technology might slow the rate at which things get worse but that is about it. The only real significant savings to be had are in the arrival/departure phases and ADS-B doesn't give you more tarmac or even more terminal airspace.

GA has virtually no such constraints except around places like Sydney.

Do I think ADS-B and a flight plan will get me a clearance through YSSY in my Bonanza where Mode C/Flight plan doesn't now?

Nope.

Do I think AsA will dramatically reduce their charges once they have clawed back the subsidy?

Nope...it will be like your car/house insurance no claim bonus...sorry to sound cynical...there will be plausible sounding reasons why enroute/terminal charges don't reduce....something along the lines of "Hey they aren't as high as they would have been"

GA might actually be the biggest net beneficiary...wouldn't that be funny:}

Scurvy.D.Dog
19th Aug 2007, 15:51
Lead ol' chap ... A list :} ... doubt it, no such animal, just respect for folks who can state their case (with facts or experienced opinions) without the benefit of time standing still ... you know the type, those who cannot get off their arses and research the topic before posting watery absolutes :ok:
.
I'm not gunna piss in Chuck's pocket, nor would he appreciate it, nor I suspect would he in anyone elses (knowing our Chuck as we do) .... and as much as I am sure you would like folks to take sides .. there are none ... just words .. good, bad, strong, frilly and just plain unsubstanciated crap! ;)
.
.. such is life as Ned Kelly said .... I'm over it ... are you? :E
.
It is outa respect for folks like Chuck and his questioning, that I went surfing (with ferkin matchsticks under the lids :zzz:) to catch a couple of things I saw the other day that might be of interest
.
http://www.iata.org/NR/ContentConnector/CS2000/Siteinterface/sites/soi/file/B130310_Implementation_of_ADS-B.pdf ... note Para 11 Boeing and AB :p
.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/EEC_News_2007_1_Maturity.html ....note the peer reviews and the sorts of work being undertaken such as in-trail etc ... :E
.
ICAO South Korea (ADS-B)
.
http://www.icao.or.th/meetings/2007/ADSB_ADSB_TF6/ip14.pdf ... note the uses that ADS-B excels at (including some I mentioned earlier) :}
.
... got another couple of interesting things sent the other day ... thought I had em' on the 'stick' ... alas no .. on the drive at work .... postem Tuesday PM.
.
.. not pissed Chuck, on the contrary, that is the sort of stuff these threads should be about .... I'd be disappointed if you were not blunt :ok:
.
As I said before, I am as cynical as most, probably more having worked for the mob for 17years :ooh: and as such, I want to know if this proposal is loaded :suspect: .. because if it is, and could be to the detrement of the section of the industry that can least afford to be fecked over ... there is a missile to be launched at Canberra, and we'd better make dam'd sure we know what the **** we are talkin about before we hit the red button eh :E
.
.... novel concept eh Leadie :=
.
... now **** off ... I'm goin to bed! :mad:

Dick Smith
20th Aug 2007, 00:20
Biggles in Oz, you state:

Why is the proposed subsidy only for ADSB-OUT equipment ? That is the main part of the con. That is why the cost benefit case is fraudulent. They cost ADS-B ‘out’ but then bring in the advantages of ADS-B ‘in’ which is not costed and not yet available.

I say again – I totally support ADS-B. There is no doubt it is the way to go for the future. However any cost benefit studies should be done accurately without any spinning or conning.

There is no certified ADS-B ‘in/out’ unit which can be fitted to a small regional airline – the people who appear to desperately want ADS-B ‘in/out’.

By the way, if you want a really good and objective view on the Government’s ADS-B paper, I suggest you look at the submission put out by the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation. I agree with it totally – and before you start accusing me of being involved, I wasn’t in any way, but it is good to see that the matter can be looked at in an objective way.

Scurvy.D.Dog
20th Aug 2007, 00:43
... thats crap Dick ... the CBA is 'based' on 'out', the benefits as far as I can see are based on that .... the references to 'in' are separate.
.
If that is not the case, can you point out where!
.
So based on your advice ... are sport for or against the cross industry funding proposal? .... or are they in favour of 'in' being part of the proposal!
.
IF it is the latter ... I wholeheartely agree with them!

LeadSled
20th Aug 2007, 03:30
Folks,
From Dr. R.J.Hall, PhD, President of ASAC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPORT AVIATION PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO:
JCP: Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation and Surveillance

Dr. R J Hall
President ASAC
15/08/07
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sport Aviation understands that satellite technology for navigation and surveillance is the way of the future and accordingly, supports appropriate application of this technology in Australia.

Sport Aviation expects that the implementation of this technology will be subject to risk management and cost benefit justification as required by the AAPS.

Sport Aviation will support those parts of this initiative which can be justified. Sport Aviation believes that extension of the ADS-B mandate beyond that required for replacement of SSR radar required by capacity needs, cannot be justified and is implacably opposed to this extended mandate.

Sport Aviation believes that implementation of some important aspects of this new technology has been stalled by an almost ideological push for this unjustified extended mandate. This objective has been pursued by attempting to combine the separate aspects of this technology into a single decision, using the benefits from other cost beneficial aspects of this technology, to fund a wide mandate for ADS-B OUT.

It is very unfortunate that the JCP seems to be no more than a continuation of this approach.

Sport Aviation notes that the JCP promises that the second stage of the proposal involving an extension of the ADS-B mandate into Class G airspace ‘will be subject to a risk management and cost benefit justification’ but points out that this is not acceptable. The very essence of a risk management approach is that it is not ‘tacked on at the end’ after the decision has been made; but it is an integral part of the decision making approach

A risk management and cost benefit justification is a systematic, rigorous, quantitative means of deciding what actions can be justified. It starts with the problems or hazards to be solved or mitigated, canvasses all possible solution or mitigators and determines which of these can be justified by the outcomes achieved. It is fundamental to the rigour in this approach that the cost benefit study must include only those benefits resulting from the mitigator under consideration and that all costs associated with the implementation of that mitigator must be included.

This approach has never been attempted by the ABIT team apparently responsible for this JCP.

Sport Aviation believes that analysis of the work carried out by the GIT and ABIT teams shows that the implementation of GNSS Navigation and the replacement of SSR with ADS-B to provide radar-like services, where required by capacity needs of the ATM system, has been justified; but that this study has already shown that the extension of the ADS-B mandate beyond that required to achieve these outcomes cannot be justified on a risk management and cost benefit basis and further, that the ABIT team agreed this fact at the last ABIT meeting.

Sport Aviation will agree any requirement which can be justified, but is implacably opposed to any requirement which cannot. Further, Sport Aviation will not agree to an exemption from a costly requirement based on inability to power, when the requirement itself cannot be justified for anyone.

Bob Hall

DETAILED COMMENTS

The Discussion Paper

Much of the discussion paper obfuscates or simply avoids the decisions facing the Industry by proposing that this technology must be implemented as a single decision. This effectively asks the question – ‘Will Australia implement GPS based avionics or not?’ but avoids the real issues, which are – which aspects of this technology, where and by whom?

The paper proposes that the decision is a single issue on the transparently thin argument that there are cost savings if the avionics installation is done simultaneously and that aircraft operators might be more likely to install other GPS based avionics if they are forced to install ADS B OUT.

Even if the installation of GPS avionics in individual aircraft is to be carried out in a single step it is a non sequitur to say the decision as to which capabilities need to be installed in which aircraft must also be a single global decision.

If it is a single global decision then, clearly, Australia must be part of this new technology – but the fallacy is the assumption that it is a single global decision. Accordingly, the primary outcome of this JCP is not a result of this analysis but is actually assumed in the starting assumptions of the analysis.

Risk Management Justification

Attached (Appendix A) is an analysis of the decisions facing the industry submitted by Sport Aviation as input to the discussion paper. This analysis is based on the work done by GIT and ABIT. This submission was apparently entirely ignored in the preparation of the current JCP.

Clearly, the Industry faces at least four decisions – each of which is, technically and conceptually, an independent issue; each with its own benefits and implementation costs. The only connection being they are, or may be, addressed by GPS based technology. Thus –

1. GNSS Nav. aids or not.

2. Replacement of SSR with ADS-B where capacity requirements justify a radar-like service.

3. Recommendation or mandate of avionics required to avoid CFIT accidents.

4. Extension of the ADS-B mandate beyond radar coverage justified by capacity requirements.

These are the reasons for considering a requirement for GPS based avionics. The analysis must start with these reasons – canvas all possible solution or mitigators and depend on a cost benefit analysis to determine which of the mitigators can be justified.

Points, 1) and 2) are business decisions. R&D by the GIT and ABIT teams have demonstrated that these new technologies are as good or better than the older technology and are more cost effective. Points 3) and 4) are mitigators designed to deal with identified hazards.

Analysis of the work done by the GIT and ABIT teams shows the following:

1. GNSS Nav. is clearly justified by the savings achieved.

2. Replacement of SSR as described in the JCP, is clearly cost beneficial and probably justifies some cross-subsidy of the cost of installation of ADS-B OUT in GA aircraft because the proposal disposes capital investment from the ATM provider to GA. This should be an ongoing subsidy, not a one off subsidy, as the cost savings to the ‘big’ end of town are ongoing.

3. No systematic attempt has been made in these studies to address the avionics which may mitigate CFIT accidents except that it is clear that mandating ADS-B OUT will have no effect on this significant accident type.

4. Cost benefit justification of the extension of the ADS-B mandate beyond that required for radar-like services justified by capacity requirements, must stand alone. The benefits included must be limited to those which are a result of the extended mandate (ie depend on the fitment of ADS-B OUT in other aircraft in regions where radar-like services cannot be justified for capacity reasons) – and costs include all those required to achieve those benefits. (See following)

Cost Benefit Justification of Project B – Extension Beyond SSR Replacement

A detailed analysis, by Sport Aviation, of the shortcomings of the ABIT cost benefit analysis, which was accepted by ABIT and ASTRA but, despite assurances given Sport Aviation, has not been addressed in this updated cost benefit analysis, is attached (Appendix B).

In summary this shows:

* GNSS Nav. and avoidance of CFIT accidents are not outcomes of fitment of ADS-B OUT.

* Savings on SSR by replacement with ADS-B similarly do not depend on a mandate extended beyond radar coverage justified by capacity requirements.

* Search and rescue benefits do not require ADS-B OUT in other aircraft.

Accordingly, none is a benefit of the extended mandate.

* Collision avoidance depends on ADS-B IN as well as ADS-B OUT

Accordingly, if this benefit is to be included, then the costs must include fitment of ADS-B IN as well as ADS-B OUT.

On this valid basis, extension of an ADS-B OUT mandate beyond that required for replacement of SSR with ADS-B, falls well short of being cost beneficial and, accordingly, cannot be justified on a risk management basis (See Appendix B for more details). This proposal then cannot be implemented under the AAPS.

This result applies whether or not a means of funding these costs can be found.

A Reasonableness Test

Finally, the outcome does not pass a ‘reasonableness’ test.

The extended mandate is for Class E and for Class G above 5000’ – this exclusively en route airspace where the collision hazard is vanishingly small. This is a return to the dark ages of mandatory radio above 5000’ (with no protection in terminal airspace).

It is claimed that this will remove reliance on unalerted see-and-avoid in terminal airspace. This is a false claim as the proposal mandates ADS-B OUT for aircraft already required to carry and use radio and a transponder. This would add a third mitigator against this hazard.

Finally, it would appear that the is still no intention to mandate ADS-B IN for RPT aircraft in the same airspace. (The ADS-B OUT units may well be bleeping at no one.)

Cost Benefit Calculation Attached

Finally, the cost benefit study attached to the JCP is in fact more misleading than that previously rejected by Sport Aviation and the Board of Airservices and is, again, rejected by Sport Aviation and should be by all of the industry.

The study does not distinguish the clearly separate projects involved. It assumes that savings from one project can be used to justify costs for another.

Put simply, the approach by ABIT has always been that the technology must be implemented because it is technically superior. Any analysis of costs and benefits has been an attempt to work out ‘how we can afford this great technology we have developed’ – not to decide where its implementation can be justified.

If the exercise is to find a way of funding a project which has already been agreed, then this might be considered acceptable. However the AAPS requires a risk management and cost benefit justification for such an airspace change.

If this requirement is to be honoured, then the purpose of the examination of a mitigator as part of a risk management justification, is to determine whether the implementation of this mitigator is justified by the outcomes achieved. Clearly, then the cost must include all the costs required to achieve the outcomes and the value of outcomes must be limited to those actually produced by that mitigator.

The analysis attached the JCP calculates benefits which either do not depend on the fitment of ADS-B OUT in other aircraft (GNSS Nav., CFIT and search and rescue outcomes for example) or depend on the fitment of ADS-B IN in all or most aircraft (collision accidents) but the costs do not include the fitment of ADS-B IN.

If the benefits of the extended mandate are limited to those resulting from this extended mandate and the costs include both ADS-B OUT and ADS-B IN this extended mandate is not justified by the figures presented.



Bob Hall

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Hall,formerly of U.of NSW, is one of Australia's leading risk management experts. He is also an expert on the various models used in collision risk probability analysis.

Tootle pip.

Scurvy.D.Dog
20th Aug 2007, 04:30
Lead thankyou, understanding positions is critical!
Attached (Appendix A) is an analysis of the decisions facing the industry submitted by Sport Aviation as input to the discussion paper. This analysis is based on the work done by GIT and ABIT. This submission was apparently entirely ignored in the preparation of the current JCP. .. that’s a worry …. Has there been any indication as to why? Analysis of the work done by the GIT and ABIT teams shows the following:
.
1. GNSS Nav. is clearly justified by the savings achieved.
.
2. Replacement of SSR as described in the JCP, is clearly cost beneficial and probably justifies some cross-subsidy of the cost of installation of ADS-B OUT in GA aircraft because the proposal disposes capital investment from the ATM provider to GA. This should be an ongoing subsidy, not a one off subsidy, as the cost savings to the ‘big’ end of town are ongoing.
.
3. No systematic attempt has been made in these studies to address the avionics which may mitigate CFIT accidents except that it is clear that mandating ADS-B OUT will have no effect on this significant accident type.
.
4. Cost benefit justification of the extension of the ADS-B mandate beyond that required for radar-like services justified by capacity requirements, must stand alone. The benefits included must be limited to those which are a result of the extended mandate (ie depend on the fitment of ADS-B OUT in other aircraft in regions where radar-like services cannot be justified for capacity reasons) – and costs include all those required to achieve those benefits. (See following) .. apart from point three (which would only happen with GNSS equipment anyhow, which might be considered in relation to point 1.) I agree! Cost Benefit Justification of Project B – Extension Beyond SSR Replacement
.
A detailed analysis, by Sport Aviation, of the shortcomings of the ABIT cost benefit analysis, which was accepted by ABIT and ASTRA but, despite assurances given Sport Aviation, has not been addressed in this updated cost benefit analysis, is attached (Appendix B).
.
In summary this shows:
.
* GNSS Nav. and avoidance of CFIT accidents are not outcomes of fitment of ADS-B OUT. … was TAWS/GPWS/EGPWS part of the project scope as far as required outcomes?* Savings on SSR by replacement with ADS-B similarly do not depend on a mandate extended beyond radar coverage justified by capacity requirements. … agreed … how would ‘sport’ treat this in the project context when considering the ministerial radar directive in regional D’s (as just one example)? … I agree though that CBA/Risk must identify where mitigation is required (particularly outside existing areas) … but how do you achieve that in advance without accurate means of collecting traffic data (apart from IFR)? I suppose extrapolation of expected traffic densities/complexities and costs could be used, however would that be any more robust that the proposed?* Search and rescue benefits do not require ADS-B OUT in other aircraft. … ‘require’ no .. but is there a benefit if it is equipped for other reasons?Accordingly, none is a benefit of the extended mandate.
.
* Collision avoidance depends on ADS-B IN as well as ADS-B OUT … again agree (OCTA and outside existing surveillance)Accordingly, if this benefit is to be included, then the costs must include fitment of ADS-B IN as well as ADS-B OUT. …. Agreed (when considering CBA/Risk OCTA)!
.
Have sport compared (if that is possible) the CBA of the Status Quo into the future?
.
I take it ‘sport’ expect an RPT CBA including separate risk analysis (presuably for individual volumes) etc to be included in the GA proposal?
.
So in dot point, could you give us a brief run down of what 'Sport' would need to be comfortable with the process and the outcomes?
.
The same input from the other sectors would be invaluable! :ok:
.
Thanks for providing the information! .. a reasonable response from ‘Sport’! :ok:

Scurvy.D.Dog
20th Aug 2007, 06:42
Lead .. Supplementary if I may..
.
.… could you provide the Appendix’s (B is mentioned so I guess there are others)?
.
… and perhaps the workings on which the CBA/risk assumptions are drawn!
.
Cheers
.
Oh .. and one other, the date on your forwarded post is 15/08/07 ….. is that the date you received the information from Prof Hall or the date of creation of the response from Prof Hall? :ok:

Jabawocky
20th Aug 2007, 11:37
Do not have time for a legthy post now, but I do believe that there is a flly spec'd and will be available for deployment end 2008 if the go ahead is given, solution sub $10k and this is from the horses mouth for a change.

I also wonder if as I think LeadsSled made a point what will it add o new a/c. Well if for GA a/c the cost of a coneventional Mode C + Encoder kit was deducted (you would be buying that anyway) from the ADSB kit...it might ad say $4400 to your new a/c purchase. Or if they said they said you would still get the ADSB "upgrade subsidised" then you would only pay for the cost of mode C now. Ok some RAAA guys do not buy mode C now, but in my opinion they should now anyway, even if its not law.

Geeif we all had Mode C minimum and lots of Radar coverage, and all RPT (even low capacty) had TCAS, maybe none of this would be worth it. But ADSB is way cheaper than the alternative.

Its simple, and many other benefits can be spun off it for not much cost.

Ohh and for those of you who think big brother will be tracing your every Class G flight to invoice you, turn it to "private" mode or whatever it will be called, just like squawking 1200.......nobody will know.

Some of you are scared of ghosts.

J:ok:

LeadSled
20th Aug 2007, 12:30
Folks,
More from Dr. R.J.Hall, PhD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX A

THE PROPOSED DISCUSSION PAPER and RENEWED COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS of ADS-B
COMMENTS by ASAC

Dr. R. J. Hall
President ASAC
2/03/07

SUMMARY

The ASAC organisations expect that any decision on the implementation of GPS based technology – GNSS Nav and ADS-B – will be made on a risk management and cost benefit basis.

The Minister’s policy that all airspace management decisions will be made on a risk management and cost benefit basis is well received by all of industry. It would be very unfortunate if the first and arguably most important decision in airspace management since this policy was announced abrogated that policy.

The implementation of GPS based technology involves a number of separate objectives or outcomes – related only by the fact that they depend on GPS. These separate objectives must be considered, costed and subjected to separate risk management and cost benefit justification leading to a separate implementation decision.

Treating these as separate projects is not only essential to a valid justification of these different but related objectives but is essential if timely and optimal implementation of this important technology is to be achieved.

Having spent considerable amounts of public and industry money on this project it is essential that momentum in this overall initiative not be lost by artificial bundling of these separate objectives into a single project with the associated controversy regarding a wide mandate for ADS-B OUT.

The proposed discussion paper and associated cost benefit analysis of these projects must deal with, and report on, these separate projects as separate projects.


BACKGROUND

The ASAC organisations understand that GPS based technology – including GNSS navigation and ADS B – is important new technology for the provision of ATM services which, if applied appropriately, is capable of significant cost savings and improved services and safety.

Australia has spent significant sums of public and/or industry money developing this technology. Accordingly, the ASAC organisations believe that it is important that appropriate implementation of this technology be expedited so that the expected cost savings can be achieved.

Unfortunately, it appears that appropriate implementation of some aspects of this technology is being delayed by what seems to be an almost ideological push to achieve a very wide ADS-B mandate from the very outset. It appears that this objective is forcing an attempt to implement these changes as a single project making the decision an all or nothing outcome. No other nation is taking this ‘big bang’ approach. It is our view that this ‘big bang’ approach is delaying implementation of clearly cost beneficial aspects of this technology while the controversial aspects of a wide ADS-B mandate is debated.

Further to this and equally importantly, debate on these initiatives remains technology driven rather than outcomes based. That is, proposals for the implementation of this technology are based on the existence and success of this technology, not on the need to achieve an identified and justified business objective.

BASIS of IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation of this technology should be progressive. Individual business objectives need to be clearly identified and pursued as separate projects so that those which are ready and/or urgent can be implemented as soon as appropriate – not delayed by other more controversial objectives – so that the momentum in this project is not lost.

The ASAC organisations note that it is government policy that changes to airspace management – which would include these technologies – will be on a risk management and cost benefit basis. ASAC applauds this policy, recently announced by the Minister, and well received by the whole of industry. The ASAC organisations insist that it is clear that the decisions to implement this technology come under this policy and hence that each separate implementation decision must be on a risk management and cost benefit basis.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

It seems to sport aviation that the development of this technology to date has identified the following separate objectives which are addressed by these technologies.

1. Cost savings and improved outcomes from GNSS Navigation.
2. Implementation of GPS based technology to assist the avoidance of CFIT accidents.
3. Replacement of existing SSR with ADS-B. (Previously known as Option B.)
4. Extension of the ADS-B mandate beyond current radar coverage for air-to-air conflict warning etc. (Previously known as Option C and D.)

There may be others but there are at least these four.

These objectives are not interdependent and the decision to implement must be considered, costed and justified separately.

Some arguments have been advanced that there are economic reasons for simultaneous implementation of some of these objectives. Despite these arguments, the decision to proceed or not in each case is not interconnected as these are independent objectives connected only by the fact that they depend on GPS.

1. GNSS Navigation
A very strong case and plea was made at the most recent meeting of the GIT and ABIT teams, that the delay in implementation of this technology is costing significant sums of money in refurbishing existing aids which would not be required after implementation of GNSS Nav. It is clear that this project can go ahead and it should not be delayed at cost to the nation and the industry because of controversial aspects of other related but not dependant projects.

2. CFIT accidents
This category of accident has actually cost lives. Implementation of the GPS technology to assist the avoidance of these accidents does not depend on ADS-B technology. Any delay in the implementation of this technology threatens to cost lives and should not be tolerated.


3. Replacement of existing SSR with ADS-B
This project – previously referred to as Option B – is clearly cost beneficial and, so far as ASAC understands, is not controversial. An ADS-B OUT mandate for all in Classes A and C and for IFR only in Class E would allow this project to proceed with very significant savings.

4. Extension of the ADS-B Mandate
This project is clearly not cost beneficial nor can it be justified on a risk management basis – not even for the protection of the travelling public.

It is well established that the collision risk in en route airspace is negligible being a few to several orders of magnitude less than design standards for major structural failure.

Circuit and radio procedures at untowered airfields combine to make radio alerted see-and-avoid very successful for collision avoidance in the terminal airspace. Provision of a further means of alert at very considerable cost to GA in this airspace in Australia is not justified.

SIMULTANEOUS IMPLEMENTATION

The only rational argument proposed is that simultaneous implementation would allow some cost savings and a cross subsidy of installation of ADS-B in GA.

Firstly, the cost savings are much less than the actual marginal cost so simultaneous implementation is not cost beneficial.

Secondly, any savings which accrue from the other aspects of this project can be applied to a subsidy at any time after initial implementation. A staged implementation will allow the possibility of using this money for R&D projects which may reduce the cost of implementation rather than simply applying this money to a subsidy.

IMPLEMENTATION IN SPORT AIRCRAFT

Some classes of aircraft – sports aircraft and some ultralights – have no need of any of the services provided by any of these projects. The cost and power drain of the necessary avionics makes fitment in these aircraft impractical and draconian.

These aircraft hold a general exemption from the carriage of transponders in Class E airspace.

Attached are two documents providing a brief justification for this exemption both for safety and security reasons.

It is important to note that this exemption is not only justified on the basis of cost and inability to power but also on a risk management basis. The nature of operations by this category of aircraft means that these aircraft do not represent a credible hazard.

When it comes to collision risk it is established that even unaltered see-and-avoid from such aircraft is effective. A paper justifying this conclusion has been previously supplied to DOTARS ASTRA and CASA. This paper supplied separately.

Bob Hall

President, ASAC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And one more to come.

LeadSled
20th Aug 2007, 12:32
Final from Dr.R.J.Hall
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B

Basis For Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Extension of ADS-B Beyond Replacement of Radar Like Services.

Dr. R. J. Hall
President, ASAC
10/11/05

ASAC has provided Airservices and ASTRA with a detailed analysis of the ASTRA cost benefit analysis (Appendix B1). The response by the ABIT Chair did not add any information and left our conclusions unchanged. I refer to this document for detail and the following summary is provided here.

The cost benefit study by ASTRA;

“Cross Industry Business Case and Cost-benefit Analysis: ADS-B Avionics Fitment” V1.1 – ASTRA-CIBC 01 ,

reaches a wrong conclusion for two reasons:

1. It assumes fitment of ADS-B IN by GA in calculating the benefits but it does not include the cost of this fitment in the total cost calculation. (Outside radar coverage and third party intervention, ADS-B IN is required for any benefit.)

2. The cost benefit includes cost savings for accident types not requiring fitment of ADS-B OUT by other aircraft. Specifically CFIT and facilitated reductions in SAR times. This is an outcome of fitment in the affected aircraft only. Recommended elective fitment meets this outcome.

This study does show that replacement of some SSR radar with ADS-B is justified as proposed.

The mandate required to meet this proposal is for those receiving a radar service – that is, for all in Classes A and C and for IFR in Class E.

Extension of the mandate beyond that which is required to meet this service provision must depend on the hazard addressed by requiring fitment by all and the cost of this mitigator. Of the accident types discussed by ASTRA only mid-air collision meets these requirements. Discussion by all in meetings of ASTRA and ABIT confirms the view that it is this accident type which drives the push for this mitigator.

ASAC points out that the mid-air collision hazard in Classes E and G is very small. There is no significant hazard en route and the hazard is limited to the terminal area of uncontrolled airfields.

The hazard in the terminal area is addressed by NAS 2c CTAF procedures and depends on radio alerted see-and-avoid. It is also further mitigated by TCAS and transpoders. The size of this hazard does not justify a very expensive third mitigator as follows.

Based on ASTRA figures (see below) the cost of providing an ADS-B alert in this airspace is, over the period of project, $110 million. This is composed of $30 million for installation of ADS-B OUT in additional GA aircraft and an estimated $80 million for an 80% fitment of ADS-B IN in GA.

The benefit achieved, even based on the optimistic figures for the effectiveness of this second mitigator in the terminal area quoted by ASTRA, is $17 Million or 0.8 fatalities saved per year.

Cost – benefit comparison based on the ASTRA report

Figures from the “Cross Industry Business Case and Cost-benefit Analysis: ADS-B Avionics Fitment” V1.1 – ASTRA-CIBC 01

Cost/Benefit of the Extension of ADS-B beyond replacement of radar
Comparison of Scenario B and D – (See Table on page 8 of 39 of the ASTRA report).

Costs

Cost of fitment of ADS-B OUT for GA in Scenario D is $m99 total
Cost of fitment of ADS-B OUT for GA in Scenario B (replacement of existing radar) is $m69
Additional cost of ADS-B OUT for GA $m30

Cost of fitment of ADS-B IN was not quantified by ASTRA.

Assuming the cost and fitment rate of ADS-B IN to be the same as ADS-B OUT this cost was estimated as the same as ADS-B OUT. This is believed to be conservative and estimates the total cost of a single combined installation as $16,000. I have seen estimates of $30,000. ASTRA could be asked to refine this estimate – but we cannot see that this outcome would be significantly altered in terms of the decision supported.

Estimated cost of 100% fitment of ADS-B IN on the same basis as ADS-B OUT $m99

As only one aircraft needs to be fitted a fitment level of 80% would suffice. This leaves a 2% chance of neither aircraft being fitted – which seems a reasonable level.

i.e. Cost of fitment of ADS-B IN for GA = $m80

Total cost of deriving the benefits assumed in the ASTRA report $m110

Benefits

Quantified as fatalities saved by mid-air collisions avoided CFIT accident avoided and reduced SAR times.

Collision accidents avoided 0.8 pa
CFIT accidents avoided 1.56 pa
Reduced SAR times 1.05 pa

Total 3.41 pa

Accidents saved by ADS-B mandate – i.e. accidents requiring fitment in other aircraft

Collision accident only – 0.8 pa
Value of benefit – 3.41 fatalities avoided pa = $m72.2 total – (50.6 to GA and 22.7 to community)
Value of benefit from mandate (collision accidents only) - $m17 ($m72.2 /3.41 x 0.8 = $m17)

Total actual benefit from mandatory fitment $m17




Appendix B1

COMMENTS ON ASTRA ADS-B REPORT
“CROSS INDUSTRY BUSINESS CASE AND COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS”


Dr. R. J. Hall
President, ASAC
20/06/05

SUMMARY

The proponents of ADS-B claim that ADS-B provides the opportunity to improve aviation safety and reduce costs. The cost benefit analysis presented in the ASTRA Report shows unequivocally that this is not true.

Improved safety outcomes depend heavily on extension of ADS-B to regions not currently covered by radar. The central accident type driving these views is a midair collision. This ASTRA report and associated CASA reports show that these accidents occur essentially exclusively in the region of an airfield with more than half in the circuit itself. Application of ADS-B to prevent this accident type depends on a GA VFR pilot monitoring a moving map display in the circuit area. Experience shows that this procedure would significantly increase accidents at airports not reduce them. Standard TCAS procedures requires a commercial IFR pilot to turn off the TCAS warning prior to entry into the circuit to avoid distraction in the this phase of flight.

The other safety outcomes claimed in the ASTRA report do not depend on ADS-B as the appropriate mitigator.

The proposal is far from low cost. The real cost of the combined project is more than $m 300 including some $m 200 (largely by GA) for the extension of ADS-B coverage to achieve the claimed benefits to GA. These benefits are realistically valued at less than $m 25 over the assumed life of the project (19 years). (See below)

The data does show that ADS-B can provide a radar-like service for ATC purposes at reduced cost to Airservices. However, this is core safety technology and the savings achieved (3-5% reduction in the costs of en route services) do not justify exposure to the financial and operational risks associated with a move to ADS-B until there is actual international operational experience and certainty regarding the choice of ADS-B operating system in the US and Europe.

Where ADS-B is used to replace radar, this data and simple logic shows that ADS-B OUT should be mandated based on ATC service requirements. That is ADS-B OUT should be mandated for all in Classes A and C and for IFR operations in Classes E and D. Other existing procedures should apply to VFR for Class D airspace and the NAS recommendations for Class E airspace – see attached.

This approach is not only logical, but it:

a) will impose costs on sectors which require or desire services,
b) is risk management based, and will deliver good safe outcomes,
c) will maximise real return for investment to Airservices and hence introduce real savings to the major airlines,
i) by incorporating savings from both replacement of radar with ADS-B and Nav aids with GNSS based avionics,
ii) and minimise mandated costs to those actually necessary to achieve these outcomes.
and, hence, will maximise reduction in ATC charges for ATC service users.

Security Considerations

If security considerations override this risk management outcome then the existing exemptions for unpowered craft must be retained. This is justified by the draconian effect of imposition of this requirement on these craft combined with the improbability of these craft reaching a centre of population without the assistance of a powered craft.

DETAILED COMMENTS

This analysis needs to consider two projects:

Project 1. The replacement of some existing SSR radar services by ADS-B. This project is largely not controversial but has a decision time line requiring an initial decision by first quarter 2006.
Project 2. The extension of ADS-B services beyond current radar coverage. This project involves very considerable additional investment, is very controversial and does not have a specific decision time line.

Decoupling these projects allows a timely decision regarding the replacement of some SSR radar with ADS-B while allowing time for consultation and for the important controversial decisions involved in this project to be based on real experience with ADS-B.


SAFETY OUTCOMES

The widespread enthusiasm for this project derives from the perceived safety benefits associated with midair collision avoidance. This depends on widespread extension of ADS-B coverage outside current radar coverage – Project 2 (Scenario D in the ASTRA report).

The accident record relied on in this ASTRA Report, backed by extensive analysis and modeling, shows that midair collision hazard exists exclusively in the region of airfields.

CASA examined the Australian midair collision record and concluded that ADS-B would have reduced fatalities by this cause by 80%. Examination of the Australian accidents used to justify the conclusion by CASA shows that all but 2 occurred in the region of an airfield. 14 out of 29 accidents were assumed avoided by ADS-B. 9 out of the 14 collisions assumed avoided occurred in the circuit itself. No allowance was made for accidents caused by inappropriate use of ADS-B.

There have been no collisions involving RPT aircraft and no en route collision in this airspace. Detailed analysis and modeling confirm that this is the expected result – that is, it does not depend on ‘luck’.

Collision avoidance procedures based on ADS-B coverage requires GA to fit both ADS-B OUT and ADS-B IN and a sophisticated moving map display. More importantly, implementation of the information provided to collision avoidance in the region of an airfield requires that a GA VFR pilot monitor that moving map display in the circuit area – ie during take off, circuit and landing.

Because of the distraction caused, current TCAS procedures require that the TCAS warning be turned off when approaching the circuit area.

Experience in glider operations has identified excessive monitoring of GPS improved cockpit displays as a significant factor in a number of recent glider-to-glider midair collision accidents.

Current proposals for revised CTAF procedures at uncontrolled airfields rely on the proven practices used in the US which use an improved alert process which enhances, not replaces, see-and-avoid. These procedures encourage pilots to look outside the aircraft rather than concentrate on an alert from within the aircraft.

The suggestion that a GA VFR pilot should be encouraged to monitor a moving map display during take off, circuit and landing is of very great concern.

Application away from the region of an airfield will have no practical effect as the accident record and extensive analysis and modeling shows that there is no hazard in en route airspace. Estimates of number of aircraft in this airspace show that the maximum number in all of Classes E and G (ie outside existing radar coverage) is conservatively high at ca 300. Ask yourself the following. How much money would you spend to prevent a road collision if there were 300 cars outside the main centres of population? Then remember that cars move in two dimensions not three.

The claims of cheaply obtained improved safety are illusory.

Cost Benefit Analysis

The revised benefit/cost ratio (Table on p 8 of the report) shows that replacement of some SSR radar by ATS-B saves considerable capital investment for Airservices. These benefits to Airservices are highest for Project 1 (Scenario B in the ASTRA Report). These benefits to Airservices are halved in Project 2 (Scenario D in the ASTRA report).

The only significant benefit claimed by this corrected report now lies in the GA sector. The benefits accruing to the other sectors are minor.

(The nature of the errors in the report as first released do not engender confidence and suggest that the rush to decision on this project involves very significant risks which are not appropriate to such a decision. By way of example, the average flight time for a domestic flight was accidentally entered at 10 times the actual value. This error resulted in an inflated return to the larger airline sector. Several other instances of erroneously inflated numbers occurred. This is not to comment on the professionalism of those involved as this is not in doubt. However, it does indicate haste not appropriate to such a decision.)

These comments will firstly examine Project 2 – extension of ADS-B beyond current radar coverage and then some comments on Project 1. More details provided in Appendix B1


C COST BENEFIT of EXTENSION OF ADS-B BEYOND CURRENT RADAR COVERAGE – PROJECT 2

The ASTRA Report claims that the cost benefit analysis is conservative and underestimates the benefit/cost situation. This is untrue.

The benefit/cost outcome for Project 1 (Scenario B in the ASTRA report) is estimated conservatively but the benefit/cost outcome for Project 2 (Scenario D) and to a lesser extent for Scenario C (ASTRA Report) is overestimated thus exaggerating the benefit/cost outcome from the additional investment involved in Project 2. (see table below)

Benefits to GA

The assumed improved safety outcomes are quantified by predicted fatalities assumed saved by mandated ADS-B OUT.

These are summarised in the following table:

ADS-B to current radar coverage Extension of ADS-B beyond current radar coverage Assumed Fatalities
Saved in Project 2 Mandate ADS-B
Accident type Project 1
Scenario B Scenario C Project 2 Scenario D Require ADS-B out Require ADS-B in
Mid-air collision Not included Not included Included 0.8 pa Yes Yes
CFIT Not included 60% fitment Included 1.56 pa No No
SAR Not included Not included Included 1.05 pa No No
Nav Aid Rationalisation Partial Partial Complete No No

1. The revised cost benefit data reported, after removal of errors in the earlier report, shows that the remaining benefits claimed are confined to the GA sector. Benefits claimed for other sectors are marginal at best.

2. The benefits claimed for GA are all indirect and result from assumed improvements in safety.

a) The report assumes an 80% reduction in fatalities due to midair collision. However these collision occur exclusively in the region of airfields. Any effect of ADS-B on this accident type depends on fitment of ADS-B IN, a sophisticated moving map display and rely on an associated recommendation that GA VFR pilots monitor a moving map display during take off circuit and landing. These savings are at best exaggerated and more probably invalid.

b) Avoidance of CFIT accidents depends on a GPS moving map display and does not require ADS B OUT in other aircraft. This outcome will be achieved much more cost effectively simply by the take-up of accurate moving map displays and must be totally removed from this analysis.

c) 35% geographical coverage down to 5000’ is a ineffective means of assisting SAR times. Savings associated with the facilitation of SAR depends on ongoing monitoring of tracks by VFR pilots outside current radar coverage. This is not current practice within radar procedures. No ongoing cost of either manual or automatic monitoring VFR traffic outside of controlled airspace or in Class E is included. This outcome is better achieved using an emergency locator beacon.

The benefits were quantified by the number of fatalities avoided. The ASTRA Report calculated 3.41 pa for Project 2 (full geographic coverage or Scenario D in the ASTRA report) but are more likely zero to 0.4 pa as a result of mandated ADS B OUT – but only then provided this is accompanied with general fitment of ADS-B IN.

3. Rationalisation of, and hence saving from, Nav aids does not depend on an ADS-B OUT mandate. Aircraft dependant on Nav aids need fit C-145/146 TSO GNSS navigators not ADS-B OUT. GA does not need, and the ADS-B system does not depend on, fitment of ADS-B OUT to implement this change. Navigational outcomes are not relevant to the mandate of ADS-B.

4. If Airservices does monitor VFR traffic in Classes E or G then this will introduce a very real problem with duty of care and will introduce ongoing additional costs to Airservices including either or both surveillance costs and/or insurance costs.

Overall

Except for possible benefits from a reduction in midair collisions, the benefits claimed in the ASTRA Report for Project 2 (Scenario D) are not outcomes of mandating ADS-B.

The actual benefit from midair collisions would be more like zero to 0.4 fatalities pa. This outcome would be better addressed by improved application of NAS CTAF procedures and concentration on, and improved training of GA pilots in alerted see-and-avoid and appropriate use of radio.

Costs to GA

Firstly GA has no means of obtaining information for ADS-B unless GA also fit ADS-B IN.

The total cost to GA for Project 2 (Scenario D) is already $m 99 or $m38.6 more than Project 1 (Scenario B). This is for fitment of ADS-B OUT. The actual cost to GA of achieving the outcomes assumed in this report is likely to be more than twice that reported because these depend on full GA equipage with ADS-B IN and a sophisticated moving map display by 2020. The total cost will be something in excess of $m200. The actual additional cost for Project 2 (Scenario D) is then ca $m140.

Conclusion

Project 2 cannot be justified based on the figures reported in the ASTRA Report.


COST JUSTIFICATION OF REPLACEMENT OF RADAR WITH ADS-B – PROJECT 1

Overall, eventual replacement of some SSR radar by ADS-B seems justified for the service provider.

The change moves the major investment from the service provider to GA. The beneficiaries are Airservices and the airlines.

Unless this cost is picked up by Airservices, then this represents a very heavy subsidy of the big end of town by the small end of town which cannot be justified under any circumstances. To hold GA to ransom over this subsidy to achieve an immediate take up is iniquitous and unacceptable.

How ever or when ever this is introduced, equity demands that investment must be made by the service provider.

While the implementation of Scenario B is a matter for the big end of town the following comments seem relevant.

* This is a complete change to the core technology of the business of the service provider to a new and essentially untried technology.

* This change is made for a return which is reported as (only) 3-5% of the cost of en route services.

* This report does not include the normal due diligence for such a change appropriate to even a public company let alone a public utility, such as Airservices, with significant safety outcomes.

* Very significant financial and safety risks are associated with this change which are not addressed.

a) There is no operational experience with this technology and it would be prudent to assume that there will be some implementation problems.
b) Perhaps more importantly, it remains unclear just which of the ADS-B systems under trial will be adopted by the US and Europe. If Australia ends up with an Australia specific system, the cost of avionics in Australia will be high and further development will be limited. It seems likely that Australia would, eventually, have to at least consider a re-fit.

Added to these risks associated with Project 1 is the very considerable ‘duty of care’ risk associated with collection of data on aircraft movements based on a fitment of avionics mandated by CASA.

OVERALL

It is my contention that this investment should be delayed until there is international operational experience with the system and certainty regarding the ADS-B system implemented in the international market, even if this delay would result in significant additional investment to maintain the current system. Given that the NZ SSR radars are older than those in Australia, but otherwise identical, it does not seem that replacement at this time is essential and refurbishment, under the present circumstances, would be a cost effective way forward. If that was impossible then a quantitative financial risk assessment would need to be carried out. I doubt that this would leave much of the 3 – 5% return on the bottom line intact.

SECURITY ISSUES

If this risk management basis for decision is overridden by security issues then, especially given the very large distances between the site of operations and any significant population centre, it is essential that current exemptions from carriage of transponder for unpowered aircraft unable to power these devices (largely gliders – GFA and HGFA – and balloons), based on the absence of ‘an engine driven generator capable of continuously powering such a device’ must be retained and applied to ADS-B. The craft included in this category would be unable to reach a population centre without assistance of a powered craft.

Jabawocky
20th Aug 2007, 13:01
Do not have time for a legthy post now, but I do believe that there is a flly spec'd and will be available for deployment end 2008 if the go ahead is given, solution sub $10k and this is from the horses mouth for a change.

I also wonder if as I think LeadsSled made a point what will it add o new a/c. Well if for GA a/c the cost of a coneventional Mode C + Encoder kit was deducted (you would be buying that anyway) from the ADSB kit...it might ad say $4400 to your new a/c purchase. Or if they said they said you would still get the ADSB "upgrade subsidised" then you would only pay for the cost of mode C now. Ok some RAAA guys do not buy mode C now, but in my opinion they should now anyway, even if its not law.

Geeif we all had Mode C minimum and lots of Radar coverage, and all RPT (even low capacty) had TCAS, maybe none of this would be worth it. But ADSB is way cheaper than the alternative.

Its simple, and many other benefits can be spun off it for not much cost.

Ohh and for those of you who think big brother will be tracing your every Class G flight to invoice you, turn it to "private" mode or whatever it will be called, just like squawking 1200.......nobody will know.

Some of you are scared of ghosts.

J:ok:

Quokka
20th Aug 2007, 17:11
LeadSled.... ease back on the long posts, even if you're quoting a document. People won't read it. You repeated stuff several times. Insert a link to the document and deliver your perspective in short bites, that way it's clear and concise as to what you're trying to convey.

bushy
21st Aug 2007, 04:06
Our aviation radio system is already unreliable, because it is being used to gather information to collect landing fees. It is not meant for commercial information gathering.
Will ADSB be any different?

Scurvy.D.Dog
21st Aug 2007, 04:13
G'day Bushy,
.
If someone uses an airport ... does the owner of said airport have some entitlement to a fee?
.
That said, I think you know my view on that score anyway .. but I guess we are stuck with it :{
.
It is my understanding (perhaps incorrect) that ADS-B will have a 'PVT' or 'VFR' mode which I think is what you are getting at :ok:

bushy
21st Aug 2007, 04:51
Of course airports are entitled to a fee for what they provide.
But it is a gross misuse of the radio system to use it for gathering data for commercial moneygathering purposes. And it is not reliable now, either for collecting the money, or for it's real purpose- air safety.

Spodman
21st Aug 2007, 06:00
It is my understanding (perhaps incorrect) that ADS-B will have a 'PVT' or 'VFR' mode which I think is what you are getting at Bit tricky that Mr. Dog. They will be able to squawk VFR, but that just puts VFR (or something) on our (and presumably your) screens as the flight ID. Dick's terrorist-sponsored PC reciever (and our screens [but not yours] with SSR_ALL selected) will still display the 12 bit code so individual airframes can be identified.

Scurvy.D.Dog
21st Aug 2007, 07:43
.. assumes airport operators have access to the 12bit data decode... doubt it!
.
.. and our screens already have the SSR_ALL function :E

LeadSled
21st Aug 2007, 09:11
Quokka,
They are not my documents, and are not available on a web site. If you go back a few pages, your will see the request to post them, I would not presume to edit the documents of the President of ASAC.

If people don't want to take the trouble to read what are very important documents, in trying to make sense of the whole ADS-B imbroglio, what does that say about those who can't spend a few minutes.

The only comment I make on the documents is that they are accurate, and point out the serious errors in the JCP consultation papers, and much of the previous work by the same group.

Tootle pip!!

Scurvy.D.Dog
21st Aug 2007, 11:26
... am formulating a full response, however in the interim:-
.
Re: Risk asessment for the ADS-B proposal, I ask this:-
.
1. how do you quantify risk where data is not available OCTA outside the current veil?
.
2. what is the risk increase of fitment? .. is there in fact any?
.
3. if there is is a clear risk reduction, (as yet not fully quantifyable due variables in third party and or 'in' alerting) is a risk assessment required before hand given there is no negative?
.
4. If costs are contained (guaranteed, which they are not as yet) to neutral why is a full spectrum CBA for GA required beforehand?
.
5. If GNSS is provided to aircraft that do not currently have it, how is that quantifed in benefit, particualry if it provides the basis for TAWS and 'In' plug -in's?

Scurvy.D.Dog
21st Aug 2007, 13:42
Bushy
.
..Why is radio (monitoring) not a legitimate tool for that purpose? :ooh:

bushy
22nd Aug 2007, 02:12
Your question illustrates one of the major problems with our system.
I cannot believe that you would ask such a question.
When you use radio transmissions as a basis for charging landing fees this is going to cause some of the more unscrupulous to not make radio transmissions. It happens. It also often results in incorrect billing.
Radios are not there for that purpose, and anything that degrades the integrity or availability of information from radio transmissions should be eliminated.

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Aug 2007, 02:35
some of the more unscrupulous to not make radio transmissions ... sad reality I agree :(
.
what are the options though, airport employing another bod to run around writing down rego's? .... is that extra bod gunna up the landing fee's?
.
... it is silly that that sort of behaviour might generate the need to install recorders and advertise the fact .. or holding point cameras or such like .... it might be the only way to stop that sort of behaviour
.
Whats the solution?

Jabawocky
22nd Aug 2007, 02:35
Bushy, unfortunately you raise a very good point. And I think we have all had many sightings of silent a/c arriving at certain aerodromes.

The cheeky streak in me has made me wonder if using a B744 rego in say Toowoomba would get through to accounts department, but of course I would never get to see the result.

I have heard of one Toger Moth being at opposing ends of the country on the same day........Thats Impressive!!!

Seriously though, why is it we have so many smart ar$es out there doing this. Maybe you have some better and reasonably efficient way of billing landing fees that could be adopted.

J

Jabawocky
22nd Aug 2007, 02:40
Scurv, you beat me to it by seconds it seems.

Camera's at holding points, would breed the same weasils into applying faxke rego stickers, or cutting the grass and doing short takeoffs just to avoid the "flash for cash"

Maybe all airports should be funded from a central fund, and if say 1c per litre of fuel went into that fund, we could do away with all landing fees. This would still be user pays, just easier to collect.

J

Piston_Broke
22nd Aug 2007, 03:24
And I think we have all had many sightings of silent a/c arriving at certain aerodromes.Well, someone's pushing for UNICOMs everywhere, so if that happens, catching such stunts will be about the only selling point for AD OPRs: a pair of eagle eyes looking out.

And why not rewrite the rules and get CASA to make calls to the UNICOM mandatory, then they have to use their real call or get caught out after landing.

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Aug 2007, 03:50
G'day Jaba,
.
Yep that is the sensible option .. what do you reckon the chances are? :(
.
Piston
.
If things don't improve, that might well be the outcome .... at what cost though
.
Folks need to realise what saving a few bucks is gunna cost them in the end :ugh:

bushy
22nd Aug 2007, 05:12
So a cheap way of collecting landing fees is more important than the integrity of radio calls?

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Aug 2007, 05:42
Bushy :( where did I say that?

Jabawocky
22nd Aug 2007, 06:14
Bushy,
you said monitoring radio calls for billing purposes encourages rogues to do dodgy things. So I think we all agree that encouraging proper radio ettiquette would be a good thing, and to stop the radio being used as a collection device, we should explore other options. Camera's fuel levy.....either way I thought this would help with your gripes.

So did you like my idea? That way everybody pays!

Can any of it be changed..........Scurvy has already given the impression :(

J

ForkTailedDrKiller
22nd Aug 2007, 08:46
Jaba

I got charged a landing fee for YHUG, when I only carried out navaid work. If the useless b*stards had listened to the tape it would have been clear that I didn't land. Why should I have to stuff around to have it removed from the bill!

Dr :cool:

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Aug 2007, 10:56
:( .... some (possibly) not so promising info coming through on the wires!
.
.. does anyone know (for sure, no guesses) if C129a GNSS complies with the AC as far as acceptable 'equivalent' ???
.
.. also G1000 owners, can you have TCAD traffic inputs (module) retrofitted to a factory G1000 system?
.
Would appreciate firm answers on these Q's :uhoh:

Jabawocky
22nd Aug 2007, 11:12
Doc

So do you think my idea of a fuel levy going to a central fund for distribution to airfields and their upkeep would be a fairer way to raise revenue then?:hmm:

Seems you may have a good reason to back this theory too!

J

Sorry Scurvy for the thread drift, the rest of you continue on!;)

ForkTailedDrKiller
22nd Aug 2007, 11:45
Scurvy D

Why is it that someone who has already forked out for a TSO'd GNSS doesn't get a free-bee?

Should be the same rules for all.

The FTDK would look good with two GNSSs.

Dr :cool:

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Aug 2007, 12:20
.. funnily enough Dr ... you might just get your wish ;) .. if your existing is 129a .. then perhaps you might need 146a ... dunno??
.
.... have just been having a quick gork at NFRM0601AS
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airworthiness/download/nfrm0601as.pdf
.
and
.
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/DRAFTac021-045(00)_0703.pdf
.
.... I have only had a glance, I hope if you chaps and chapesses have some time free you can pour over these and determine if C129a is OK .. I will have a closer captain cook tomorrow.
.
Funnily, 129a was considered in the draft of NPRM0601AS earlier in the year .... I am not sure if it still is though :suspect:
.
.. comments ... please :ok:
.
I'm bangin' out ... quick change tomorrow :ouch:
.
nite

gaunty
22nd Aug 2007, 12:34
Scurvy mate, unless I'm mistaken the 7th cavalry is coming and they've got ADSB write large all over them. :eek:

werbil
22nd Aug 2007, 13:01
Happy for a fuel levy to pay for safety surveillance.:ok:

Jaba A fuel levy to pay for aerodrome maintenance is a :mad: idea - who decides who gets the money? 95% of my ops are off salt water or a private landing area - why should I pay for a facility I am not using?:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Bushy People not using the radio - provide CASA with time, place and rego - if they see the same aircraft appearing on a regular basis CASA should increase surveillance and take action - radio calls ARE mandatory for radio equiped aircraft even at straight CTAF's. If they're rogue on radio procedures for a couple of $$ they're going to have bigger skeletons in the closet of interest.

Re ADS-B - simply make it illegal to use for commercial or non safety purposes.

FTDK - remove the GPS out of the BO, install ADSB including the "free" GPS, send off the paperwork, put the old GPS back in - simple.

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Aug 2007, 20:37
gaunty ... werbil :ok:
.
... love that plan re the GNSS for the Dr :}

LeadSled
22nd Aug 2007, 23:04
Scurvy,

RE.129A the short answer is no. See the ATSO of ADS-B, not too hard to find on the CASA website.

The "alternative" refers to the integrated systems found in airline aircraft, generally an IRS/FMCS integrated box, where GPS (often MilSpec) is only one of the inputs to update the FMC present position. Not often found in a Jabiru.

Good on you Gaunty, ever willing to spend other peoples money, I see, in this case something like $200-250M, the real cost to GA over the life of the program.

Do your mates with TCAS understand they will get nothing more from other aircraft than if it was just transponder mode C equipped. The cobbled up gear RFDS is playing with costs far, far more than $15,000 --- and probably doesn't comply (until the GPS is updated to C145/146 -are King going to do that ?)with the ADS-B OUT ATSO.

Tootle pip!!

Jabawocky
23rd Aug 2007, 00:38
werbil I hear you. I did not think it would please all the people all of the time, but most of them most of the time instead. You have a good point, however I pay taxes for many a thing, service etc I will never need but some other poor sod might. I just figure we all take a less selfish approach and try to minimise the effect of those very selfish and unsafe operators that Bushy was referring to. Feel free to come up with a better idea. Then the trick is getting someone to impliment it!!!!

FTDK LeadSled I do believe you will not have a full on GNSS panel supplied FOC at all, rather a GPS engine only, stuck up under the dash like your current altitude encoder. Bit like this one......
http://file015b.bebo.com/4/large/2007/08/23/00/4525920200a5353775113l.jpg

generally an IRS/FMCS integrated box not often found in Jabs.....not ever as far as I know, but some of your old colleagues have included some pretty serious gear in some of theirs!:ok:

J:ok:

Scurvy.D.Dog
23rd Aug 2007, 01:56
TSO 129a GNSS
.
http://casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c36.pdf
.
RTCA, Inc. document, DO-208, titled "Minimum Operational Performance Standards For Airborne Supplemental Navigation Equipment using Global Positioning System (GPS)" is the internationally accepted industry standard for GNSS receivers from which the GNSS Technical Standard Order (TSO) 129 and 129a are derived.
.
RTCA, Inc. document, DO-229, titled "Minimum Operational Performance Standards For Global Positioning System/Wide Area Augmentation System Airborne Equipment", now at Rev C (DO-229C), is the internationally accepted industry standard for GNSS receivers from which the various GNSS TSO (145 and 146) are derived.
.
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/DRAFTac021-045(00)_0703.pdf
.
8.2 ADS-B Transmitter
8.2.1 The ADS-B transmitter needs to comply with the minimum performance standards detailed in RTCA Document DO-260A Para 2.2.
.
8.2.2 For ADS-B data to be universally usable it needs to be transmitted in the formats and characteristics defined in the following standards:
��ICAO Annex 10, Amendment 77;
��RTCA/DO-260; or
��RTCA/DO-260A.
.
8.2.3 To be useable for ATC surveillance in a “radar like” manner, ADS-B transmitters must transmit the following minimum data set:
��Position (in extended squitter surface position message and in extended squitter airborne position message);
��Position Integrity Information (e.g. NUC, NIC etc value transmitted in the “TYPE” code in extended squitter surface position message and in extended squitter airborne position message);
��Pressure Altitude (in extended squitter airborne position message, GNSS height may also be transmitted in this message when barometric altitude is not available);
��Identity (in extended squitter identity & category message); and
��Version Number, SIL and NACP in aircraft operational status message, if the avionics equipment is RTCA/DO-260A compliant.
.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/projects/adsb/icaomeeting/march_2004/IP17_ADS-B_Regulatory_Acitivity_in_Australia.pdf
.
ATSO-C1004 (interrogator specific) Note specification G2
.
ATSO-C1005 (no interrogation required) Note specification G1 (is there an exemption?)
.
Here is one that is certified TSO 129a and TSO145a
.
http://www.accord-products.com/papers/2004-ray.pdf
.
…and another (for regional FMS types)
.
http://waypnt.com/Documents/Papers/gnssa2.pdf
.
.
The question remains:-
.
... what impediment is their to treating TSO129a (GNSS) as an acceptable GNSS output into an ADS-B TXPDR that complies with ATSO-C1005??

werbil
23rd Aug 2007, 13:36
I stand corrected - after receiving a PM I checked and it appears that there is no legal obligation to make any broadcasts at a straight CTAF (except for straight in approaches, operations in reduced VMC, and parachute ops). The AIP uses the word "should" which is defined as "all users are encouraged to conform with the applicable procedure". :mad::(

However before you turn your radio off CAR1988 243 does require a continuous listening watch to be maintained on the appropriate frequency.

W

werbil
23rd Aug 2007, 13:54
Jaba,

1. Make it a legal requirement for calls to be made.
2. Make it illegal for CTAF calls to be used for charging purposes.
3. The owner of the airport will soon work out a way to recover landing charges, it may be more expensive but at least those that use the service pay for it.

W

Scurvy.D.Dog
23rd Aug 2007, 16:19
One of the great problems of the JCP and all previous iterations is the glossing over of vital technical details, in the hope that the great unwashed in aviationland won't notice what the Lord High Technopoobah is NOT saying.
… bwahahhah …. Technopoohbah …… :D Hey X was that for you or me or the dude at CASA that came up with this??? ….. perhaps he meant poohbah’s :E
.
-- be very clear that (even if available) ADS-B IN, from a transponder to a TCAS equipped aircraft does NOT give any more information than if the non-TCAS aircraft only had a Mode C transponder ---- no advantage from ADS-B out.
I think everyone gets that bit :rolleyes:
.
If (as has been suggested) a manufacturer produces an "ADS-B only" tx., a TCAS aircraft will see nothing
.. at the moment, how many times and in how many references does it need to be pointed out that TCAS ADS-B ‘IN’ standards are being finalised, and by the time (2009-12-14) ADS-B is being fitted to target aircraft, it will be being fitted to TCAS aircraft …. Which leads to your next point
.
"Somebody" going to have it all in the same box? As a Mode S transponder , C, with ADS-B in DF17/18 message slots, or just the ADS-B component without the Mode A/C/S ??
… the stuff that is coming out for GA does all ... does it not? … if not could you point out which and where … genuine question!
.
Given the $$$/availability of sourcing C145/146 is the major stumbling block, I will believe it when see it ---- C145/146 availability is not like C129A.
True, thus my question earlier, for the purposes of VFR (or 129a IFR non WAAS) GNSS input to an ADS TXPDR, are you saying it will not output GNSS data to an ADS-B box?
.
XXXXXXXX intended one box, not a Mode S transponder plus a Freeflight Inc. FFS 1201 as a separate box --- but is that how it turned out?
.. do you know, cause I don’t, and as X (who might well know :wink: ) seems to indicate it will??
.
One of the "features" of the CBA is to thoroughly confuse claimed benefits of ADS-B and the potential benefits of C145/146.
This claim worries me. My understanding is that C145/146 are for providing LPV vertical guidance to IFR.
.
C129a is still a TSO IFR nav (albeit not sole means) that still provides GPS in lieu of DME etc …. There is no confusion that I can see in so far as the ‘back-up’ navaids mentioned in the CBA, such as the not location sole means VOR’s and NDB’s does not reduce the utility to 129a existing installations. In other words the navaid reductions and the bolt in ADS-B out box should have no detrimental effect on 129a IFR and glass VFR, particularly if the box and its installation is covered by the funding. …. Is that a fair assessment of the 129a IFR/ VFR situation??
.
Thus my earlier question regarding existing 129a IFR and VFR compliance?
.
A large % of the benefits claimed in all the CBAs are nothing to do with ADS-B and everything to do with C145/146. XX. XXXX has made this very clear.
…. Hmmm and that’s the perplexing bit …. This cross industry funding proposal as I read it is to provide at least as good if not better (for those that already have a GNSS system) GNSS nav capability (perhaps including terrain) for free, to support the ADS-B out signal for CDTI (TCAS) equipped (particularly RPT) and ATS ... that is after all the system being replaced (Enroute MSSR) to fund the ADS-B system ….. Getting GNSS Nav is a benefit to the industry of the ADS-B requirement not the other way around!!
.
Not all C145/146 are created equal, the Freeflight Inc. FFS 1201 does not have the capabilities of the C145/146 in the Garmin 430W, 480 and 530W, and W is WAAS, and without WAAS, and WAAS enabled --- NO precision (LPV) vertical guidance and lower minima ---- Regional and Rural Australia left out in the cold, again.
…. There is the Nub …. WAAS is by no means a done deal in Oz, in fact from what I read of late, probably will not be the way many countries go (including Europe), irrespective, WAAS LPV was not the purpose of the subsidy was it? … the fact that 145/146 was preferred as I understand it (you can correct me if I am wrong your poohbahness) was more to do with the accuracy of the ranging etc than to provide LPV .. the fact that LPV is delivered to IFR where most do not have it now provides the platform for whichever augmentation system is eventually chosen … VFR and other IFR who do not want it or (have 129a glass that do not want or cannot afford that upgrade) will still have the ‘traffic’ benefit of ADS-B through 129a … which again brings us back to my question regarding 129a compliance
.
Once again, the mantra, there is considerable economic potential in the use of ADS-B for ATM purposes by airlines----- but it has nothing to do with "safety", and nothing to do with the needs (if, indeed there is any demonstrated need) of low level unpressurised aircraft.
…. that depends on whether the risk management expert commenting on behalf of the XXXX has considered some of (but not limited to) the following benefits:-
.
1. The accuracy of ADS-B out compared to existing mode A/C
2. The number of aircraft covered by ADS-B as opposed to the number currently equipped with a ‘serviceable’ mode A/C
3. The number of IFR aircraft that will have some form of CDTI by 2012-14
4. The number of VFR aircraft that will have some form of CDTI by 2012-14
5. The cost neutrality for VFR fitment (particularly if 129a is acceptable)
6. The cost neutrality for light IFR fitment (particularly if 129a is acceptable)
7. The cost effectiveness for IFR wishing to upgrade to 146a LPV ready
8. The cost savings to industry into the future from ADS-B vice MSSR
9. The safety enhancement of cost effective surveillance in areas where RPT operate
10. The add on technologies the baseline ADS-B system provides
.
And the unknowns;
.
1. VFR traffic densities and complexities in areas IFR operate OCTA outside radar coverage
2. VFR traffic densities and complexities in CTAF areas outside radar coverage
3. The number and disposition of IFR/VFR/VFR conflict pairs OCTA outside radar coverage
.
… vanishingly small risk no doubt …. but how small when there is no data on which to base that assumption? … against VFR/VFR/IFR enroute accidents in the US and elsewhere ….. it only takes two aircraft to form an aluminium welder! ….perhaps you might quantify the difference in risk say west of the ranges in OZ to the mid west enroute areas in the US for us? … hmmm ……
.
The absence of WAAS really does limit the use of LPV capable GPS, no lower minima than you get now, and no precision vertical guidance. So, about the only C145/146 advantage over c129A left., as far as I can see, is sole source navigation to, and an instrument approach at an alternate with no other aid (not possible with a C129A GPS).
…. See you knew all along that 145/6a was only gunna benefit IFR
.
Not a lot of interest to VFR.
… that’s the real issue isn’t it … it does not cost the average XXXXX VFR owner squat ….. what is the kick for the small number of IFR owners ... nil I would reckon???
.
So Airservices need "you" to spend lots of money so they can "save" lots of money
…. so AsA are gunna pay your members up to 10K VFR, 15K IFR to get a GNSS and ADS-B out (prolly ‘in’ by then as well) and will cost them virtually nothing .. so AsA can remove the enroute MSSR that industry are paying to maintain at a much larger premium than the ADS-B that will replace it, and in return for your free GNSS they are gunna remove ONLY the back-up VOR and NDB’s …… to save industry more money in maintance and replacement cost
.
… are you that jaded from years of confrontation that you cannot see anything positive in anything? …. It is trust isn’t it? …. I hear you on that score! :ooh:
.
As a quite senior and very enthusiastic AsA proponent of ADS-B was compelled to admit, to a group of us ---- "we need to force widespread adoption of ADS-B to force widespread adoption of C146/146 GPS so we can get on with pulling almost all the NDB(T) and all but a few terminal VOR/DME". But why does it have to be forced on VFR ?? It doesn't.
If it does not cost you anything, and you can use 129a .. why would you object? …. Even if it is a 145a engine and it cost you nothing why would you object? ….. if you cannot physically put a box in the aircraft or power it you are exempt ….. what’s the issue?
.
A fundamental of proper cost/benefit principles is to compare the costs to whoever is the subject of increased cost,
… exactly, who is subject to increased cost?
.
versus the benefits that accrues to those who directly bear the cost.
I say again, what negatives (or non-benefits) are there?
.
Throughout this who exercise there has been an almost complete disconnect between who incurs the costs and who reaps the benefits .
.. yer dam’d right about that, and it seems pretty obvious where the disconnect is!
.
What's going on here, to me, is more like taxation, I get to pay, somebody else gets the benefits.
That’s Camel fertiliser and you surely must know it!
.
Increased costs for some "national benefit" also sounds like taxation to me.
.. I say again, where are the increased costs?
.
On a peripherally related subject, now that Melbourne is going to get a Cat 111 ILS, (can Sydney be far behind) what does this say about GBAS as the answer to a maiden's (or a Virgin's ) prayer.
… at a guess .....in the average year there might be 4-7 mornings during winter when diversions are needed …. Many aircraft, much money, much irate passengers, much screwed up hull and crew networks …. How much do ya reckon that is worth each year?
.
.. now work out how long it will be for 00 RNP type approaches to be certified on each hull on each crew ( you know the requirements, FMS, HUD, training blah blah) … how long do ya reckon ?????
.
.. do you know what’s involved in upgrading a Cat I to a CAT III ….. ???
.
I’ll let you sleep on that one!
.
Nite happy

werbil
24th Aug 2007, 00:01
-- be very clear that (even if available) ADS-B IN, from a transponder to a TCAS equipped aircraft does NOT give any more information than if the non-TCAS aircraft only had a Mode C transponder ---- no advantage from ADS-B out.
WRONG - It gives accurate position and vector information - with further development of ACAS it will allow RAs to command lateral as well as vertical avoiding action.

I do believe you will not have a full on GNSS panel supplied FOC at all, rather a GPS engine only, stuck up under the dash like your current altitude encoder.

FROM the JCP


Provision of ADS-B OUT capability, including installation, is expected to cost less than $10,000 for a typical GA VFR aircraft. Provision of ADS-B OUT and ‘solemeans’ GNSS navigation, including installation, is expected to cost less than $15,000 for a typical GA IFR aircraft. Obviously costs will vary with the individual choice of avionics and complexity of installation in the particular aircraft, as will the value to the owner of replacing existing avionics made redundant by the new equipment.
and
A voucher with a maximum value of $15,000 would be issued for IFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics and TSO-C146 GNSS navigation equipment. IFR status will be determined from the aircraft’s latest maintenance release.

A voucher with a maximum value of $10,000 would be issued for VFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics driven by a TSO-C145 GNSS engine.


So any aircraft with IFR ticked on the MR gets a full on C146 "GNSS panel". VFR aircraft get the box.

Providing it is cost neutral, what is the issue for aircraft below 5700kg MTOW? This seems to be an excellent opportunity to have the maximum benefits of ADS-B enabled with a comprehensive installation of ADS-B OUT equipment at no cost to the little guy.

W

PS Many, many years ago I lived in a little country town which installation of sewerage system was likely. The council wanted to explore low cost alternatives using government grants, however there was huge opposition by the residents of the town and the idea was abandoned. A couple of years later a sewage system was installed without the benefit of the grant. As an aviation community are we going to have this small town mentality and end up shooting ourselves in both feet?

Jabawocky
24th Aug 2007, 00:48
werbil

Thanks for your usefull post, and.......
As an aviation community are we going to have this small town mentality and end up shooting ourselves in both feet? :D:D:D

J

gaunty
24th Aug 2007, 12:05
**** off Leadsled, I'm seeing your $200-250M and raising you another $200-250M that ADSB and associated technology is not only now globally ubiquitous but is the way of the future.

If you care to poke your head out from under your rock you may be surprised to learn that despite your harumphings, life goes on without you and, this is the worst part, nobody really cares what you may think.

I'm sure you'll manage to construct some cutting retort which will play to your self confessed fellow cognoscente but hey as they say "talk to the hand".:mad::mad:

LeadSled
24th Aug 2007, 15:22
Werbil,

WRONG - It gives accurate position and vector information

No question that, in theory, an ADS-B position could/should be more accurate, but see the relevant RTCA doc.,it doesn't work out that way, hence the total disinterest of Boeing/Airbus and their customers ---- the TCAS II will perform exactly the same, with or without ADS-B IN, provided "the other aircraft" has a Mode C transponder or TCAS (ACAS if you prefer).

The Joker in the pack is that several putative manufacturers are proposing a "cheap" solution,(you can only have one transponder alive at a time on an aircraft) that would not be a full transponder Mode S with ADS-B out, but just the "ADS-B" component.

I am advised (French for a bloody good authority) that this would not trigger any reaction from a TCAS aircraft -- dumb or what.

As to prices, NOBODY has come up with an ATSO compliant set of boxes yet, less than about double the (proposed only, Gov./AsA/ those who will foot the bill have not agreed) "IFR" subsidy.

Gaunty,
M'old darlin', bitchy and bitter as ever, I see.

Why don't you do something useful, and ask the RFDS across your back fence the total cost of the three Bendix/King boxes (GPS/Mode S TXPD/Display)they are playing with, which, at the end of the day, does NOT meet the ADS-B TSO, the GPS is only C129A. Tell us if it all fits within AUD$15,000 including installation ---- for the information of whoever reads this thread.

Thread drift ---Gaunty, I see that your Yarpie's are back for another go, I wonder what Vaile will say this time. Martin Ferguson is making far more sense on the subject, to the surprise of quite a few.
Tootle pip!

Biggles_in_Oz
25th Aug 2007, 04:07
Page B7 of the JCP acknowledges that it's going to be a logistics problem to do 7000 installations in 4 years, but I'm not keen on having skilled people recruited from outside the aviation industry doing any installation.

My experience is that unrelated items stop working properly whenever any work is done behind the instrument panel. :(
Personally, I can't see it taking less than 3 days to do an install and then a mini 100-hourly recheck, (assuming that nothing major goes wrong).
yes..., it'll certainly represent a challenging task for the available LAMEs :hmm:

Biggles_in_Oz
25th Aug 2007, 04:23
werbil
Providing it is cost neutral, what is the issue for aircraft below 5700kg MTOW? This seems to be an excellent opportunity to have the maximum benefits of ADS-B enabled with a comprehensive installation of ADS-B OUT equipment at no cost to the little guy.
I no longer see any nett benefits. I wanna change my poll vote from 3 to 1

If I'm at around 8000' and more than 100nm from one of the 39 ground stations, then ATC can't see me and can't pass me any traffic. = status quo.
If the subsidy won't cover ADSB-IN, then I can't get my own traffic info. = status quo.

werbil
25th Aug 2007, 10:44
Biggles_in_Oz

You will be able to get your own traffic info if either you or your company decides ADS-B IN is a good investment. :ok: But it would be pointless without widespread fitment of ADS-B OUT.:ugh:Cost ????

If your aircraft is IFR and below 5700kg MTOW you WILL get a TSO C146 GNSS.:ok: Cost $0 (if you believe the JCP).

If your aircraft is VFR and below 5700kg you don't get any real benefit but being able to fly in C, E, above A050 and in CTAF(R)'s. :oh: Cost $0 (if you believe the JCP).

Foreign airlines that hold an Australian AOC (ie any that fly into Australia) will be required to have ADS-B OUT fitted to aircraft and will have to pay for it themselves. Cost ???.

By the JCP it appears that the US will require ADS-B carriage in the future too.

Out of interest does anyone know if any other countries are planning to cross subsidize fitment of ADS-B equipment?

LeadSled
26th Aug 2007, 00:18
Werbil

Out of interest does anyone know if any other countries are planning to cross subsidize fitment of ADS-B equipment?

The short answer is NIL, because no other country is planning to force low level IFR and particularly VFR to to have "mandatory" ADS-B.

Just because any airline operating to Australia has to have a Part 129 AOC, does not give Australia the power to enforce unique Australian rules onto foreign operators. Be very clear about that little detail.

Don't bank on ICAO SARPs requiring ADS-B any time soon. Don't forget Eurocontrol has only just "mandated" Mode S for IFR high level in western ECAC countries -----and there is a significant installed base of VDL-4 ADS-B (not 1090ES) in northern Europe.

The only new "mandate" in USA/ECAC is for VDL-2 communications to replace ACARS ---- VDL-4 does that very nicely ---- VDL-4 ADS-B is the VDL-2 datalink plus the ADS-B function. As VDL-2 will become the standard "airline" datalink to replace ACARS ---- makes the 1090ES a dumb choice ---- as has been said in previous posts.

Everybody should clearly understand -----
The equipment costs and hence, subsidies in the JCP (just carried over from previous "studies") WAS NEVER BASED ON ACTUAL EQUIPMENT, and ----
just dreamt up by those selling the idea, aided and abetted by some disastrously low estimates from "potential" ( ie: not existing ADS-B)manufacturers, and -----
The "subsidy" is not "cost neutral" for GA, and ONLY covers existing aircraft, and ---
After 2013 any new aircraft will carry the full whack of the price of ADS-B.

ADS-B should be an economic decision, for AsA if they can make a buck selling the service "improvements", and operators who think they can benefit from availing themselves of the improved services.

The core of the whole issue for GA is: There is NO SAFETY CASE to demonstrated a problem, to which mandatory ADS-B is the answer, let alone the cost/benefit justified answer.

There is a great lack of logic in all this: All the mid-airs in Australia ( and almost all in the US) happen below 5000 AGL, except in rare cases, below 2000' AGL. The records speak for themselves. We know (ask for the AsA studies) the collision risk above 5000 is vanishingly small (see AS/NZ4360.2004 for a definition), a statistical zero, and an even smaller "statistical zero" above 10,000 (see AsA Class C v. E studies above 10,000). "Mandatory" radio above 5,000 feet is a remnant of pre-AMATS days.

In Australian aviation, we are demonstrably no good at rational risk management, but much prefer what are irrational and emotional arguments about "safety", all the while ignoring rational analysis of where the "safety" problems actually exist --- to find out where that is, look at the ATSB records ---it is not in mid-air collisions.

Take all the rose coloured glasses off, and go back and very carefully re-read the posts of Dr. Hall's documents.

Tootle pip!!

gaunty
26th Aug 2007, 03:25
Right ......well I guess that's it then.:D:D:D How stupid of us all, RFDS and Airservices included.:rolleyes:

So how about getting your little mate to join you in enjoining mandatory TCAS in every GA charter aircraft regardless of seat numbers and mandatory transponders in everything that is airborne. I certainly don't speak for the RFDS, but in a recent convo with them about getting the Perth operators to join those realy dumb trials, we agreed that at the end of the day whilst we would much rather have an accurate altitude encoding from the traffic, that is secondary to being able to "see" him and/or an ADSB out would improve the accuracy on the TCAS outa sight. At least you know there is "something" out there.

But hey it's clear there is only one answer, so we should just stop wasting our time and get on with it.

And/or be prepared to personally console the bereaved when the otherwise inevitable coming together of a GA charter and a terry toweller flying responsibly without unecessary costs.:ugh::ugh:

The yarpies, well it took some know nothings about 6 months to get a letter out of Vaile which should and did send shockwaves through the airport/real estate developers. You only need to be a student of Tom Sharpe to know how to play em. No they will not give up, the prize is too big, at least until the definition of "fit and proper" for owndership is more clearly defined. It would have been nice if there had been some attribution to the JACC from a certain association who all but claimed the success for themselves.:mad:

Scurvy.D.Dog
26th Aug 2007, 04:03
… yes you are probably right Lead!
.
... its all just a conspiracy by the major manufacturers like AB and Boeing, and the service providers like AsA, CASA, DoTaRS, the EU (who have a non subsidised mandate coming), the FAA, CAA, Korea, Russia, Italy …. Oh gosh yeh …. ICAO member states!
.
Here's a riddle:-
.
- VD4 and 1090ES .. which is dearer? .. and
- What do you care about VDL2 Sig as far as GA goes?
.
Are you saying the JCP costing/s are wrong? if so spell it out
.
Do you know what ADS-B units will be available and what they will cost to GA? … does Hall?
.
What do you want? .. an absolute price guarantee? …. an absolute 100% subsidy guarantee? .. no end limit to the subsidy? ... what do you reckon that will do to the price per unit??
.
…… it’s a wedge not worth playing IMHO if that’s the game!
.
… beyond 2013, maybe? …. OCTA
.
… an open ended new aircraft subsidy is as silly as saying the Gov’t should be paying for radio or a mode C since they were invented! We know (ask for the AsA studies) the collision risk above 5000 is vanishingly small (see AS/NZ4360.2004 for a definition), Perhaps you might enlighten us to whether Hall prescribes to the sort risk process considerations as articulated by the NTC (comparative doctrine)?
.
The NTC is compliant with AS/NZ4360.2004 (note in particular the references at the end of the document):-
.
http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/NationalGuidelineSFAIRPMar07.pdf
.
If so (given he has an interest in a particular outcome), how does he quantify consequence/s in his determinations on this subject to arrive at:- a statistical zero .. oh were it so :hmm:
.
…. and the consequence/s? , and an even smaller "statistical zero" above 10,000 (see AsA Class C v. E studies above 10,000). "Mandatory" radio above 5,000 feet is a remnant of pre-AMATS days. … lots of statistical zero’s there :rolleyes:
.
Does Hall believe the same to be the case with regard to the carriage of VHF radio and existing A/C TXPDRS? :suspect:
.
….. you know what I am getting at in regard to the Part 103 (RA-Aus etc) draft open for consultation at the moment
.
.. in practical terms it states (for G, CTAF and E airspace):-
.
If a part 103 aircraft is capable of powering a radio and/or a TXPDR, that if it is serviceable, it MUST be used (with no time limitation for corrective action I might add)!
.
… It does not say:-
.
If capable of powering a VHF and/or TXPDR it MUST be serviceable and it MUST be used (which applies to other aircraft)!
.
Perhaps the ADS-B debate is co-related, perhaps you might ask Hall for us!
.
In Australian aviation, we are demonstrably no good at rational risk management, but much prefer what are irrational and emotional arguments about "safety", …a vanishingly small statement!all the while ignoring rational analysis of where the "safety" problems actually exist ---… oh I get it ... bit like AusNAS 2B and 2C .... that’s why we had to change airspace with AusNAS including CTAF procedures then?
.
hmmm … vanishingly small! to find out where that is, look at the ATSB records ---it is not in mid-air collisions. … noooooooooo ….. but the difference between airprox and mid-air is a tally-ho paper and luck! ... I take that Christmas Eve 2003 was just an aberration not worthy of consideration because a mode C and TCAS saved the day (in the last nanosecond!) ….. a vanishingly small emotive argument no doubt for those without accurate mode C or a TCAS!
.
If what is proposed is not to your liking, write and explain to them why, explain what you would like to make it acceptable! ..... to say no under any circumstance would have little credible basis in fact …. IMHO … of course!
.
Take all the rose coloured glasses off, and go back and very carefully re-read the posts of Dr. Hall's documents. ... sage advice, given that he is the President of the ASAC ....
.
Its been fun .. good luck! :ok:

LeadSled
26th Aug 2007, 04:22
Gaunty,
M'oold darlin',
Take up your complaints about AOPA claiming credit with the particular Canberra based V-P who made the statements. I, for one, am big enough to recognise the effective role you played for JACC.

As to the rest, for the benefit of this thread, why don't you quote the prices I asked you to get, the cost of the stuff RFDS is using for "trials", and if the GPS IS C-145 or C-146 certified,(I have claimed it is not, here's an opportunity to publicly prove me wrong) how about details of how long such a new version of an old GPS has been available, or would that puncture an emotional balloon.

You know a group of us were flying a prototype ADS-B collision avoidance system here in the east, 6-7 years ago, the GPS engines were 12 Ch. Rockwell, but only C129A. The project was abandoned when the difficulties with obtaining C145/146, and licenses for certain patents became obvious ----and nothing has changed since that time -----same people making the only receivers, same people hold the patents very tight, you can work the rest out.

-mandatory TCAS in every GA charter aircraft regardless of seat numbers and mandatory transponders-

For the same reason I don't support mandatory ADS-B ---- There is no cost/benefit justified safety case to support such an edict. Having said that, have a look at the ICAO requirements for TCAS/ACAS v. Australia.

an ADSB out would improve the accuracy on the TCAS outa
sight.

See previous posts, theoretically the position would be more accurate, but it is of no practical effect ---- as you would know if you knew anything about TCAS and the coverage volumes, and what triggers a TA and an RA. Hence the few manufacturers of TCAS/ACAS have no plans to avail themselves of the existing RTCA standard --- which is available now.

Love from the East

Tootle pip!!

PS: You should get into the claims that Bankstown is still the busiest Secondary, the real movement rate is not within a bull's roar of Jandakot.

LeadSled
26th Aug 2007, 05:46
Scurvy,
Where do I start ---- so let's stick with facts ---- You're right about VDL-2--- of no interest to GA, but please go back to the history of the ICAO "competition" for a modern broadband datalink, UAT v. VDL-4 ---- and the latecomer --- 1090ES, so now a large number of aircraft are going to need "almost" VDL-4, as well as 1090ES, a very expensive doubling up.

Retrofitting 1090ES to any "glass cockpit" that did not come factory fitted, is measured in $$MM, given the SAS experience of equipping MD80 with VDL-4, the answer is "moderate", in the order of $250,000 per AC. Sorry, I don't have the issue of AWST to give you precise references.

We all owe you a vote of thanks for the National Transport Commission consultation draft, a careful study will help everybody understand the serious shortcomings in the JCP (and its preceding) documents.
Perhaps you should all look at Jones v. Bartlett [2000] HCA 56 and the words of Chief Justice Gleeson at 23, for an HCA definition of safety, somewhat different (and far more recent and supported) than that preferred by Civilair.

From the NTA Consultation draft:

These duties of care do not require safety at any cost. Duties to ‘ensure’ are qualified by the statement ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ (SFAIRP). The SFAIRP qualification is either included in the formulation of the obligation (the wording of the duty itself), or is indicated in the primary Act as an acceptable defence to a prosecution under the Act.

Irrespective of the means by which the qualification is added, the effect is still the same:the level of safety the duty holder must provide hinges on what is ‘reasonably practicable’ given the situation and context.

SFAIRP is a legislative qualification that is well known to the law and found in a number of statutes both in Australia and overseas. In essence, it requires weighing the risk against the resources needed to eliminate or reduce the risk.
It does not require every possible measure to be implemented to eliminate or reduce risk, but it places the onus on the person holding the duty to demonstrate (or be in a position to demonstrate) that the cost of additional measures to control the risk (over and above those risk controls already in place) would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit of the risk reduction associated with the implementation of the additional risk control.


Note the reference to cost/benefit, having actually established the risk. When there is NO demonstrated risk (no safety case), that is not already covered by existing equipment and procedures, how do you justify the cost.

Asserting a hazard/risk does not make it so.

From the NTC:p13.

Step 1: Risk Identification This step is the essential starting point for satisfying your duty of care. You need to establish what risks are present
in respect to your proposed railway operations. Many risks are well known and can be immediately tackled by equally well established ways of eliminating or reducing them.
Other risks are not well known and may require some foresight and careful consideration.

This essential VERY FIRST STEP is missing from the totality of the ASTRA docs. through to the JCP re-hash. Asserting a hazard/risk does not make it so.

There is no Safety Case, and no proper Cost/Benefit analysis to justify the "mandate" of ADS-B at any level. At all times it has been and is an attempt to justify a pre-determined outcome, otherwise there would be no need to offer what look awfully close to bribes to GA, to go along with the charade.

You should also plough through the OBPR Handbook.http://www.obpr.gov.au/bestpractice/index.html

In putting up the reference to the NTC paper, you have helped reinforce the case Dr. Hall has made. Sadly, in my opinion, you have made a serious error in attacking Dr. Hall's analysis on the basis he is (amongst other things) the President of ASAC. In my opinion you are challenging his personal and professional integrity.

I choose to describe "vanishingly small" as a "statistical zero", because that is exactly what it is, a risk so small as to be negligible and can be disregarded. In risk management terms a risk can never be a mathematical zero.

The AsA risk analysis of E v.C above 10,000' was a good example of a properly conducted safety case, and the result showed a "vanishingly small" collision risk in this airspace volume, both with C and E.

The NAS 2b windback was at the other end of the scale, go read the report (commissioned by CASA) by Prof. Terry O'Neil, of ANU.

In the case of ADS-B, the safety case and proper CBA are neither good nor bad, they simply don't exist.

IF THE CASE FOR ADS-B MANDATE IS SO STRONG, WHY ARE THE PROPONENTS SO KEEN TO ENSURE THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STANDARD ANALYSIS for regulatory development.

As for cost of equipment, pray tell what is wrong with quoting what is actually available now (which I have done) then it is over to you to explain the logic of why a manufacturer would reduce his prices when there is a captive market, or how an unknown new manufacturer is going to come up with a magic answer.

The ONLY feasible way to have ADS-B at anything like the proposed (subsidy) prices is if only C129A GPS is used, the ATSO precludes that.

Tootle Pip!!
















Tootle Pip!!

Scurvy.D.Dog
26th Aug 2007, 09:44
… like a shark to blood
.
…. Did you look for hooks before devouring … more on that laterScurvy,
Where do I start ---- so let's stick with facts ---- You're right about VDL-2--- of no interest to GA, but please go back to the history of the ICAO "competition" for a modern broadband datalink, UAT v. VDL-4 ---- and the latecomer --- 1090ES, so now a large number of aircraft are going to need "almost" VDL-4, as well as 1090ES, a very expensive doubling up. …. Which international aircraft are they Lead? because the only aircraft possibly affected are Int’l but they will have 1090ES won’t they …. So no issue … and if (lets assume for argument sake ALL GA Oz aircraft have 1090ES) …. they can operate OS (should the unlikely need arise) just like their commercial kero burning cousins! Irrespective of VDL-4Retrofitting 1090ES to any "glass cockpit" that did not come factory fitted, is measured in $$MM, given the SAS experience of equipping MD80 with VDL-4, the answer is "moderate", in the order of $250,000 per AC. Sorry, I don't have the issue of AWST to give you precise references. …. So why don’t Boeing AB et al (through IATA) see it as an issue??? .. that’s because it is not …. I come back to previous comments re Honeywell …. Do you seriously suggest Honeywell have not been in the loop on this as with all the other large manufacturers?We all owe you a vote of thanks for the National Transport Commission consultation draft, a careful study will help everybody understand the serious shortcomings in the JCP (and its preceding) documents. .. thanks ol’ mate, happy to assist
.
….. shall I balance your enthusiastic, selective quotes with the salient point of posting the NTC paper! …. It is quite simple, I have said it before … ye ready…
.
… now that you have read it with gusto, I ask you now to reread the entire document, and post back to us how the proponents of this JCP could undertake a Risk assessment when:-
.
1. Quantitative and qualitative data on which to base a risk assessment of OCTA and/or outside current surveillance areas, is not possible as there is no VFR data on which to make a risk assessment! And;
2. The proposal seeks to increase the number and accuracy of the devices used to mitigate collision risk OCTA and/or Surveillance areas i.e. no risk increase! And;
3. The proposal has separated the GA sector from that of RPT and Military airspace users, and therefore any attempt to infer effects on those sectors is irrelevant! And;
4. The costs are intended (based on consultative estimates) to be zero for GA VFR and IFR. In that regard, in the context there is no requirement for a CBA specific to a cost impost on GA V’s a Benefit … in other words it is a mute point (in may well be included in the ATS and RPT CBA Risk assessments) .. one assumes they are separate!
5. If ADS-B ‘in’ is received by some or all of the GA recipients (whether paid for by the voucher or separately), then there is a demonstrable cost AND safety benefit (on this point we agree)
.
.. some relevant quotes form the NTC paper regarding the above
9.2 Quantitative Risk Analysis
.
Dealing with Uncertainty in QRA
.
To be effective, QRA requires a good safety performance measuring system to provide data that will support the process. Without this, QRA can be little more than a series of well intentioned estimates that may add little more than less intensive techniques can offer.
Proxy data from other sources (eg comparable rail authorities) can be used, but only on the basis that differences between the rail authorities can be adjusted for appropriately in the risk estimates. In some cases, differences between rail authorities will make comparative data not usable at all.
The quality of the analysis depends on the accuracy and completeness of the data sources for the numerical values and the validity of the models used.
The uncertainty and variability of both consequences and likelihoods should be
considered in the analysis and recorded.
Since some of the estimates in QRA are imprecise, a sensitivity analysis should be carried out to test the effect of uncertainty on anticipated outcomes.
.
9.3 Fault Tree Analysis
.
The weaknesses of FTA are:
• they can be very time consuming to construct;
• there may be errors if branches (paths) are missed;
• substantial experience is needed;
• there is an assumption of the binary nature of failures; and
• they are a snapshot in time and need constant updating in dynamic or evolving systems.
.
9.4 Event Tree Analysis
The weaknesses of Event Trees are:
• they assume events are independent and conditional only on the precursor event;
• each node within the Event Tree doubles the number of outcomes (binary logic) and increases the complexity of frequency; and
• there is a practical limit to the how many headings that can be presented (usually 8 to 10).
.
How can the real risk (particularly OCTA) be quantified without any data that suggests that the risk is tolerable?10. RISK IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
.
10.1 Valuing Improvements in Risk
This section of the Guideline provides guidance with respect to the proposal and assessment of risk reduction projects. It is important in the first instance to gain an understanding of how to convert safety benefits and dis-benefits to monetary terms as a sanity check against project and program costs
.
The concept of VFP (Value for Preventing a Fatality)
.
When undertaking comparisons between costs and benefits as part of the determination of what is reasonably practicable, it is necessary to convert the safety benefits (the reduction in risk measures in fatalities, injuries or dollars avoided) to a monetary value (dollars).
Generally, this is done using a standard conversion factor. This factor is the “Value for Preventing a Fatality” (VPF).
The VPF is an economic conversion factor which includes more than the direct financial costs avoided. The VPF factor can be applied to equivalent fatalities in order to take injury costs into consideration. Its value is in comparing investment in risk reduction with value obtained in a common currency.
.
The above calculation is based on the residual risk of the duty holder as seen in the SMS.
The SMS includes a large number of controls which need to be maintained and (in the case of infrastructure and fleet) replaced periodically to maintain residual risk at existing levels. It is relevant to look at the “inherent risk” seen in the Principal Risk Register to make a judgement on the value of these existing controls from a safety perspective. In the case of the fictitious Metro duty holder referred to above, by not maintaining existing controls, Equivalent Fatalities could rise to 100 annually (much higher figures are seen commonly on third world railways under similar circumstances). The VPF for avoiding
such a decline would exceed $120M annually. This figure is in addition to that invested in improved safety measures.
For most practical duty holders, the cost of maintaining existing controls is much less than that figure. Procedures should be in place to maintain the effectiveness of existing controls on a “no less safe” basis without necessary reference to a cost/benefit analysis.
.
Staging options and their implications
.
Where a safety improvement opportunity has been identified, a number of staging options generally exist for its implementation. The cost of implementation will often vary greatly depending on the staging option chosen.
.
Typical staging options are
.
• Require the improvement to be adhered to for all future works as well as implementing a rework project to modify all existing locations (this model was adopted when changes to signal bonding practices at points were introduced). This method is generally highest cost but introduces the change most quickly.
.
• Require the improvement to be adhered to for all future works as well as implementing an annual works program to modify all existing locations in priority order over a number of years (this model was adopted when introducing new technology LED signals to replace incandescent types). This method enables most efficient use of annual works funding (since locations are prioritised according to risk), but implementation period is longer.
.
• Require the improvement for new projects only. This option is lowest cost. For some types of changes it may be close to cost free. However implementation will be according to the signal renewals program and may be on a cycle of 50 years or more.
.
Where the cost/ benefit analysis is strongly positive, one of the first two options should be chosen. .. now to the other waffle …. the words of Chief Justice Gleeson at 23, for an HCA definition of safety, somewhat different (and far more recent and supported) than that preferred by Civilair. …. Errm where does civilair come into this??? In putting up the reference to the NTC paper, you have helped reinforce the case Dr. Hall has made. … quite the opposite, but you took the lure like a trout Sadly, in my opinion, you have made a serious error in attacking Dr. Hall's analysis on the basis he is (amongst other things) the President of ASAC. …. So you are admitting Hall is against this proposal for the reasons you cited earlier ? In my opinion you are challenging his personal and professional integrity. … your opinion is erroneous in so far as I mearly point out a reality … regarding the efficacy of a Risk assessment that cannot be undertaken (without data) and therefore cannot be accurate. God help some poor bastard trying to extrapolate an unnecessary RA from data he/she does not have, only to have you lot rip it/them to shreds …. Aren't you suggesting (through Halls quotes) that ASAC is calling for a process that is not possible nor IMHO warranted ….
.
… I have been managing aviation risk as part of my occupation for 17 years, you refer to me and others as all sorts of ridiculous things .. am I offended .. no ….. offence is only taken when the barb is delivered by someone with credibility and probity!In the case of ADS-B, the safety case and proper CBA are neither good nor bad, they simply don't exist. .. given what we know (JCP), the safety case is irrelevant (no negative), and the CBA is based on consultation with groups that Hall would likely not have discussed the issues/amounts with .. please do not be offended that I would believe the Access Eco CBA over HallIF THE CASE FOR ADS-B MANDATE IS SO STRONG, WHY ARE THE PROPONENTS SO KEEN TO ENSURE THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STANDARD ANALYSIS for regulatory development. …. What were you saying earlier about rose coloured glasses …. Keen no … obvious yes!As for cost of equipment, pray tell what is wrong with quoting what is actually available now (which I have done) … no, your old numbers were blown outa the water! then it is over to you to explain the logic of why a manufacturer would reduce his prices when there is a captive market, .. its called international competition … you and Dick should know all about that … or is that only when it suits the argument? or how an unknown new manufacturer is going to come up with a magic answer. .. I am sure Microair (as just one manufacturer ) would take exception to that!The ONLY feasible way to have ADS-B at anything like the proposed (subsidy) prices is if only C129A GPS is used, the ATSO precludes that. ….. yawn … yes OK Lead
.
Nighty nite then Happy!

Quokka
27th Aug 2007, 20:32
Leadsled, ditch the Civilair conspiracy theory, this is industry driven, not Union driven.

I live on the other side of the planet and I have absolutely nothing to gain financially from supporting the proposed introduction of ADS-B in Australia. But, after two decades of aviation, from both sides of the fence, having seen the limitations of TCAS, see-and-avoid, and old RADAR technology, I am supporting this for one reason alone... it will save lives. Maybe not your life by sheer probability, but it will save other peoples lives. And they will never know it, and neither will you. But I've come to the conclusion that you don't give a :mad: about anyone else's life.

Accept this from someone who understands the problem very very well, because I see it every working day of my life. I don't work for Airservices. I don't work for CASA. I don't work for the ATSB. I'm not a member of Civilair.

It is necessary and it will save lives.

SM4 Pirate
28th Aug 2007, 07:59
Leadsled et al,

This isn't about all about cheaper service that just may be safer (cost outlay now, savings later).

Take the WA area's mine sites; morning and arvo push is just damn dangerous at times; aircraft kept below preferred cruising and pushed below descent profiles, sprayed with traffic OCTA, within an outside the CTAF(R)s. There is no radar coverage outside 160NM Perth down in the weeds and the high level coverage is extremely limited in it's application due to all those nasty procedural standards that must be used before the blip drops off; not after; not to mention the issues with the blips yet to appear on radar inbound.

A trial done in NAS days (about 2 years ago); 'faked' radar coverage over the goldfields. The sectors that normally split into "5 busy consoles" were able to handled on one console with very little effort; the difference between radar and procedural separation and not having to prove all those standards and take all those reports.

If ADS-B fittment can achieve similar "like coverage" without the expense of installing 3 radar heads in outback WA then it will be a win win for all; less controllers needed ipso facto cheaper service; traffic given when it's needed; not because it falls within the "criteria"; combine this with the DS dream of more class E airspace and controller 'protection'.

But, it only takes a small % of aircraft flying around without the gear and the whole system falls apart. Why? Well because for every non ADS-B aircraft that need the 'procedural criteria or separation' then those that do have it need to be effectively kept away (outside the tolerances) of that ones track; the more you have the less practicable that becomes; so you defensive position is treat all as if they don't have the gear to save getting it wrong; these can be career ending type mistakes if made.

When we first tried to introduce RVSM it was canned due to the % of non-capability; it was too difficult to know what to use for when and whom.

Anyway, I concur with Quokka, this will save lives; it will resolve significant workload issues and despite the ADS-B - IN arguments; from a controllers perspective ADS-B out (and in range) will be a massive improvement.

Imagine the morning sequence at ML-SY-BN without radar and then how 'easy' it works with it; if ADS-B works half as well then it will be fantastic; particularly if you manage to get every major RPT destination inside the ADS-B coverage; it's not all about what's in the cockpit; IMHO there will be massive savings and benefits just with ADS-B out.

The improved service at somewhere like Dubbo will be huge; real traffic that you are actually in conflict with; on request 'surveillance services to avoid' i.e. vectors etc; all not thought about in today's environment.

Controllers in such a system may even have enough confidence to use technology and vector IFRs away from VFRs (not that I think that should be the priority) even in class G, like they do in the States cause they have confidence in their gear and system; unlike our current system where every VFR is potentially "blind" to the ATCs.

CaptainMidnight
28th Aug 2007, 09:07
SM4 Pirate Quokka:ok:

It provides visibility to ATC and all the benefits (= improved services) that go with that so it has my vote - the sooner the better.

And I'm not sure how widespread Mr Hall's support is within the sport aviation community. Visibility to ATC means potential access to CTA that is curently unavailable, an advantage a few I know recognise.

ADS-B "in" can wait - nice to have one day but not worth holding off and waiting for.

Creampuff
28th Aug 2007, 10:24
So ADSB out will be beneficial even if the position data comes from a C129A GPS?

SM4 Pirate
28th Aug 2007, 11:03
So ADSB out will be beneficial even if the position data comes from a C129A GPS? Well, yes, is the simple answer; but whether the CASA approved 'radar like' standards will support that integrity is something to consider; but what GPS data has been used during the trial to 'prove' the technology? Everyone seems very happy with the data collected so far; quoting much more accurate than radar etc.

Scurvy.D.Dog
28th Aug 2007, 11:55
... and thus the CTA and OCTA case is made! :D

gaunty
28th Aug 2007, 12:01
Creamy.

YES.

Jabawocky
28th Aug 2007, 12:59
Creamy, Gaunty Scurvy.....

Seems the obvious is getting through at last....thank you for supporting what is the way of the future.

I feel like saying....Told ya so, but that would be inviting criticism.....hard hat on...off to the bunker! Goodnight:}

Creampuff
28th Aug 2007, 20:52
Whoa there Jab!

I count those as a ‘maybe’, a ‘therefore’ and an unequivocal ‘yes’.

I’m a simple soul and need explanations in words of one syllable.

Does the ATSO preclude C129A GPS as asserted by Leaddy? If not, what is the precise effect of the ASTO requirements with respect to C145/146 versus C129A?

GaryGnu
29th Aug 2007, 00:34
Creampuff,

I'll have a go (please bear in mind that I have no access to the RTCA Docs).

CAO 20.18 Appendix XI, 1 requires that ADS-B transmitting equipment that meets ATSO-C1004 or C-1005.

CAO 20.18 App XI, 2 requires that position data transmitted by ADS-B equipment is determined by TSO C145/C146 compliant receivers from 28th June 2012.

ATSO C-1005 makes no reference to FAA TSO C129a.

ATSO C-1004 Appendix 1, 4 b. (2) allows incorporation of GPS equipment into the transponder that meet the specifications of class A1 equipment as per TSO 129a. However, the ATSO adds the requirement that the GPS equipment must incorporate Fault Detection and Exclusion (FDE) capability as defined in (the no longer current) FAA Notice 8110.60.

As I understand TSO C129a vs TSO c145/c146, one of the prime differences is that C129a requires only FD algorithms and C145/C146 require FDE algorithms. There may be other differences but that is one.

Based on all of that I have to agree with Leady that a TSO C129a equipment does not comply with ATSO requirements.

I am willing to be corrected at any time on my interpretations of these documents.

I will get back to you on whether a straight TSO C129a receiver meets the requirments of FAA TSO C166 or C166a.

Also,

As far as I can tell CASR Part 172 MOS does not require ADS-B postion data derived from TSO C145a or C146a. It only requires that the ADS-B message have a NUC of 5 or better for application of the 5nm sep standard.

Creampuff
29th Aug 2007, 02:30
Hmmmm

CAO 20.18 subsections 9B.2 and 3 say:9B.2 ADS-B transmitting equipment carried by an aircraft for operational use in Australia must comply with an approved equipment configuration.

9B.3 If ADS-B transmitting equipment carried by an aircraft does not comply with an approved equipment configuration, it must be deactivated before flight in Australia.Subsection 9B.1 defines 'approved equipment configuration' to mean:the requirements:

(a) set out in Appendix XI; or

(b) approved in writing by CASA and published from time to time in an Advisory Circular.There's a note that says:Equipment configurations approved by CASA are published in Appendix D of Advisory Circular 21-45.So, if you want to actually turn on ADSB transmitting equipment in an aircraft in Australia, the equipment must meet the requirements of Appendix XI or the AC.

Appendix D of Advisory Circular 21-45 says:APPROVED EQUIPMENT

The current list of approved equipment can be found at the following website address: http://casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c45eqptlist.pdfThis is what appears at that address:Approved Equipment

1. This list is not exhaustive and other equipment combinations will be added from time to time.

2. The transponder combinations have been found acceptable in accordance with the standards and guidelines set out in AC 21.45(0) and proposed amendments to CAO 20.18.

3. ACSS XS-950 transponders are not acceptable unless software modification A is incorporated.

4. GNSS receivers are included as interoperability of transponder and data source are critical to transmission of ADS-B messages fit for purpose. The GNSS receivers listed here have not been assessed by CASA for equivalency to TSO-C145a or TSO-C146a performance.

5. Where the transponder is not connected to the GPS/MMR the combination is "acceptable" but will not provide the data necessary to receive air traffic services based on ADS-B.

6. Alternate part numbers or different software modifications cannot be assumed to be acceptable and will require assessment by CASA.

[then there is a table with 1 Transponder Manufacturer and Model ('ACSS XS-950 (with software mod A)'), 2 part numbers for that transponder ('7517800-10005 and 7517800-11006'), 4 MMR/GPS Receiver Manufacturer and Models ('Rockwell Collins GLU-920' with the corresponding part numbers '822-1152-121' and '822-1152-130', 'Honeywell GR-550' with the part number 'HG2021GC02', 'Rockwell Collins GLU-920' with the part number '822-1152-002' and 'Rockwell Collins GLU-925' with the part number '822-1821-001') ]A very simple question: What C129A GNSS receivers satisfy the MMR/GPS receiver requirements of CAO 20.18 subsection 9B?

Just the manufacturers/models/part numbers please.

Scurvy.D.Dog
29th Aug 2007, 04:30
THE FOURTH MEETING OF ADS-B STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE (ADS-B SITF/4)
.
Nadi, Fiji, 26-28 October 2005
.
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/apac/2005/ADSB_SITF4/ip12.pdfIs the current ADS-B deployment good enough?
.
It has been argued by some that DO260 is not good enough since a new standard DO260A has been approved and that as a matter of principle, the latest standard should be used. In this particular case however, the FAA has allowed both DO260 and DO260A to be certified against TSO C166.
DO260A requires the independent transmission of accuracy and integrity values.
.
Airservices Australia (and Airbus) believe that the current avionics meets the minimum requirements. Airservices Australia is already using DO260 avionics for ADS-B separation services in Queensland with approval of the Australian regulator.
.
Airservices Australia takes the view that DO260 is good enough because it is as good as “radar”. Airservices Australia has observed ADS-B traffic from Boeing and Airbus aircraft for some time using its ADS-B ground station.
DO260A has been written to serve the needs complex air-air applications which have greater needs compared to the Radar like service application and the use of DO260A in forward fit aircraft is supported.
.
AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE – BROADCAST (ADS-B) SEMINAR AND THE SIXTH MEETING OF ADS-B STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE (ADS-B SITF/6)
.
Seoul, Republic of Korea, 23 – 27 April 2007
.
http://www.icao.or.th/meetings/2007/ADSB_ADSB_TF6/wp06.pdf CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING ADS-B AVIONICS
(Presented by Australia)
.
2.3 The major difference of note between DO260 and DO260A is that DO260 provides a positional data quality indicator called NUC (Navigational Uncertainty Category), while DO260A provides a positional data integrity value called NIC (Navigational Integrity Category) and a positional data accuracy value called NAC (Navigational Accuracy category). DO260A also has improvements related to ADS-B IN capabilities (i.e. ADS-B reception).
.
2.4 RTCA has recently issued changes 1 and 2 to DO260A, and change 1 to DO260.
.
2.5 There are no significant changes between DO260 and DO260A regarding the transmission of ADS-B data. Most features are identical. A few message formats have changed but receivers can readily cope with both DO260 and DO260A – in fact DO260A allows the existence of DO260 as DO260A version 0.
.
2.6 It must be emphasized that only DO260 is consistent with ICAO Annex 10
Amendment 77. However, the Aeronautical Surveillance Panel (ASP) has developed a new ICAO manual, Doc 9871, titled "Technical Provisions for Mode S Services and Extended Squitter". The manual is expected to be published towards the end of 2007. It updates technical provisions related to Mode S radar and extended squitter ADS-B currently contained in Annex 10 Vol. III. The material on Mode S radar has been revised to reflect the experience of States currently implementing these provisions. An updated set of extended squitter provisions known as Version 1 has been introduced.
Version 1 is compatible with the RTCA DO-260A MOPS. The existing provisions, which have been renamed Version 0, will remain since there are many implementations that comply with these requirements. Annex 10 will be modified to refer to Doc 9871.
.
2.7 AEEC standard ARINC 718A defines the behaviour of the avionics and installation from an airline industry viewpoint.
.
2.8 RTCA and EUROCAE have just released DO303/ ED126 documents which describe the requirements for use of ADS-B to provide air traffic services in Non Radar Airspace (NRA).
.
2.9 These documents have been produced by the joint Eurocontrol / FAA / RTCA / EUROCAE ADS-B Requirements Focus Group (RFG) and detail the operational, safety and performance requirements for non-radar application of ADS-B. They include an “interoperability document” at Annex H which gives details which messages are required. Aircraft already equipped with DO260 equipment meet these requirements, provided that the installation provides positional integrity data to the transponder. The positional integrity value used is called the “Horizontal Protection Limit” (HPL).
.
2.10 The RFG plans to issue further documents, in particular to cover the use of ADS-B for air traffic services in Radar Airspace, and for air-to-air applications such as In Trail Procedures.
.
3. What is the Perceived Problem with DO260?
.
3.1 Background:
.
GPS is the only practical source of ADS-B positional data today – although the standards allow equivalent performance systems.
Suitable GPS receivers output HPL which guarantees that the reported position is within the HPL distance, with high certainty (10E-7). The HPL value is calculated based on the ability of the GPS receiver, when presented with the satellite set, of detecting a “bad” ranging signal from a faulty GPS satellite. GPS receivers also output a value called Horizontal Figure of Merit (HFOM), which is the expected accuracy of the positional data assuming that all satellites are working correctly
.
3.2 Calculation of transmitted integrity value DO260 as written requires the transmitted NUC value to be based on HPL if HPL is available on the aircraft (this is good from the point of view of data integrity).
However, DO260 allows the transmitted NUC to be based on HFOM if HPL is not available (this is not good – because when using HFOM the user of the data isn’t protected from satellite ranging errors). DO260A (and DO260 change 1) requires NIC to be based on HPL and does not allow this exception. When NUC is based on HPL, then DO260 avionics are essentially the same (with respect to positional integrity) as DO260A avionics, i.e. essentially NUC=NIC when HPL is used to generate NUC.
.
The DO303 (and ED126) Annex H interoperability requirements require the DO260 NUC value to be based on HPL by design (para H.1.4.5.2), but recognises that it may switch to HFOM when the GPS receiver is first switched on (initialisation) or when there are not enough GPS satellites to adequately determine the required positional surety. DO303 Annex G demonstrates that the risks of using HFOM in these cases are lower than the base case when HPL is used – because satellite ranging errors are so rare.
.
This is further supported in the DO303/ED126 Safety assessment (Annex C): the rare NUC-HFOM encoding case is corresponding fully with the case of “(Undetected) Quality Indicator Corruption” (ED-126 Fault Tree ‘OH4u3’): both from an interoperability and operational effect perspective. ‘OH4u3’ produces a 10-5/fh requirement for the relevant “Airborne Quality Indicator Corruption” failure. Conceptually and in terms of effect, this failure is equivalent to the rare encoding of HPL based on HFOM;
.
3.3 Accuracy and integrity must be transmitted separately
.
DO260A requires that positional integrity data is transmitted as NIC as discussed above, and that accuracy is transmitted separately as NAC. As seen from para 0, DO260A NIC and DO260 NUC can be seen as equivalent if the avionics use HPL, by design.
It is Airservices Australia’s view that, for ATC surveillance applications, whilst it may be desirable, the accuracy value (NAC) is not strictly required if the integrity limit is known. Eg: If the integrity value guarantees with high certainty that the positional data is within say 0.5 nautical mile –it is of limited value to know what the 95 percentile accuracy value is. In any case a conservative accuracy figure can be determined from the integrity value.
.
It is true that some Kalman filter based systems could use a separate accuracy value – but if the data has integrity indicating it is “good enough to use” then knowledge of the accuracy is of minor value. It is recognised that some future applications may require accuracy. Surface surveillance may be one such application.
For air-air applications, whilst not yet confirmed, it is suspected that if the integrity value is known, and is acceptable, accuracy is unlikely to be required – for the same reasons.
.
3.4 DO260 is not acceptable for ADS-B IN capable aircraft
.
It is well accepted that DO260A receiver systems are desirable for ADS-B IN applications because of the improved receiver processing techniques proposed in DO260A1. However, the receiver system is required to correctly process DO260 based transmissions.
Normally (in current deployed equipment) the ADS-B receiver system is a separate equipment to the ADS-B transmitter. Therefore, current DO260 aircraft may not necessarily need to replace their ADS-B capable transponder when implementing ADS-B IN.
However, DO260 transmissions remain safe and useable for ADS-B IN providing positional integrity data is used (i.e. HPL). As expressed above there are no identified weaknesses of DO260, solved in DO260A, that warrant exclusion of DO260 aircraft from ADS-B IN operations. Of course, as the definition of ADS-B IN applications continue, deficiencies in both DO260 and DO260A are likely to be identified.
.
1 It is not mandatory to follow the proposed algorithm. Another algorithm may be proposed, provided the manufacturer demonstrates equivalent performance
.
4. What is the position of various agencies ?
.
4.1 FAA:
.
The FAA has published TSO C166 which allows ADS-B avionics to be certified against either DO260 or DO260A. TSO C166 also requires aircraft to transmit SSR code in the ADS-B messages to allow legacy ATC systems to more easily correlate ADS-B data with radar. However, DO260 does not support transmission of SSR code.
More recently, the FAA published TSO C166A which only allows future compliance with DO260A change 2. RTCA DO260A change 2 clarifies TIS-B requirements and changes ADS-B IN processing.
Previous approvals under TSO C166 may continue to be manufactured. New approvals have to be applied for under TSOC166A.
The FAA envisages an environment by 2020 whereby there is a mandate for carriage and use of DO260A change 2 avionics.
.
4.2 Europe:
.
The European CASCADE program’s ADS-B Pioneer program will accept either DO260 or DO260A avionics. Europe has prepared a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) based on the ED126 (DO303) requirements and major aircraft manufacturers are looking to certify against this NPA. It is reported that 11 European airlines (more than 250 airframes) will request EASA to certify current (DO260) avionics for use with the CASCADE program in the first half of 2008. CASCADE is considering a second wave of pioneer airlines.
.
4.3 Australia:
.
Australia will accept DO260 or DO260A avionics; and will be ready when further revision is available.
.
5. What is installed on aircraft today?
.
5.1 Transponders:
.
Almost all aircraft transmitting ADS-B today are equipped with TSO C112 transponders complying with the European Mode S mandate. These transponders comply with an (adequate) subset of DO260. Many thousands of aircraft are already transmitting. The subset of messages being transmitted complies with the requirements of DO303/ED126.
There are almost no DO260A avionics available except for Rockwell Collin’s TDR94D-108 used in regional aircraft, and the integrated A380 avionics from Honeywell. There are almost no ADS-B IN implementations at this time except for a number of UPS freight aircraft. DO260A processing is expected in all ADS-B IN avionics. All transponder vendors for large aircraft use HPL for calculation of NUC. An earlier ACSS transponder did not, and ACSS has issued a service bulletin to correct this. The upgraded ACSS transponder uses HPL only.
.
5.2 Positional Data:
.
Until the recent publication of the STP MOPS DO302, most ADS-B standard setting has unfortunately concentrated on the transmitter (transponder) and has not concentrated on the requirements of the positional source.
.
The following may be helpful:
.
• Altitude comes from the same source as transponder Mode C data.
• If positional data comes from the Inertial Navigation System (INS) or Inertial Reference System (IRS), it usually doesn’t have an HPL (or equivalent) and hence the ADS-B message reports NUC=0 (no integrity), i.e. the ADS-B data is effectively unusable.
• When the positional data comes from a GPS source (such as a Multi-Mode Receiver, MMR) then the issues are:
.
Does the GPS provide HPL (some don’t)?
.
• Does the GPS have Fault Detection & Elimination (FDE) which eliminates data from satellites detected as faulty from the solution, allowing ADS-B data with good NUC to continue to be broadcast? This is an availability issue.
• Does GPS assume Selective Availability (SA) is on? Unfortunately many do, which increases the size of HPL and decreases the percentage of time that an acceptable GPS signal is received? This is also an availability issue.
.
• DO-302 STP MOPS provide suitable standards for the positional data source including the use of INS and MMR data for ADS-B purposes. However, here are no avionics available today or in the short term, that will comply with DO-302.
.
6. What can be used by ATC today?
.
6.1 Australia has deployed, and operationally uses ADS-B for 5 nautical mile separation.
ADS-B ground stations which can receive both DO260 and DO260A have been used. Australia is ready for and already supports DO260A aircraft when they arrive in Australia.
.
6.2 However, DO260 is only considered adequate IF the transponder is provided with HPL and the transponder uses HPL to calculate NUC, i.e. Australia requires DO260 with HPL.
6.3 Essentially Australia considers DO260 (as implemented in many aircraft) as equivalent to DO260A if HPL is used.
.
6.4 Currently, Airservices and CASA individually check and then authorise each airframe to participate, i.e. check that the above requirements of paragraph 0 are met before changing a filter in the ATC system to allow the aircraft to be seen by ATC.
.
6.5 In parallel Australia’s regulator has published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to require those transmitting ADS-B to transmit data compliant with either DO260A or DO260 with HPL provided. The effective date for this rulemaking is not yet decided. Some time after it becomes effective Australia will cease individually checking airframes.
.
6.6 Australia has approved ADS-B operations for over 380 airframes. Avionics checks to date show that the majority of rejections are because:
.
• The aircraft are equipped with ACSS transponders that not upgraded with the Service bulletin (hence don’t use HPL), or
.
• The aircraft have inadequate GPS due lack of true HPL.
.
7. Surface movement applications
.
7.1 The use of Ads-B data to support, surface movement surveillance applications of ADS-B appears promising and a number of states are considering this application.
.
7.2 DO260 unfortunately encodes the integrity data in a way such that if HPL is >182 metres (0.1 nautical mile), surface squitter sends NUC=6 meaning no integrity.
.
7.3 Thus DO260 equipped aircraft are not able to deliver any useful integrity value unless the HPL<182 metres. Data collection in Australia shows that about 40% of Air Transport aircraft reports (DO260) currently report with NUC=6 (no integrity) when on the surface.
.
7.4 One implication of this is that the surface movement system will treat identically the following cases because it cannot tell them apart when using DO260.
.
�� An aircraft with high accuracy, but HPL integrity value at say 200 metres ,
transmitting NUC=6.
�� An aircraft with no GPS, at the end of a long flight, transmitting INS positional data with a 1 nautical mile error, with NUC=6.
.
7.5 Surface movement applications could perhaps utilise accuracy (from DO260A) or other monitoring systems to guarantee adequate safety but there has not yet been adequate study nor determination of appropriate standards for this application.
.
7.6 At face value, the use of DO260A, which reports accuracy may solve this problem, assuming that the surface movement application can detect faulty GPS ranging errors by other means.
In many cases, since the surface surveillance is advisory, integrity monitoring may not be required.
.
8. What is the Australian & Airbus position?
.
8.1 Australia supports DO260A but recognises that DO260 avionics have already been installed in thousands of aircraft. DO260A avionics are not yet readily available. Australia believes that significant safety and efficiency benefits can be realised worldwide using DO260 avionics in the period before DO260A becomes common.
.
8.2 CASA and Airservices can see no legitimate rationale for denying safety and efficiency benefits to early equippers of ADS-B in the Australian environment.
.
8.3 It is understood that Airbus also have this view. Airbus is currently involved in certification of avionics for the European CASCADE certification activity – against a NPA based on the ED126 interoperability document.
.
8.4 The solution is to transition to DO260A as soon as possible for forward fit, but also to recognise that significant benefit can be gained from use of DO260 data in the meantime. There is no strong case for retrofit at this time except for compliance with FAA envisaged mandates and in the case that the international community fail to recognise DO260 benefits.
.
9. Recommendations
.
9.1 The meeting is invited to note the benefits of accepting DO-260 equipped aircraft for provision of ATC separation services provided that appropriate measures are in place to ensure that HPL is used to generate NUC.
.
9.2 The meeting is also invited to note the benefits of using DO260A for forward fit when avionics become available especially in support of surface applications and because of the FAA position.
.
My bolding and underlining

Scurvy.D.Dog
29th Aug 2007, 05:32
TSO 129a standard/s including (RAIM or FDE RTCA208 and 229)
.
. as best I can tell, the only difference between RTCA208 and 229 is pressure altitude input automation and GPS cross check of alt i.e. WAAS type cert … happy to be corrected though!
.
There are various classes of 129a …. A1 seems to be the IFR NPA standard (with RAIM etc) …. There may be classes of 129a that are and are not approved in the ADS-B context?
.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/e560cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf
.
And;
.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgtso.nsf/0/E560CD9C6ACF8BA186256DC700717E0F?OpenDocument
.
TSO GNSS Nav integrity treatment
.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/bodylodgmentattachments/C275082527283F49CA2570B300171225?OpenDocument
.
Manufactures of 129a that include (FDE)
.
http://investor.trimble.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=191162The twelve channel TA-12 receiver was designed, tested and documented to enable aircraft host navigation systems to be certified to the standards defined by the FAA TSO-C129a and later the JPO MSO-C129a for military aircraft. Standard features include all-in-view tracking, Fault Detection and Exclusion (FDE) and step detection in accordance with RTCA/DO-229, predictive RAIM to support FAA Notice 8110.60 operations http://www.avionicsales.com/product/gps.htm
.
… note the Nav’s with 129a A1 approval
.
One assume that all current TSO GPS systems would comply with 129a A1 at least! And may have the addition of RTCA 229 Alt as well!
.
... so if 129a (all) are excluded (if they are) .... the question is why given the technical capabilities of same?

Creampuff
29th Aug 2007, 05:35
Hmmmm

8.1 Australia supports DO260A but recognises that DO260 avionics have already been installed in thousands of aircraft. DO260A avionics are not yet readily available. Australia believes that significant safety and efficiency benefits can be realised worldwide using DO260 avionics in the period before DO260A becomes common.
.
8.2 CASA and Airservices can see no legitimate rationale for denying safety and efficiency benefits to early equippers of ADS-B in the Australian environment.I will try some other simple questions:

When will CASA be putting its legislative money where its task force mouth is? That is, when will CASA be amending CAO 20.18 or AC 21.45 so that DO260 avionics used as part of ASDB transmitting equipment are permitted to be switched on in aircraft in Australia?

What ASDB equipment is in the trial aircraft?

Does the ADSB equipment in the trial aircraft comply with 20.18 or have they been exempted from 20.18?

Scurvy.D.Dog
29th Aug 2007, 05:39
... fair Q's :ok:
.
.. although, the caveat in the AC for approval on an individual hull basis (I assume) is to cover differences in 129a standards re the RTCA's
.
.. none the less it needs clear clarification :ok:

LeadSled
29th Aug 2007, 12:43
Folks,

There are almost no ADS-B IN implementations at this time except for a number of UPS freight aircraft.

And that is all UAT, not 1090ES, ie; as used in Capstone and the Ohio Valley trials--- which was UPS.

Scurvey,

Gets complicated, doesn't it ---- is everybody clear when a transponder is being discussed ? or an ADS-B? Can you find me a DO260A or a DO260 + HPL for $$ten grand----fifteen-----thirty. Then add the GPS. Please look up the quotes for a Collins TDR94D-108 (DO260A) TXPD, and let us know, that's better than me doing it, I doubt you would believe me. But just to be helpful, the Collins CTL-94E control head, alone, lists for US$7880 at Southeast Aerospace. Continuing in my helpful mode, the above transponder P/N is 622-9210-108. Don't confuse this version with the other TDR94D that range between US$20-32,000 new.

Starting to make the complete Garmin ADS-B reference unit plus GTX330D at about US$16,000 plus (say) $5000 fitting look a steal.

Gaunty --- how are you going with your mates at RFDS? Got the prices yet for all that Bendix-King gear? Does it meet the ATSO? --- Scurvey has helpfully produced a helpful guide for you all.

And all for an alleged safety problem that is not even on the ATSB "radar", see the latest analysis.

If we want to pour $100-300M into something that will address the top safety issues, how about starting with pilot training --- with a view to saving some of the lives being actually lost.

Tootle pip??

PS: Creamy, I think you mean DO260+HPL.

Scurvy.D.Dog
30th Aug 2007, 06:09
Remember that was back in April!And that is all UAT, not 1090ES, ie; as used in Capstone and the Ohio Valley trials--- which was UPS. .. dual band UAT .... more or less expensive that single band 1090ES? :E
.
as for TXPDR or an ADS-B ... for the purposes of the discussion the devices do essentially the same thing ... except one is far more reliable and accurate :E
.
GTX330D ... what do you reckon their price will do as soon as other manufaturers announce? :E
.
... when do you reckon other manufacturers will announce? :E
.
... reread the comments re the driver behind the proposal :ok:
.
I agree with you 100% re Pilot training ..... but then that problem has been around for years .... and is getting worse as GA moves further away from mainstream aviation ....... IMHO of course :E
.
Anyone know which 129a will or will not be approved after 2012? ;)
.
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/popcorn.gif

OZBUSDRIVER
31st Aug 2007, 00:52
ITT Team Wins ADS-B Contract
The FAA today named ITT Corp. as the prime contractor for the roll-out of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) in the United States, a contract valued at $1.86 billion over 18 years. Matched against proposals by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, the ITT bid “combined the best value and the least risk,” FAA Deputy Administrator Robert Sturgell told reporters in a teleconference.
The first phase of the contract, costing $207 million over three years, will see the development, testing and deployment of ADS-B, initially in the Gulf of Mexico, Louisville, Ken., Philadelphia and Juneau, Alaska. In six years, ADS-B “will be available everywhere we have radar,” Sturgell vowed.
ITT has proposed a dual-frequency approach to the ADS-B architecture that will involve the use of Universal Access Transceivers on GA aircraft and 1090 MHz Extended Squitter transponders on airliners and other large aircraft.
The ITT team includes AT&T, Thales North America, WSI, SAIC, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Aerospace Engineering, Sunhillo, Comsearch, MCS of Tampa, Pragmatics, Washington Consulting Group, Aviation Communications and Surveillance Systems, Sandia Aerospace and NCR Corp.
“The ITT team is proud to have been selected by the FAA as its partner in the establishment of this technology that will form the basis for the transformation of the air transportation system under the FAA’s NextGen vision,” said Steve Gaffney, president of ITT Defense. “ITT and its premier team of industry partners are committed to working with the FAA to ensure this NextGen cornerstone program delivers its full potential for enhanced National Airspace System safety, efficiency and capacity.”


Hot off AviationToday.

US is going with UAT/1090ES ground transmitters. US$1.86billion for coverage the same as radar within 6 years.

Scurvy.D.Dog
31st Aug 2007, 07:47
... no suprise there ;)
.
... interesting times ahead :ok:

LeadSled
1st Sep 2007, 13:33
Folks,

The verdict is in:

FAA elects to go CDMA Broadband for the majority ---instead of planning to mandate the "black telephone"---- what a decision ---- why would anybody possibly want broadband communications in this day and age --- Australia knows best ---- lets stick with the tried and true --- IFF as it was known in WWII, and tarted up to the limits of its inherent technology.

Seriously, as I have already said on this thread --- The ICAO intention, years ago, to have available a modern broadband multi-access transceiver for all the uses to which it could be put, ADS-B/C being only one use --- being sidetracked by ATA/IATA pressing for the equivalent of 1200 baud dial-up--- because it was going to be "cheap", which has proved to be anything but the case for retrofits. Now we will see a few chickens come home to roost.

Where are we going to see the frantic competition for the "mass market" --- that will drive prices down ---- as Creamy agrees with me, 7/9/11000 units (take your pick) is cottage industry, not a mass market ---- and no other country has flagged any intention of making ADS-B mandatory for VFR or low level IFR.

Scurvey--as for TXPDR or an ADS-B ... for the purposes of the discussion the devices do essentially the same thing ... except one is far more reliable and accurate --- I don't quite understand what you are trying to say --- is it that some SSR doesn't permit 5nm separation? If so, do you really think we have so much traffic in high level airspace that no having a 5nm separation available across the country is critical?

GTX330D ... what do you reckon their price will do as soon as other manufacturer's announce? ---announce what? Competing Mode S transponders ---- Bendix/King already have GA box size available, about the same price now, whether they or Garmin will produce a DO260A version remains to be seen.

The TDR94-108 has been on the market for quite a while, I haven't noticed a rush to compete for that market.

Compared to the US, a few thousand extra sales prospects in Australia isn't going to excite anybody ---Garmin have already made that clear to "those who should have listened", but didn't, around the ASTRA table.

The lack of interoperability between UAT and 1090ES has never been seen as a problem by FAA, despite the 10 to 15 times traffic numbers, compared to Australia FAA have never seen ADS-B/C as an aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance device, just air/ground position information for ATC. Hence (in part -- the other is that TCAS II works fine) the total lack of interest in anything but ADS-B OUT by Boeing and Airbus.

That FAA would dump "CDMA Broadband" (UAT) in favour of "1200 baud dial-up"(1090ES) never was realistic, but I am better off by two cases of beer, and a case of my favourite cab-sav, from several old mates who bet otherwise.

Tootle pip!!

Scurvy.D.Dog
1st Sep 2007, 21:09
FAA elects to go CDMA Broadband for the majority … and what are they gunna use the dual band ground station bandwidth for? … NOTAMS and WX ….. good-o … how many GA operators want that in Oz .. and how much are they prepared to pay for it? ---instead of planning to mandate the "black telephone"---- what a decision ---- … Black Telephone ….. did that come to you from eastern Europe?why would anybody possibly want broadband communications in this day and age .. In GA aircraft ... good question! --- Australia knows best ---- lets stick with the tried and true --- IFF as it was known in WWII, and tarted up to the limits of its inherent technology. … limits …. Yeh OK … lets conveniently ignore the simplicity of single band, and the reduced cost of single band ADS-B vice RADAR heads ….. WWII … plleeeease ... the Status Quo is WWII stuff!Seriously, as I have already said on this thread --- The ICAO intention, years ago, to have available a modern broadband multi-access transceiver for all the uses to which it could be put, ADS-B/C being only one use --- being sidetracked by ATA/IATA pressing for the equivalent of 1200 baud dial-up … another from Eastern Europe?? .. because it was going to be "cheap", which has proved to be anything but the case for retrofits. Now we will see a few chickens come home to roost. … where is the proof of this Lead ... you keep saying it with no reasonable way of supporting the notion of higher costs! ... it will be very interesting to watch over the next few years!are we going to see the frantic competition for the "mass market" --- that will drive prices down ---- as Creamy agrees with me, 7/9/11000 units (take your pick) is cottage industry, not a mass market …. You are joking aren’t you? …. 7,000 units (give or take) + access to Europe (apart from Sweden) and no other country has flagged any intention of making ADS-B mandatory for VFR or low level IFR. …. Errm, care to review that statement? i.e. review ICAO documentsScurvey—
as for TXPDR or an ADS-B ... for the purposes of the discussion the devices do essentially the same thing ... except one is far more reliable and accurate
--- I don't quite understand what you are trying to say …. That seems obvious! --- is it that some SSR doesn't permit 5nm separation? If so, do you really think we have so much traffic in high level airspace that no having a 5nm separation available across the country is critical?No,
- Both emit data for positional purposes
- One has far less positional error tolerances (ADS-B)
- One has far less opportunity for air-to-air error irrespective of ground station in LoS (ADS-B)
- One has the ability to provide access low cost 3rd party surveillance services (that do not currently exist in regional RPT areas)
The list goes onGTX330D ... what do you reckon their price will do as soon as other manufacturer's announce?
---announce what? Competing Mode S transponders ---- Bendix/King already have GA box size available, about the same price now, whether they or Garmin will produce a DO260A version remains to be seen. … what, you think they won’t want a piece of the world market for boxes or for their glass systems being sold in OEM airframes OS …. You are kidding!The TDR94-108 has been on the market for quite a while, I haven't noticed a rush to compete for that market. … and what market would that be then?Compared to the US, a few thousand extra sales prospects in Australia isn't going to excite anybody ---Garmin have already made that clear to "those who should have listened", but didn't, around the ASTRA table. ….. have they indeed … have you something tangible on this … or is this more hypothesising?The lack of interoperability between UAT and 1090ES has never been seen as a problem by FAA, …. Yes well the US of A would not would they, I mean god forbid having to compete with OS manufacturers for the market …. Common Lead, are you that blind! despite the 10 to 15 times traffic numbers, compared to Australia FAA have never seen ADS-B/C as an aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance device, just air/ground position information for ATC. .. un-be-liev-able ….. why would you bother then? To deliver WX and NOTAMS 1.8Bil US … aww sure … you guys crack me up …. Are you running a campaign for greater ATC (third party) services now? Hence (in part -- the other is that TCAS II works fine) the total lack of interest in anything but ADS-B OUT by Boeing and Airbus. .. that has been been proved here to be absolute rubbish ICAO would not be building the ADS-B TCAS standards if that were true .. it is horse feathers!
.
The FAA was never going to select other than dual band UAT, but IMHO it is more to do with where the work and the doe goes … as any argument that dual band is better than single from a collision mitigation point of view is rubbish!
.
‘Black Telephone’ …..bwahahah ....... bit like not carrying a ‘serviceable' VHF and/or TXPDR’! …. Dear oh dear! :p

LeadSled
2nd Sep 2007, 04:33
Scurvey,
As you've "got old time religion" about this, I sometimes wonder why I bother with such a closed mind, but here goes---

.. In GA aircraft ... good question!

Who said anything about just GA --- and you are so far-sighted that you can seed that there will be no future developments for (CDMA) Broadband in aviation (despite ICAO plans, and recent FAA/Eurocontrol mandate for VDL-2 --TDMA Broadband, for routine ATS comms) so you advocate sticking with an ancient bit of kit, which is actually proving more expensive to retrofit than UAT (you go look at the Garmin prices -- I have already pointed you to where)

The TDR94-108 has been on the market for quite a while, I haven't noticed a rush to compete for that market.
… and what market would that be then?

How about the bulk of the world's Regional/Commuter fleet, like Eastern, who knows all about the real cost of achieving ADS-B OUT in the (older-not ADS-B delivered ex-factory) Dash 8 fleet. Go look at the AsA web sites, reports on Eastern plans, and problems, published ASTRA etc. reports ---- Non so blind as those who don't want to see!!

Something close to AUD$300,000, just a tich more than the $25,000 in the JCP.

….. have they indeed … have you something tangible on this … or is this more hypothesising?

As reported to ASTRA/AERU, when approached about producing a transponder to the Australian ATSO ---- go look it up --- it's public information.

un-be-liev-able ….. why would you bother then?

Because FAA have done the risk analysis --- which has not been done here.

. that has been been proved here to be absolute rubbish ICAO would not be building the ADS-B TCAS standards if that were true .. it is horse feathers!

Is it really ----- I have continually pointed you at the RTCA docs. that show that this has already been done ---- go look it up, yourself, and verify. In terms of a standard to process ADS-B signals into TCAS II --- Long since complete --- but you do seem to have a quite severe comprehension problem, when such a simple fact is presented to you.

As to the lack of interest in "-IN", I really don't care whether you believe me of not, but I am rather looking forward to the Booz Allen Hamilton Report, which will include this information, as part of a study on WAAS, also of no interest to Boeing and Airbus, because it doesn't produce any lower minima than they can achieve without WAAS, now. But of great interest to the rest of Australia.

‘Black Telephone’ …..bwahahah

OK, You're the self-confessed expert ---- in terms that a lay reader of this thread can understand ---- baud rate or K/Gbits/s ---- give us a comparison of the capacity of the DF17/15 slots in the Mode S signal, (or a country telephone line v. Telstra CDMA or Hutchison 3 ) compared to UAT/VDL-2/4.

And explain to the lay readers why the ancient and strained technology (that others have no difficulty seeing as the equivalent of "the old black phone"), is going to be a better choice ---- Than an up to date data transmission system---you are so wise and foreseeing that you "know" Australian aviation will never need such a development*.

Actually, your sarcastic references to Eastern Europe is quite appropriate, although that is not what you intended.

You are claiming that all we will ever need, for ATC air/ground, however non-airline aviation may develop, is VHF voice and iron curtain era telephone standard datalink called 1090ES.

Such is the blinkered approach to change, so evident in a sclerotic Australian aviation community thinking --- aided and abetted by a rather misguided anti-US attitude. Very sad really, you only have to go across the Tasman to see what a bit of open minded change can achieve for the whole aviation sector, but particularly the non-airline sector.

Tootle pip!!

*: Reminds me of Sir Robert Menzies Chief Scientist, who advised Ming that there was no future application for "an electric adding machine", when Ming sought advice as to the application of the new CSIRO "transistor".

Scurvy.D.Dog
2nd Sep 2007, 06:14
... old time religion :D
.
What exactly will the bandwidth of UAT provide that 1090ES won't, that GA in OZ WANT?Who said anything about just GA ... errm, the JCP for GA :hmm:
.
Where does the cost of 1090ES show as higher than UAT? .. a link thanks!How about the bulk of the world's Regional/Commuter fleet ... does the flat earth society believe there will be one unit? :ugh:Non so blind as those who don't want to see!! oh how true! :EBecause FAA have done the risk analysis ... on a dual system .... there's a hint! :ugh:In terms of a standard to process ADS-B signals into TCAS II --- Long since complete --- but you do seem to have a quite severe comprehension problem, when such a simple fact is presented to you. .... no, it is YOU who will not see and accept the difference between third party alerting and that of automation ..... DO YOU SEE THE COST and SAFETY IMPACTS OF EACH? .. the regionals sure do!As to the lack of interest in "-IN", I really don't care whether you believe me of not, but I am rather looking forward to the Booz Allen Hamilton Report, which will include this information, as part of a study on WAAS, also of no interest to Boeing and Airbus, because it doesn't produce any lower minima than they can achieve without WAAS, now. But of great interest to the rest of Australia. ... 'IN' and WAAS .. what has one got to do with the other??OK, You're the self-confessed expert ---- in terms that a lay reader of this thread can understand ---- baud rate or K/Gbits/s ---- give us a comparison of the capacity of the DF17/15 slots in the Mode S signal, (or a country telephone line v. Telstra CDMA or Hutchison 3 ) compared to UAT/VDL-2/4. ... I have explained the functionality and interoperability of 1090ES across the fleets .... and I have asked you what the extra (although different) bandwidth of UAT provides given the trade off that UAT and 1090ES only know about each other in range of a ground station! ... over to you ... still not answered! And explain to the lay readers why the ancient and strained technology (that others have no difficulty seeing as the equivalent of "the old black phone"), is going to be a better choice ---- Than an up to date data transmission system---you are so wise and foreseeing that you "know" Australian aviation will never need such a development*. ... no you explain what UAT will give the industry that 1090ES won't THAT THE GA INDUSTRY WANT AND CAN AFFORD!
.
..... ancient and strained ....... pfffff ... I know what is, and it ain't 1090ES :EActually, your sarcastic references to Eastern Europe is quite appropriate, although that is not what you intended. ... oh yes it is ;) You are claiming that all we will ever need, for ATC air/ground, however non-airline aviation may develop, is VHF voice and iron curtain era telephone standard datalink called 1090ES. ... never said that!Such is the blinkered approach to change, so evident in a sclerotic Australian aviation community thinking --- aided and abetted by a rather misguided anti-US attitude. ..... that is hilarious coming from you ol' boy!Very sad really, you only have to go across the Tasman to see what a bit of open minded change can achieve for the whole aviation sector, but particularly the non-airline sector. .... and UAT is all the rage there is it?? :E
.
.. wheat from chaff mate .... wheat from chaff ;)

werbil
2nd Sep 2007, 13:02
Leadsled


no other country has flagged any intention of making ADS-B mandatory for VFR or low level IFR


What about the USA?

Try reading http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/enroute/surveillance_broadcast/program_office_news/media/Fact_Sheet_6-6-07_APA.pdf

Why adopt ADS-B?
Although radar technology has advanced, it is essentially a product of 1940s’ World War II technology. Radar occasionally has problems discriminating airplanes from migratory birds and rain “clutter.” Secondary surveillance systems can determine what objects are because they interrogate transponders; however, both primary and secondary radars are very large structures that are expensive to deploy, need lots of maintenance, and require the agency to lease land on which to situate them.
ADS-B, on the other hand, receives data directly from transmitters, rather than passively scanning for input like radars, so does not have a problem with clutter. ADS-B ground stations are inexpensive compared to radar, and are the size of mini refrigerators that essentially can go anywhere, so they minimize the required real estate. In addition, ADS-B updates once a second and locates aircraft with much higher precision.
ADS-B also provides greater coverage, since ADS-B ground stations are so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas where there is no radar now, like the Gulf of Mexico and remote areas in Alaska, will have precise surveillance coverage with ADS-B.


The agency also is working to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that will mandate the avionics necessary for implementing ADS-B across the national airspace system. Under the proposal, operators would equip their aircraft with avionics based on the airspace in which they plan to operate. The FAA plans to issue this proposal in the fall of 2007 and expects the rule to be finalized in late 2009.
The full evolution of ADS-B will take up to twenty years, taken in four manageable segments of avionics equipage and ground-station installation, with half of the current system of radars maintained throughout to provide a back-up to the satellite system.


To me, that is FLAGGED.

****

CDMA broadband technology cutting edge? I think not. Telstra is about to close its CDMA network (including broadband) to provide spectrum for the HDSPA broadband network (Next G) which has far greater capacity.

****

The advantage of 1090ES over UAT in Australia is for operators who (eventually) equip their aircraft with ADS-B IN. Unlike the good old USA, Australia has huge distances and sparse population. UAT requires both aircraft to be in contact with a ground station, whilst with 1090ES ADS-B IN does not require a ground station. Reading between the lines of the FAA proposal, the broadband communications (which will be owned by private enterprise) will be funding a lot of the ground infrastracture. Seriously, how many aircraft in Australia would be interested in a subscription broadband service?

LeadSled
5th Sep 2007, 14:38
werbil,
CDMA broadband technology cutting edge? I think not. Telstra is about to close its CDMA network (including broadband) to provide spectrum for the HDSPA broadband network (Next G) which has far greater capacity.


My dear chap, you are exhibiting a bit of a technology knowledge mandatory update requirement.The new Telstra 850 mhz network, Optus/Vodafone 3G, Hutchison 3 are ALL CDMA as the base system. The Hutchison Orange network, now closed, was the same early version CDMA as Telstra. Don't be fooled by advertising names. Because of the very nature of CDMA (V.TDMA) the ability to expand the data stream is the advantaged of CDMA, more so than TDMA.

UAT requires both aircraft to be in contact with a ground station, whilst with 1090ES ADS-B IN does not require a ground station.

Same problem, again. Right now, from GARMIN, off the shelf, I can buy a UAT box, IN and OUT, including a display.

What you are probably referring to is that both aircraft have to be UAT equipped to see each other. But the same is true with ANY of the three ICAO ADS-B systems.

And the availability of ADS-B (1090ES) IN is a seriously moot point for any TCAS II equipped aircraft ---- whether others on this thread want to believe otherwise is of little interest to me, the manufacturers of TCAS II equipment and Boeing/Airbus have made it abundantly clear that they do not intend to use the RTCA standard to accept and process ADS-B IN signals, because the result is the same as another TCASII or TXPD/C equipped aircraft.

You don't think (TCAS II) airframe manufacturers/airlines are about to fit two independent collision avoidance systems in the same flightdeck do you ---- with the inevitable conflicting warnings --- or regulatory authorities allow the possibility.

As I have asked on this thread before--- what has Eastern fitted, how much $$$, and is it only out ?? Nobody seem to want to answer. For the Regionals with "smaller" aircraft (Australia does not comply with ICAO on ACAS/TCAS requirements ---- could that be because of Australia's very low traffic levels where these aircraft typically operate) the availability of ----IN is going to be interesting, because the equivalent in US will be using UAT. Even if MicroAir actually produce a set, it would hardly be what you would put in a SAAB 340.

At least two small manufacturers are planning an "ADS-B only" device, not a full TXPD/S, this will be interesting, as described so far, it will not be recognised as a transponder, and will be invisible to TCASII.

In the US, financial reality is starting to bite:
"We've yet to see a business case made for either side of that equation," said Air Transport Association President James May, referring to the $40 billion FAA and the airline industry will collectively spend to build and equip for NextGen.

Tootle pip!!

Scurvy.D.Dog
5th Sep 2007, 22:47
Re the US UAT system .... AOPA USSome 75 percent of AOPA members have said they would be willing to equip their aircraft with ADS-B if free weather and traffic information were provided,
.
XM Sat WX and all traffic on a 1090ES wavelength (without groundbased dual band conversions) ..... hmmmm wonder what that would cost the US industry vice dual band UAT? .. the billions saved could pay for 'IN', Sat WX and other data services for free, forever! .... wonder where in the world might be looking to that end?
.
and if the equipment cost was about the same as a transponder, which it could also replace.
.
Gee, wonder if a CIF program might achieve that?
.
What you are probably referring to is that both aircraft have to be UAT equipped to see each other. But the same is true with ANY of the three ICAO ADS-B systems. ... no, the relevent point is the dual band in the US .... if all aircraft are 1090ES equipped, then if 'in' is provided, they will see each other IRRESPECTIVE OF GROUND STATION! .... the systems are fundamentaly different in this regard, and you continue to skirt around that issue!In the US, financial reality is starting to bite:
"We've yet to see a business case made for either side of that equation," said Air Transport Association President James May, referring to the $40 billion FAA and the airline industry will collectively spend to build and equip for NextGen. .. as you mentioned on the other site, yet ommitted here, the US system (dual band) will cost shite loads in ground stations etc .... FOR WHAT? .. NOTAMS AND WX! .... See my comments above re delivering the same for shite loads less.
.
So on balance Lead, In the OZ conyext, your fevent support for UAT is waining is it? .... what is it you want, Status Quo with the industry paying for the replacement of MSSR? .... is that postion based on anything other that the Part 103 implications and/or the former minister's RADAR C Directive?
.
The cost of no funded ADS-B .. why would anyone bother when half the fleet have A/C TXPDR's and Half have 1090ES ... who will pay for that dual system whilst technology is picked up over the next 10-20 years?
.
This rubbish about broadband is just that .. rubbish .... what will CDMA (on a different band to 1090ES) provide the industry in OZ? .... and as importantly .. how much would they pay for it?
.
Bazaar!

LeadSled
6th Sep 2007, 02:06
Scurvy.

... no, the relevant point is the dual band in the US .... if all aircraft are 1090ES equipped, then if 'in' is provided, they will see each other IRRESPECTIVE OF GROUND STATION! .... the systems are fundamentally different in this regard, and you continue to skirt around that issue!

I'm not skirting around anything, look back through the posts, FAA do not consider the "aircraft to aircraft" (even if it is via the ground) ADS-B traffic information of pivotal importance --- TCAS works fine, and the US TXPD/C veils around/under all the Class B terminals ensures that all traffic in the high traffic count areas have a Mode C transponder as a minimum.

Right now, there are something like 7800 approx. "airline" aircraft in the US fleet, including commuters, (Part 121)** out of a total active fleet of something like 226/227,000, so the differences in the size of the markets for 1090ES versus UAT is obvious, without taking any guesses at the take up in the "non-airline" fleet. I would expect to see many of the "Commuters" opt. for UAT, because of the uses beyond just ADS-B. It will be interesting to see if the FAA broadens the "VDL-2 CPLDC" mandate to allow UAT/CPLDC as a substitute, for US domestic operations, it would be a logical move. I wouldn't bet against it.

Don't expect to see ADS-B IN of any variety fitted to aircraft with TCAS II, and that is a wider catch than in Australia. The way it is shaping, the only market for ADS-B IN will be in GA, with aircraft that do not have TCAS, and if I was asked to guess, I would say the market is the same one that Ryan TCAD and others aim at. But that is a guess, there are some smooth talking salesmen around.

When we looked at the possibility of putting 1090ES and UAT boxes in the one cabinet at the various sites planned for ADS-B ground stations, the cost was not daunting, guesstimated by Airservices as the same price, broadly, as the 1090ES box, with enough room that a new cabinet or power supply was not needed.

Would the end result have been better for GA in Australia?

Who knows, the prices being quoted then, for a GPS/TXPD/S with ES were guesses, now known to be wildly optimistic, and way below the cost of what is actually available now, years later, for either system (or VDL-4).

And less than UAT, but not much. The Garmin GDL 90 (https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=201&pID=6436) "does it all" and is about $7-8000 US. At least in the ballpark, compared to a modified GDL90 + GTX330D + display for IN.

One thing was certain, the marginal cost of operating the dual system was minimal, once the ground based hardware and software was in place.

I am amazed that you can predict that there will be no demand for broadband datalinks in Australia, in the future, just like Menzies' Chief Scientist advised there was no demand for an "electric adding machine" vice the CSIRO transistor. How wrong he was.

Tootle pip!!

** FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2007-2020, based on 2006 numbers.

OZBUSDRIVER
6th Sep 2007, 11:09
Actually, someone who went by the name Black Jack killed off CSIRO work on computers to concentrate on cloud seeding. Funny how life works. He was also instrumental in blocking the application for import protection for Victa. Narrow minded agri-socialists:mad:

Thread drift <off>

"The Ozbusdriver Scenario"

JCP submissions for ADS-B cross subsidisation is going to frustrate the process. AirServices will continue with the groundstation roll-out through 2008 as advertised. 28 stations through the UAP and 11 fitted alongside enroute SSR. (My guess is a further 10 units to give full coverage down to 10000ft for the Goldfields/Pilbara as business gets hotter with the resource boom)

As the enroute SSR come up for replacement refurb in 2019 and armed with the data obtained from nearly 15 years of operations using returns from RPT aircraft. CASA mandates fitment in ALL aircraft requiring fitment of radio and transponder by 2016. ALL aircraft must comply with the current TSO in force at that time.

Noncompliance risks being locked out of ALL airspace except G. Restrictions placed on NVFR operations. As well as operations into any CTAF serviced by RPT or with a published approach procedure.

AirServices will be able to provide a class E service down to the MSA for most major aerodromes with published procedures. Class E will lowered to 8500ft through the entire east coast inland as far as a line from the Gulf through to Port Lincoln. UNICOM will be available at selected major aerodromes, armed with ADS-B receivers, will be able to give non directed traffic information for a 30nm area surrounding the aerodrome.

GA cries poor! Too Bad, we had our chance back in 07.

gaunty
15th Sep 2007, 12:03
GA and all their apologists fiddling whilst Rome burns comes to mind.

I suspect that the Airsevices folks will make the right decision notwithstanding the enthusiast lunatic fringe.

LeadSled
16th Sep 2007, 04:22
Gaunty,
M'old mate, again you have shown just how out of touch you are ---- even you (despite your rather blinkered approach to such matters - understanding AS/NZ 4360/2004 never was your strong point) should have been able to figure out, from the Airspace Act 2007 and associated Regulations, including the Minister's Policy Statement, which is incorporated in said Act and Regulations, that it is not Airservices who will make the decision.

Indeed, us "lunatic fringe", owning some 90% of the aircraft on the Australian civil register (quite a "fringe") have some remaining confidence that the legislation will prevail ---- as it will, if the requirement for proper risk analysis and cost/benefit justification, as required by the Act, are carried out.

It seems obvious, in you case, that the current Booz Allan Hamilton exercise, on behalf of DoTARS, has not triggered a thought as to why BAH are doing what they are doing, if it was all a foregone conclusion.

If you ploughed through the BAH draft reports (on DoTARS web site - particularly but not only CBA 3.10.3), then re-read the JCP with an open mind, it might be an interesting experience for you --- provide your mind is not open at both ends.

Tootle pip, old chap!!

bushy
16th Sep 2007, 07:49
It is not necessary to apologise for GA. There are a lot of good people in GA doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances, to provide essential services to the outback.
Some city people will never understand this, and many do not care.
I believe the so-called lunatic fringe, and GA apologists voted some years ago not to have Gaunty as their representative.
I can see why.

gaunty
16th Sep 2007, 12:58
OK then............. I suspect that the folks at Airsevices/CASA/Government/Minister and whoever else has carriage of the Act and regulations will make the right decision notwithstanding the enthusiast know all lunatic fringe. :rolleyes::ugh:

bushy yup all 390 of the lunatic fringe. The rest of the 10,000 plus gave up on it, jeez it must be over 20 years ago now and over $1million or so of their money and asetts up the spout. So how about you putting your money where your mouth is, then, I can gaurantee you'll get around 390 votes too..:} :rolleyes:

Besides the Airservices revenue from that "90%" is probably single figures maybe double at a pinch as a percentage of the total, remember it's "pay your own way have your own say" you're getting.:rolleyes:

My advice FWIW is grab whatever you can when it is offered, you don't have any market bargaining power, only political power and precious little of it there either. You're not gonna change anything via PPRuNe, if they are not listening to you in the places it counts and it seems that is so, all the strutting and chest beating here is not gonna play. That's not to say they are not prepared to listen to rational cogent argument and reason. Hectoring and lecturing simply does not work.

I've got my view you've got yours, knock yourself out and deal with it.

Standby for the usual patronising waffle and officious rant from Leadsled it's so freakin predictable.:ugh::ugh:

Creampuff
17th Sep 2007, 00:11
I am still confused about this, and have not had any satisfactory answers to what appear (to me at least) to be fairly simple but important questions.

To the extent that I understand what's going on, it seems to me that the proposal is to subsidise a system that is different from what the US proposes to implement, at least for GA, in which case Australian GA might:

(a) miss out on the benefit of the economies of scale that would arise from 'piggybacking' on the system implemented in the US; and

(b) end up with an 'orphan' system.

The alternative is to subsidise a system that is the same as what the US proposes to implement for GA, in which case Australian GA might:

(a) have to pay a substantial cost for the 'delta' between the subsidy and the actual cost of equipment that will meet the US standards; and

(b) bear substantial risk in high ongoing maintenance costs.

How far off track am I, and why? I'm not being deliberately obstructionist here. Long time pruners know I'm one of Gaunty's biggest fans and I've never been backward in giving Leaddy a serve when I think he's spouting cr*p.

But I'm just not getting this.

And it couldn't be a national secret or that hard to find out: Does the ADSB equipment in the trial aircraft comply with 20.18 or have they been exempted from 20.18?

gaunty
17th Sep 2007, 09:22
Creamy touche, as usual.:) I think the operative word here is "trial" and for that logic demands we use gear currently available/installed cobbled up to prove, or disprove, the concept, process or the argument and then move on to whatever is the go from there with the latest stuff, backwards or forwards compatible maybe. Seems to me there is no point putting the cart before the horse.

That's what I believe the Doctor is doing at the same time as identifying what software changes may be required to make the current stuff work.
I don't believe its about TCAS or not as well as or instead of ADSB as some have tried to derail the thread with. It's about the future of AN ADSB system on OZ and what is best for, and here it comes again, for Australias unique airspace. It is unique becasue the high and low traffic densities are non uniform, assymetric and incoherently placed, with a relatively thinly populated airways system connecting them.

Hence the request for submissions on how best to deal with it. FANS and how it handled the Pacific route system are IMHO a classic example of the same problem. We produced the people who solved that one and I am sure they or their cohort are still around unless they have been driven mad by the meddlers and second guessers.

Scurvy points out issues.
1. Status quo (replace radars and navaids) … no subsidy .. A,C and S TXPDR’s
2. ADS-B (phased withdrawal of some radars and navaids) …Subsidy … resulting in 60% VFR fleet fitment
3. ADS-B (phased withdrawal of all – 2 radars and non back-up navaids) … Subsidy ….resulting in 90% VFR fleet fitment
.
COMPARISON OF NPV OF TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ACROSS SCENARIOS
.
Page 27 of the report is telling … scenario 3 has huge differential benefits for cost and safety! :D:D:D

Smith does the usual paranoid routine about the routine Big Bro Airservices plot to raise revenue.:rolleyes: ever constructive.:mad:

Leadsled inputs as many technical terms into his patented confabulator as he can think of to turn out the usual dire and prolix predictions in order to stir up the alligators.:p

When all Airservices DOTARS or whoever want to do is try to find out how best to drain the swamp. ;)

I thought that it was inconceivable that NAS2b would ever get to the fiasco it became, I clearly underestimated the power of confabulation.
OZBUSDRIVERS Prediction
GA cries poor! Too Bad, we had our chance back in 07.
therefore is all too probable. :{

LeadSled
17th Sep 2007, 14:16
Bushy,

bushy yup all 390 of the lunatic fringe.

Gaunty really is loosing touch, isn't he ---- quoting numbers about double his vote when he exited the AOPA Board --- when we were talking about people who actually own the aeroplanes and pay the bills.

Whether he likes it or not, about 11,000 aircraft owners (nothing to do with AOPA) are not waxing lyrical about the prospect of being forced to fit very expensive equipment to solve a problem they don't have. That nobody has demonstrated actually exists !!

Creamy,
A good place to start would be to ask ASAC in Canberra for a copy of the paper by R.J.Hall, PhD, "JCP, Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation and Surveillance"

Having digested Dr. Hall's paper, have a close look at the Cost/Benefit methodology paper produced by Booz Allan Hamilton.

Then go back to the JCP paper, and do yourself a table and separate the costs and benefits of C145/146 GPS that are unrelated to ADS-B, and the alleged benefits of ADS-B, whether related to GNSS or not. Pay particular attention to the claimed "SAR" benefits of ADS-B versus the coverage of ADS-B below 10,000'. Pay particular attention to the claimed benefits of C145/146 in the light of the fact that one of the most desirable, precision vertical guidance, also requires WAAS ---- which we ain't going to get ---according to Airservices ----- but the BAH Report may well recommend otherwise, it's not only aviation that uses precision GNSS.

I have fed all the necessary information into my patented technical confabulator, and in my informed opinion, the answers are:
(a) Yes.
(b) For GA, Yes

Second (a)

Actually, the only TSO compliant box that produces C-145/146/Gamma 3 output also is UAT ADS-B OUT/IN, and around the subsidy price, fitted. Compatible equipment already exists to handle UAT ADS-B IN --- base price of ADS-B OUT/IN (UAT) about US$7000. For all those who have GARMIN 430/480/530/MX20 it would be a snap ---- for UAT only.

The only set of boxes that currently meet the ATSO (also from GARMIN) are around US$16,000 plus quite a deal more expensive fitting, just to produce ADS-B OUT. I am excluding from this ATA/ARINC gear, and isn't it interesting that nobody here wants to talk about QANTAS Eastern's Dash 8 costs v. the JCP figures. The missing "zero".

Second (b)

Possibly, but given US volumes and consumer laws, not likely.

However, a small and virtually hand made batch for a tiny 1090ES Australian market, with sod all development budget ---- the real world ----- I would rate ongoing maintenance nightmares far more likely headed in the present Australian direction. Even add the EEC GA market and it's still cottage industry.

One forecast I can confidently make, as it is already happening now, is that the entry of the 1090ES "cheap solution" ---- the last dying gasp of a WWII piece of equipment ---- as the late entry into the ICAO competition eventually will be seen for what it really is---- a very shortsighted push for a "cheap" system by broke US airlines ----- that is turning out to be very expensive for airlines ----compared to fitting stand alone UAT or VDL-4 equipment.

Trying to squeeze the last data pip out of a seriously bandwidth limited lemon, instead of using a modern broadband data transmission system. Nil room for expansion v. all the things that broadband makes possible ---- and the modern (UAT) gear is cheaper.

Does the ADSB equipment in the trial aircraft comply with 20.18 or have they been exempted from 20.18?

As far as I have been able to work out, the answer is yes, no or maybe, but those intending to squitter ADS-B have to make arrangements with AsA, otherwise their pioneering emissions are filtered. It also seems to be the case that AsA are accepting signals that do not meet the ICAO (TXPD) standard, which at least raises questions about the use of the 5 mile separation standard.

----for Australias unique airspace. It is unique becasue the high and low traffic densities are non uniform, assymetric and incoherently placed, with a relatively thinly populated airways system connecting them.

Gaunty, what an assy metric statement ---- but at least you have admitted that there is no great density of traffic, making the claimed en-route savings a little suss, given the current separation standard available without ADS-B and with TAATS/RVSM ----- you know that trans-continental airways are more or less a thing of the past, do you.

There is absolutely nothing special about Australia airspace ---- except for one thing ----- we have far and away the lowest traffic densities of any western country. Even if the ASTRA 2025 forecasts were reached, total Australian traffic would still be about one fifth of current US traffic levels, in roughly the same area.

Page 27 of the report is telling … scenario 3 has huge differential benefits for cost and safety!

Izzatso?? Rooly Trooly --- But, then again, counting and accounting never was your long suite. Creamy, do your own numbers on the raw figures in the JCP, based on the BAH methodology ---- bearing in mind that the risk case required by the Airspace Act 2007 is missing in it's entirety.

----I believe the Doctor is doing at the same time as identifying what software changes may be required to make the current stuff work

"The Doctor" ---- Now we've got Time Lords into the system??

Seriously, ICAO standards are settled for what we need now ---- where do you think the standards in the ATSO's came from. I hope AsA is not trying to re-invent the wheel, they don't have anything like the expertise of the RTCA.

Standby for the usual patronising waffle and officious rant from Leadsled it's so freakin predictable.

My dear old chap, watch your blood pressure, we wouldn't want you to blow a fooffle valve. We know red wine is good for us, but doubling up isn't double plus good. Have your thought of trying the new wonder drug, Viagozac: "If you don't get a -----, you don't give a -----".

Tootle pip!!

OZBUSDRIVER
18th Sep 2007, 01:08
Frame of reference. Leadsled, Hall et al cherry pick argument to resist fitment. Hall et al outright, Leadsled wants UAT because it is cheaper.

AirServices is rolling out ADS-B sations to get the coverage it wants by 2008. AirServices wants to shut down the en-route SSR by 2019. They want a minimum of 85% fitment to ensure level of service is maintained. In effect airservices wants everyone to fit a new transponder to work with the new system. UAt has benn ruled out outright on cost grounds. It may be cheaper to buy UAT units from the states to fit into aircraft(GA only) however, it is prohibitively expensive to rollout UAT in OZ to get the levels of coverage required AND interface between two dissimilar fleets. Without UAT Heavy cannot see GA and visavis. Outside of range of UAT GA doesn't see anything and no one sees GA. RPT still sees RPT but not GA.

1090ES, heavy can see GA regardless. AirServices sees everyone within coverage of the groundstations. Before you sprout off Lead. The ATA gear is available today and by the time this rolls around most of the hulls will have been replaced so moot point, mate. The problem AirServices faces is convincing GA thatthis is a worthwhile thing to be a part of. Chances are your 25yo truck will be 35yo by the time this is mandated and will still have the same steam gauges it was fitted with from the factory.

The way I see this- either we get this in now with help for fitment OR ten years down the track everyone gets slugged at dollar one (FULL PRICE including fitment) UAT is not going to happen. Who is going to pay for your broadband,Lead? I am certainly not and I am damn sure Geoff will take a dim view of subsidising your jollies. UAT is GA only! It would be far cheaper to give every pilot a NextG card a free broadband account and a program for their PDA or TabletPC to access met data from the mobile broadband network than roll out UAT.

Get out your google and do a search for PocketFMS and see what you can get in Australia right now! This argument of real time wx is a furphy. it suits the antagonists to chose this bit as a feature yet deride the idea of a display that shows the position of other aircraft in your vicinity as dangerous as it drags your attention inside the cockpit:ugh:

Gentlemen, there is moss growing on you!

Creampuff
18th Sep 2007, 02:00
The ATA gear is available today

What is it (manufacturers’ names and part numbers please), how much does it cost, and can it be turned on without breaching CAO 20.18?

If I don’t want any more moss to grow on me, I can presumably buy, fit and turn this gear on now.

OZBUSDRIVER
18th Sep 2007, 05:26
Creampuff, just got back in, stby:ok:

OZBUSDRIVER
18th Sep 2007, 06:45
There are three transponders to fit Airbus and Boeing to enable 1090ES transmission-

xs950 (http://www.acssonboard.com/products/xs950/)
Honeywell (http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/TCAS3_C4BC908E6-ED12-48C9-C18D-DF3761231807_H90D7FCE8-398A-9300-D426-12FF07625576.htm)
Honeywell Support TRA-67 (http://honeywelltcas.com/support_pages/whitepapers/enhancedtra67adescription.pdf)
TPR-901 (http://www.c-130amp.com/ecat/AT/TPR-901_2.html)

EDIT just to add a link to an ICAO paper that Scurvy was refering to at the start of this thread. Take note of page 6 first paragraph.
AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE –
BROADCAST (ADS-B) SEMINAR AND THE SIXTH
MEETING OF ADS-B STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION
TASK FORCE (http://www.icao.or.th/meetings/2007/ADSB_ADSB_TF6/wp06.pdf)

Creampuff
18th Sep 2007, 10:30
Thanks OBD

I hope you won’t consider me churlish, but:

- I couldn’t find any prices at the links you gave (although there were some nice pictures of very large aircaft at some of them); and

- At present don’t care what any ICAO 'paper' says.

I want to know how much it will cost me to fit a CAO 20.18-compliant ADS-B system to an Australian bugsmasher today - to avoid unsightly moss accretions.

Ballpark?

OZBUSDRIVER
18th Sep 2007, 11:08
OK, misunderstood you there, Creamy. U fly bugsmashers like me. Right now, we will get by with a Garmin GTX330 and a 430/530W or a 480 at the top end of the market. If there is a go, MicroAir could start producing the complete unit in one package. Someone told me that the GPS engine they use from FreeFlight had been demoted back to 129a from 145a, (I do not see that lasting too long.) There is also another unit from Italy that does all the bells and whistles including IN. I have yet to get a price from them.

When you asked for ATA gear I thought u waz talking about a jet. That stuff starts at about $16000 to $20000 a box and U can see there is about two minimum in each install. Outa my league.

Off the Aircraft Spruce and Specialty site.
Garmin GTX330 mode S $3526.00US (?$7056.00US with"IN"?) these units will be available with 1090ES
GNS480 $9165.00US ALL the bells and whistles.

MicroAir has their package only for mode A/C but supplied AirServices with the trial kits. Some grumble about costs. I think they will supply at around the $5000 to $7000 XPDR and GPS with an IN function.

BECKER BXP6401 modeS $2793.00US

There is also an Italian unit, no price or details from www.Selex-Comms.com (http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/1090%20MHZ%20Extended%20Squitter%20ADS-B%20TIS-B%20Light%20Airborne%20System.pdf)

onthedials
18th Sep 2007, 11:48
What is the basis for your claims about the 1090ES capabilities of these products? Do you have definitive information from the manufacturers?

Chimbu chuckles
18th Sep 2007, 12:17
Remind me again about LPV under the current AsA plans?

If this ATM transformation ocurrs without LPV it will be an absolute travesty.

If we can't get 'ILS like' vertical guidance approaches on 1090ES then it has to be WAAS and UAT/VDL4 or whatever for GA.

Our company Boeings have been fitted with Mode S transponders recently...presumably 1090ES...to be JAR compliant. Obviously they are TCAS2 v7 compliant and I believe that is all they will ever be. Can't see any other airline beancounter springing for any other clever boxes because there seems no benefit. Between ACARs (inflight weathers/notams++, TCAS (self evident) and Mode S (outputs IAS/ALT/VS/Callsign/type etc) the big end of town seems well and truly covered.

I honestly cannot see ADS-B being attractive to the non subsidised top end of town within the Australian FIR. Nor do I see a convincing and demonstrated urgent need within the Aus FIR in RVSM airspace. Even if QF/J* and VB became ADS-B compliant most foreign carriers won't be so the benefits won't flow to the compliant aircraft operators in RVSM airspace....which as I have stated in the past is hardly what you would call crowded now.

With Cat 3 operations coming to ML and Sydney, and surely PER sooner rather than later given it's remote nature and fog issues, you'll never see lower minimas. You're not going to see, despite the rhetoric issueing forth, significant increases in terminal airspace utilisation without more runways.

Where is the benefits for hicap domestic/international RPT?

Those relatively few jets that operate regionally have TCAS which as has been stated by the regulator won't be made redundant by ADSB anytime soon.

That leaves everyone who operates below RVSM airspace...the regionals and GA. They need, and with the right system in place, could have, vertical guidance on approaches everywhere and even in cockpit weather data....but it seems they aint gonna get it.

At what cost and who benefits?

LeadSled
18th Sep 2007, 13:08
Folks,
Ozbusdriver is "sort of right", partly.

Garmin GTX330 mode S $3526.00US

Except that the Mode S ADS-B enabled is the GTX330D with the required coverage --- a couple of ales under US$8000 --- a not insignificant amount of money, and an not insignificant difference. Then there is the GPS feed to the GTX330D that GARMIN have announced, the GDL-90, another US$7-8,000, and that gets you OUT. The IN function, you need a screen ---- and do get your part numbers right, not all GNS430/480/530 are created alike, and GARMIN have (very significantly) NOT announced using the GPS in the 430W/480/530W as the GPS feed to a GTX330D. And then there is the little matter of US$14,000 -$22,000 ( not including fitting or GST) just for 430/530 ---- remember --- think Part Numbers ---!!

Claims for the Italian gear are to be verified, "what" they are TSO's for is somewhat of a mystery.

Microair are being very coy ---- not quoting any availability or prices, and the Freeflight C-145 A-1 GPS they are quoting ( once it's problems are sorted and it gets its certification back) is of limited suitability for instrument approaches, so it won't be be much better than C-129A to IFR operators.

As we already know,( we do know, it was on the ASTRA web site --- but the enthusiasts are not letting on) the "$25,000" for Regionals (in the JCP) is short by a factor of 10. So much for the JCP benefits that the enthusiast don't want questioned, least it is revealed that the Emperor has No Clothes.

All the boxes mentioned for heavy metal are OUT ONLY, with no plans for IN, (because in that environment everybody is quite happy with the performance of TCAS II.) ---- and for new production. As the US Air Transport Association (ATA) have just collectively had the penny drop (the real QF figured this out years ago re. 767/744) as to how expensive a retrofit to the whole US fleet is going to be -- unless it is recent production. For the then B767/744 (ex-ER) QF fleet, it was an estimated AUD$49M. You should be able to find this figure in the early AERU meeting minutes --- but I am certainly not going to waste time digging them out of the archives to prove a point, avalanches of proof of the costs are with us: look back at the statement from the President of the ATA.

The almost religious like beliefs of the starry eyes proponents of ADS-B don't change the uncomfortable facts, and you should all read Ch. 3.10.3 of the Booz Allan Hamilton paper on cost/benefit analysis ---Optimism Bias.

Which ever way you go round the mulberry bush, the answer comes out the same --- the ONLY prices for equipment for GA aircraft, that is ACTUALLY available, that meets the ATSO ---- and meets the ICAO transponder standard for ADS-B, is the GARMIN GDL-90/GTX330D combination, with aerials about US$17,000 or so, fitted in Australia, plus GST, somewhere close to AUD $35,000.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled
18th Sep 2007, 14:09
Chimbu,

Your post turned up while I was crafting my last masterpiece.

If this ATM transformation occurs without LPV it will be an absolute travesty.

The minimum C-145/146 for LPV is a Gamma 3 PLUS WAAS. No WAAS, NO LPV --- a little point --- glossed over/missed out/not even known to ---those who did the sales job on why we have to have ADS-B --- so that we will be forced to have C145/146 GPS with LPV ---- Yes, Folks, that is actually said, if a bit obliquely, in the ASTRA conglomeration of paperwork.

Won't it be interesting (based on the many non-aviation uses of modern precision GPS --- the first GPS2 operational satellites have just gone up) if Booz Allan Hamilton recommend Australia have its own WAAS satellites, or have its own WAAS equipment hosted on convenient comms. satellites.

Re. your brand spanking new Mode S on your B767 --- like to have a little bet that they are not 1090ES enabled ---- because achieving ADS-B OUT on most B767 is a huge job, almost a complete new cockpit avionics fit, a new FMCS system, related panel changes (it's all software/memory limitations of the now 20 plus year old gear in a B767 --- it is genuinely the equivalent of an Apple 2E --Motorola 8000 series processors)

In a few years time, we will look back, and see what a dumb decision whole 1090ES was -- internationally.

ICAO intended a common for ALL, modern broadband datalink for the many purposes it can be used ---- ADS-B, CPDLC and the Chief Steward processing credit card on-board duty free sales ( as we have done for years with ACARS), and the competition shortlist was UAT and VDL-4.

Then 1090ES reared its head --- sold as a cheap and easy solution (remember the AsA PP slide --- 1.44 floppy and a cable was to be it) to a broke US (and most of the rest of the world) ATA/IATA membership. As those who are actually involved, as opposed to armchair experts, now know, or as some of us have known for a long time, is that short sighted undermining of the original ICAO intent for a common broadband standard, is neither cheap or simple for a large proportion of the world's airline fleet, aircraft that are going to remain the bulk of the world's airline fleet for many years.

Chimbu, your management will know by now, that if you are your type of aircraft operating in the ECAC (or FAA) area, within the next several years, you will have to have VDL-2 for all routine ATC operations, CPDLC will no longer be optional.

If the ICAO plans had not been shafted, there would have been ONE standard of datalink, whether UAT or VDL-4 would not have made much difference, just as we have one standard for all other aviation avionic (ignoring some CIS legacy equipment). So, the one datalink would have served CPDLC, ADS-B, company comms with ARINC/SITA, much enhanced real time trend monitoring, and whatever good ideas somebody might have dreamt up.

Instead, we are squeezing the last data pips out of a datalink lemon, that hails from WWII. It's barely (but is) adequate for TCAS II, but severely bandwidth limited in the digital broadband age.

And airlines will be faced with the initial and ongoing costs of having to have multiple incompatible datalinks on the one airframe, when it could have been one (duplicated) box.

An Australia, "punching above our weight", as is often our boast, have played a big role on promoting this technologically regressive standard, 1090ES.

Tootle pip!!

Chimbu chuckles
18th Sep 2007, 15:57
so that we will be forced to have C145/146 GPS with LPV

Did you mean to say 'C145/146 without LPV'?

Any system without LPV is a waste of everyone's time and money.

LeadSled
19th Sep 2007, 00:30
Chimbu,
Sorry about not being quite clear enough.

If a C145/146 GPS engine is at least Gamma3, it can handle LPV, but WAAS is a must. No WAAS, and the LPV function is inactive.

Thus, do you believe it is appropriate (honest?) to include LPV benefits in the JCP C/B "study".

So, keep those letters flowing in to your local member, even if AsA and its major bill payers prefer GRAS (for some very good reason --- and they don't benefit from WAAS) there is the little matter of the rest of Australia, not just the Regionals down, but all forms of transport, marine, mining, survey, agriculture etc. WAAS up, Doc.

Another example of the national interest not being the same as the commercial interests of AsA, but reading the ADS-B or bust brigade comments, one might believe so ---- that we, the bulk of the aircraft on the VH- register, should be forced to have a system we don't need, to solve a problem we don't have, because AsA says it will save somewhere between 2-4% on the bottom line.

At a cost to us of some AUD$200M plus over the program period.

Everybody who has been critical of Dr.R.J.Hall's paper dissecting the JCP have been very strong on assertions that he is wrong, but there is not one word to support the assertions.

Tootle pip!!

OZBUSDRIVER
19th Sep 2007, 07:20
GDL90, forgot that one too. Re- 1090ES in GTX330, Garmin put out a blurb that this unit WILL be available lastQ this year. As for the GPS engine, that same blurb had the GDL90 as the source for positional information.

Lead, now that I have found a price for the GTX330. I would be confirming that to ensure that the $7056.00 unit is for IN and TAWS. Obviously IN would be UAT not 1090ES.

onthedials
19th Sep 2007, 10:54
And UAT IN won't be much use if the JCP succeeds, will it?

I for one support the comments of Dr Hall. Are there any Australian pilots who do not want an enroute surveillance system that is highly accurate, extensible, repeatable, robust and based on low cost infrastructure? The JCP claims to do so at the great expense of GA operators who are effectively being asked to underwrite the cost savings that Airservices, the airlines and government would gain. The risk - and it is great - just ask any business that bought IT vapourware in the '80s - is being very conveniently flicked to the GA sector.

The GTX330D, at least according to the published Garmin specifications, will be certified to TSO C112. But CAO 20.18 requires TSO C166/a or the ATSOs. So to make these statements, you guys must KNOW that Garmin will either recertify to TSO C166/a or the ATSOs? Really? Or are you all relying on the "CASA Cop-Out", whereby it really doesn't matter whether it's a thronomister or a 1090ES device, since CASA was given the legal right in the last NPRM to make a standard and approve it anyway? [vide CAO 20.18, Appendix XI, 1(e)]

We are faced with the unenviable dilemma of missing out on the subsidy if we disagree, whilst running the risk of bearing the financial costs of ABIT's gamble entirely on our own if those great authorities turn out to be wrong about the unannounced intentions of mostly US avionics manufacturers.

Umm, gee, funny, didn't see any mention of that in the JCP. But it'll be a good excuse later, after the legislation and after 60% of the GA community has done its money.

I guess it just goes with the political season. It's a disgrace.

fraud·u·lent adj
not honest, true, or fair, and intended to deceive people

But, don't let me put you all off. Quick! race off and support it anyway.

LeadSled
19th Sep 2007, 14:59
Dials,

you guys must KNOW that Garmin will either recertify to TSO C166/a or the ATSOs?

We have been told that., "technically" the (# number) GTX330D "will meet" the necessary spec. for 1090ES, when it is released, but that's not quite the same as actually being certified.

unenviable dilemma of missing out on the subsidy

Folks, please understand the "subsidy" is only for aircraft on the register at some magical date xx/xx/xxxx, it is not open ended. Think how adding an extra $30,000 (based on the only actual prices we have --- not "gunna" prices) is going to encourage fleet renewal at the bottom end of the market.

Umm, gee, funny, didn't see any mention of that in the JCP.

Like no safety case at all, not even a flawed one, and a CBA that is not any cost/benefit analysis in any normal terms, and not within a bull's roar of the BAH guidelines for a CBA.

But that's enough for now, otherwise I might spoil a good night's sleep.

Tootle pip!!

Chimbu chuckles
19th Sep 2007, 16:17
Been doing a little more light reading on the garmin website and others...and lets face it, Garmin have the world market for GA hi tech largely to themselves so that is the most likely manufacturer for TSO'd IFR units.

My understanding is the certified GDL90 will be a stand alone (imbedded C145a GPS) ADSB compliant, data generating unit which will transmit the required data via the GTX330(D) Mode S 1090es unit...although no mention of ADSB-out capability appears anywhere in the GTX330(D) spec sheet, and 3rd qtr 20007 is here, it appears the obvious vehicle.

It seems the only capability the extended squiter transmission has is the basic IAS/ALT/TRK/ID info that provides the desired AsA result of 'radar like' monitoring within the ADS-B coverage...ADS-B out.

If ADS-B in is desired it must come via UAT (or VDL4)....neither of which are options currently even remotely being considered by AsA...Do I have that right...the ES is a transmit (limited) data only deal?

AsA makes much of the GBAS/GRAS GNSS enabled precision approach capability at any airport with 23nm of the ground station...so MB/BK/AF/PF/JK/RED/CAB etc could all benefit, theoretically, by being within that 23nm and have precision approaches down to cat 1 minimas.

How...what unit will be required to interpret the digital signal and display it on your CDI/HSI...at what cost?

Just why GNSS Cat 1 minimas are going to get the airlines all wet between the legs escapes me...they have that now and really need CAT2/3 at the capital city primaries to reduce interstate diversion due fog. The saving for the airlines are not JUST from not doing diversions on a handfull of days each year either...they'd save every day by not tankering interstate diversion fuel into Sydney from halfway around the world just in case weather goes below CAT 1 minimas. I am sure we wouldn't arrive in Per with 12000kg++ in our 767s if 03/21 was Cat3b ND or BN divert fuel into Sydney.

We're not getting SBAS/WAAS...technology that would enable equipment already fitted to 1000s of GA aircraft in Australia and would have mittigated 'Australia's worst air disaster'...and would be a revolutionary game changer for regional/charter and private IFR operations within Australia.

The SAR case is overstated to an extent that borders on Pythonesque given the proposed GRAS/GBAS coverage at low altitude.

No inflight weather because of no UAT/VDL4....you gotta admit it would be nice to able to download the AsA weather info inflight for a nominal fee...we get it free now via the WWW on the ground.

All we might get is a remote mounted GDL90/ModeS 1090Es combo that releases AsA from 100s of millions of $ in equipment renewal.

What an OBSCENE missed opportunity:ugh::mad:

Increased safety?

Really...How?:ugh::rolleyes:

Scurvy.D.Dog
19th Sep 2007, 18:54
Except that the Mode S ADS-B enabled is the GTX330D with the required coverage …. What is the required coverage? …. Range? ….. power output?
.
What are (out of curiosity) the differences in the ‘range’ of the two different standards i.e 1090ES V’s UAT? --- a couple of ales under US$8000 --- a not insignificant amount of money, ….. less than $8K ….mm and also it would seem a not insignificant difference in estimated/quoted cost compared to your earlier ‘end of the earth’ proclamations of what this ‘sort’ of gear might cost! ….. mmmmand an not insignificant difference. ..and the JCP funding for GA IFR was how much? ….. mmmm ….. but that will be the best of it though eh … no prices will not come down if more than 7,000 units places come onto the market in OZ (let alone the other nations utilising the commonality with the existing 1090mhz) …. ‘earth ending’ no doubt! Then there is the GPS feed to the GTX330D that GARMIN have announced, the GDL-90, another US$7-8,000, ….. are you telling only half the story here? ….. for what IFR applications (that have existing GPS data) will the GDL – 90 be required? ….. mmm … AND …. Perhaps you might enlighten the great unwashed what other GPS data input/installation can be utilised?
.
… presumably you have hard data on which to make these assertions, and therefore should be able to share it here with us! and that gets you OUT. …. And the JCP funds what and why? The IN function, you need a screen …. Beauty …. Thank goodness, cause a while ago you were inferring ‘In’ was a bridge to far!
.
..are you seriously suggesting UAT 'IN' is easier than 1090ES 'IN'? ... or that folks like GARMIN will not manufacture 1090ES 'IN' capability? :hmm:
.
REMEMBER! …. This JCP (and the infrastructure savings from it, that pay for it) is for the removal of ‘back-up’ (or redundant) ground Navaids (as listed) and replacement for Enroute SSR (that WILL have to be replaced if Mode A/C TXPDR’s are still in play in large numbers)! …. In other words …. THIS IS PRIMARILY An ATM SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT! ….. any other positive safety benefits for GA such as LPV (TSO145/6) and/or collision risk reduction OCTA, outside surveillance areas are separate (but important) issues! … more on that later
.
Back to the script:- So we have
.
.. a GPS, a 1090ES TXPDR, a screen … voila!
.
…… but but hang on ---- and do get your part numbers right, … oh goodness yes, particularly in the GPS context!
.
So lets break down the state of play:-
.
VFR
.
Some owners/operators might currently have:-
.
- No GPS in the aircraft
- No A/C TXPDR
- A non- TSO GPS
- A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav) … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally)
- A non - TSO Glass system
- A TSO- Glass system
.
IFR
.
Some owners/operators might currently have:-
.
- No GPS in the aircraft
- A non- TSO GPS
- A TSO 129a (not sole means but, IFR Nav) i.e. GPS in Lieu of DME etc use
- A non - TSO Glass system (Standard TSO’d IFR instrumentation)
- A TSO- Glass system
.
A mandate will IMHR mean:-
.
VFR
.
Owners/operators will have/get:-
.
- A TSO GPS in the aircraft
- An A/C/S/ES TXPDR
- A TSO GPS (if RAIM Cert) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav) … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A non - TSO Glass system (if equipped with A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally) ) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A TSO- Glass system (if equipped with A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally) ) + an add on ES TXPDR only
.
IFR
.
Some owners/operators will have:-
.
- A TSO GPS in the aircraft
- An A/C/S/ES TXPDR
- A TSO GPS (if RAIM Cert) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A non - TSO Glass system (if equipped with A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A TSO- Glass system (if equipped with A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav or 146a + an add on ES TXPDR only
.
What data protocol/s for connection? …………how many of these parts (from different manufacturers) can plug together?
.
…. Hmmm
.
..here’s a hint …… what data standards from GPS’s drive Autopilots? ….. which manufacturers of each will drive/receive the other/s? not all GNS430/480/530 are created alike, and GARMIN have (very significantly) NOT announced using the GPS in the 430W/480/530W as the GPS feed to a GTX330D. …. Right …. So are GNS430/480/530 (not augmentation/sole IFR NAV use) driven by 129a GPS?? ….. hmm? .. and the GTX330D feeds off it (approved)??? ….. are you finally accepting that 129a (with RAIM) is plenty good enough to drive a surveillance TXPDR (A/C/S/ES)? And then there is the little matter of US$14,000 -$22,000 ( not including fitting or GST) just for 430/530… that depends on weather the owner/operator already has a ‘compliant’ GPS that can drive the ADS TXPDR! … even if they do not, and do then specifically want a GARMIN 430/530/430W or 530W …. What does $10K (VFR) and 15K (IFR) funding buy? ….. IFR NAV capability … and if they do not want GARMIN ….. there are other options to drive the mandated ADS TXPDR … aren’t there! ---- remember --- think Part Numbers ---!! …. And more important and relevant in connectivinty!Claims for the Italian gear are to be verified, "what" they are TSO's for is somewhat of a mystery. ….. eewww yes mystery ….. I mean the Italians might certify to horse draw carriage or billy cart standards ….. they will sell heaps
.
… what standards do you think they will meet (FOR AVIATION) if they are gunna sell them! ….. bloody hell …. You’ve been watching too many Harry Potter movies!Microair are being very coy ---- not quoting any availability or prices, ….. why do you reckon that might be? and the Freeflight C-145 A-1 GPS they are quoting ( once it's problems are sorted and it gets its certification back) is of limited suitability for instrument approaches, so it won't be be much better than C-129A to IFR operators.
… please do enlighten us, as I am sure Microair will want to hear this!As we already know,( we do know, it was on the ASTRA web site --- but the enthusiasts are not letting on) the "$25,000" for Regionals (in the JCP) is short by a factor of 10. … OK, let’s see the quotes shall we! …. whilst you are at it, any idea on ‘Universal’s’ box cost? So much for the JCP benefits that the enthusiast don't want questioned, least it is revealed that the Emperor has No Clothes. ….. enthusiasts …. Don’t want questioned …. revealed that the emperor has no clothes ……. Lordie you are a story teller and a hypocrite ….. more on that later (think Part 103)All the boxes mentioned for heavy metal are OUT ONLY, with no plans for IN, (because in that environment everybody is quite happy with the performance of TCAS II.) …. Good show, you hit the nail on the head …. HEAVY metal is not gunna operate where the GA JCP funded aircraft would not normally operate and certainly not without TXPDR (of some sort) ……. i.e. Primary TMA (PRIM and TAR exist irrespective of the JCP plan) and High level En-route (1090ES wide area surveillance airspace) .. of course TCAS II is good for them particularly if far more accurate TXPDRS that are emitting A/C/S and ES Code are visible to them and ATS!---- and for new production. As the US Air Transport Association (ATA) have just collectively had the penny drop (the real QF figured this out years ago re. 767/744) as to how expensive a retrofit to the whole US fleet is going to be -- unless it is recent production. For the then B767/744 (ex-ER) QF fleet, it was an estimated AUD$49M. You should be able to find this figure in the early AERU meeting minutes --- but I am certainly not going to waste time digging them out of the archives to prove a point, avalanches of proof of the costs are with us: look back at the statement from the President of the ATA. …. Look back … bout says it all ….. ATA (and older non-GPS derived FMS) are relevant only in Primary TMA and High Level Enroute, their TCAS and TXPDR’s need not be changed …… and besides, it is irrelevant to the GA JCP and low-level ADS surveillance! …. Trying to link the two is mischievous at best! ….. new hull’s have it …. And the benefits it brings can be delivered increasingly in those airspaces mentioned as the fleet fitment naturally increases!The almost religious like beliefs of the starry eyes proponents of ADS-B don't change the uncomfortable facts, and you should all read Ch. 3.10.3 of the Booz Allan Hamilton paper on cost/benefit analysis ---Optimism Bias. …. Actually, you should (as with your previous vigour for one quote from a document at the intentional exclusion of the whole), read the whole, I have (even though it is buried away on the Australian Transport Council website), and again you have been caught with you dud’s down ol’ mate ….. almost finished my response to you on that … in the next day or two. In the meantime, see if there are any other bits in it you would like to address!Which ever way you go round the mulberry bush, the answer comes out the same …. you wish it were so! --- the ONLY prices for equipment for GA aircraft, that is ACTUALLY available, that meets the ATSO ---- and meets the ICAO transponder standard for ADS-B, is the GARMIN GDL-90/GTX330D combination, with aerials about US$17,000 or so, fitted in Australia, plus GST, somewhere close to AUD $35,000. …. and thats all she wrote is it?
.
Now on to LPV (which is a separate issue)!The minimum C-145/146 for LPV is a Gamma 3 PLUS WAAS. No WAAS, NO LPV …. Not only WAAS i.e. Satellite based Augmentation … but Ground Based also! ….. does the Augmentation function (available in the 145/6 sub-set) only work with Satellite based corrections? …. Hmmm --- a little point --- glossed over/missed out/not even known to ---those who did the sales job on why we have to have ADS-B--- so that we will be forced to have C145/146 GPS with LPV ---- Yes, Folks, that is actually said, if a bit obliquely, in the ASTRA conglomeration of paperwork. ….. no, it says ‘approved’ systems (to drive an ADS TXPDR)! …. CASA also goes on to express what conditions are required to meet that approval!
.
Won't it be interesting (based on the many non-aviation uses of modern precision GPS --- the first GPS2 operational satellites have just gone up) if Booz Allan Hamilton recommend Australia have its own WAAS satellites, or have its own WAAS equipment hosted on convenient comms. satellites. …. so who is paying for the WAAS satellite/s and where is the CBA comparing to Ground based???? ….. you keep banin on about process, lets see it!Re. your brand spanking new Mode S on your B767 --- like to have a little bet that they are not 1090ES enabled ---- because achieving ADS-B OUT on most B767 is a huge job, almost a complete new cockpit avionics fit, a new FMCS system, related panel changes (it's all software/memory limitations of the now 20 plus year old gear in a B767 --- it is genuinely the equivalent of an Apple 2E --Motorola 8000 series processors) …. Does a B767 operate into PRIM/TAR low-level airspace? ….. and if it did ….. what would TCAS see now and into the future if 1090ES is adopted? .. more importantly what would it see of UAT?In a few years time, we will look back, and see what a dumb decision whole 1090ES was -- internationally. … you wish!ICAO intended a common for ALL, modern broadband datalink for the many purposes it can be used … comon for all YES (like all aircraft on 1090ES) …… broadband link? … what for ATS and Air-to Air traffic alerting ….. you are joking right? …. Arguably commonality on a unique band is desirable … lest TXPDR’s and TCAS end up being as reliable as a mobile phone …… bloody hell! ---- ADS-B, CPDLC and the Chief Steward processing credit card on-board duty free sales …. UNHINGED cobba! ( as we have done for years with ACARS), … SAT? and the competition shortlist was UAT and VDL-4. love to hear who said that …… or are they out of range of a CDMA station to respond?Then 1090ES reared its head --- sold as a cheap and easy solution (remember the AsA PP slide --- 1.44 floppy and a cable was to be it) to a broke US (and most of the rest of the world) ATA/IATA membership. … dear oh dear …. This bed time story is really good ….. those bad ol’ floppy discs and cables! :rolleyes:
.
Hey Big L's … can you tell us the one about the proliferation of those nasty boxes all over the US that talk two different languages most of which is can only be heard close by ….. ??? As those who are actually involved, as opposed to armchair experts, now know, or as some of us have known for a long time, is that short sighted undermining of the original ICAO intent for a common broadband standard, is neither cheap or simple for a large proportion of the world's airline fleet, aircraft that are going to remain the bulk of the world's airline fleet for many years. …… oh were it so!Chimbu, your management will know by now, that if you are your type of aircraft operating in the ECAC (or FAA) area, within the next several years, you will have to have VDL-2 for all routine ATC operations, CPDLC will no longer be optional. ….. errmmm what percentage of hulls operating into the states don not have CPDLC? …. And ‘comparatively’ (there is that nasty CBA acronym that you love so much) what options are available to heavy’s for CPDLC delivery? ….. SAT?If the ICAO plans had not been shafted, there would have been ONE standard of datalink, … there still will be ! whether UAT or VDL-4 would not have made much difference, …. VDL4 or UAT .. what would those mods cost the majors? …… less or more than the 1090ES (and SAT for other) solution?? just as we have one standard for all other aviation avionic (ignoring some CIS legacy equipment). So, the one datalink would have served CPDLC, ADS-B, company comms with ARINC/SITA, much enhanced real time trend monitoring, and whatever good ideas somebody might have dreamt up. ….. goodness me …. All that on the CDMA network ….. when in range …… as opposed to ATM on a 1090ES and anything else via SAT? … common …. No more rot …. Where is the comparative costs you keep banging on about ……. ???Instead, we are squeezing the last data pips out of a datalink lemon, that hails from WWII. …. Which has kept aircraft apart successfully throughout it development It's barely (but is) adequate for TCAS II, but severely bandwidth limited in the digital broadband age. ….. but carried by most large aircraft in the world!
.
Heres the rub
.
… How many TCAS equipped aircraft will see VDL4 or UAT aircraft ???And airlines will be faced with the initial and ongoing costs of having to have multiple incompatible datalinks on the one airframe, when it could have been one (duplicated) box. … you’ve lost it!An Australia, "punching above our weight", as is often our boast, have played a big role on promoting this technologically regressive standard, 1090ES. …… Nup!If a C145/146 GPS engine is at least Gamma3, it can handle LPV, but WAAS is a must. No WAAS, and the LPV function is inactive. …. Sole means?Thus, do you believe it is appropriate (honest?) to include LPV benefits in the JCP C/B "study". sole means? ….. I mean it would be silly to install an IFR GPS without an ‘augmentation’ ability for when augmentation comes …. Would it not?So, keep those letters flowing in to your local member, even if AsA and its major bill payers prefer GRAS (for some very good reason --- and they don't benefit from WAAS) … Letters flowing … crikey .. break out the lithium please :}
.
WAAS/GRAS … why would ASA give a hoot ….. oh yeah … it is a little easier to install AND SERVICE a regional augmentation system than A SATELITTE ……
.
What are the cost comparisons for GRAS V’s WAAS eh? … and who will pay? there is the little matter of the rest of Australia, not just the Regionals down, but all forms of transport, marine, mining, survey, agriculture etc. … hmmmm .. and what are mining and Agri using??? WAAS up, Doc. … Indeed!Another example of the national interest not being the same as the commercial interests of AsA, but reading the ADS-B or bust brigade comments, one might believe so …. The size of the Bill ….. bwahahha …. Christ …. Que the background pan pipes …… ---- that we, the bulk of the aircraft on the VH- register, should be forced to have a system we don't need, to solve a problem we don't have, because AsA says it will save somewhere between 2-4% on the bottom line. …… I can here the overtures of Part 103 in the back ground ……..
.
.
.
….. STOP THE MUSIC ….. Big L’s cries! At a cost to us of some AUD$200M plus over the program period. that will be spent on nav-aids and Radars if without it anyhow!Everybody who has been critical of Dr.R.J.Hall's paper dissecting the JCP have been very strong on assertions that he is wrong, but there is not one word to support the assertions. …. Really …. Rubbish .. one need only review the material here (links etc)!And UAT IN won't be much use if the JCP succeeds, will it? ….UAT ‘IN” won’t be much good out of range of a ground station either! ….. 1090ES ‘IN’ will in range or not!I for one support the comments of Dr Hall. …. NO …. Really! ….. do you and Dr Hall support Part 103? ….. if so on what CBA/RISK (based on data) basis??? ….. cannot wait to here this! Are there any Australian pilots who do not want an enroute surveillance system that is highly accurate, extensible, repeatable, robust and based on low cost infrastructure? …… if so …. Stear clear of UAT! The JCP claims to do so at the great expense of GA operators who are effectively being asked to underwrite the cost savings that Airservices, the airlines and government would gain. ….. explain that thanks! The risk - and it is great … less or greater than dual band UAT? - just ask any business that bought IT vapourware in the '80s …. I see were back in the 80’s are we?- is being very conveniently flicked to the GA sector. … loadacodswalup and you know it!The GTX330D, at least according to the published Garmin specifications, will be certified to TSO C112. But CAO 20.18 requires TSO C166/a or the ATSOs. So to make these statements, you guys must KNOW that Garmin will either recertify to TSO C166/a or the ATSOs? … and what’s involved in doing that? Really? Or are you all relying on the "CASA Cop-Out", whereby it really doesn't matter whether it's a thronomister or a 1090ES device, since CASA was given the legal right in the last NPRM to make a standard and approve it anyway? …tell the whole story …. It has to meet the criteria for positional update and accuracy monitoring! [vide CAO 20.18, Appendix XI, 1(e)] …… what is the regulator for?We are faced with the unenviable dilemma of missing out on the subsidy if we disagree, whilst running the risk of bearing the financial costs of ABIT's gamble entirely on our own if those great authorities turn out to be wrong about the unannounced intentions of mostly US avionics manufacturers. …. what do you want …. Funding? ….. pay for infrastructure that will cost you the same in charges anway? ….. go with UAT and loose the opportunity to buy from the world market (including Australians like Microair) ….AND WHO PAYS FOR THE CDMA NETWORK THAT IS BEING DECOMISSIONED .... Feck’en ellUmm, gee, funny, didn't see any mention of that in the JCP. But it'll be a good excuse later, after the legislation and after 60% of the GA community has done its money. …. So its their fault is it? :ugh:I guess it just goes with the political season. It's a disgrace. … what would you have them do?fraud•u•lent adj
not honest, true, or fair, and intended to deceive people …. Intended to deceive ….. ask Big L’s why he and Hall don’t wan’t ADS-B ….. given they must already know Oz cannot afford own and service a CDMA network let alone resonable coverage dual band ground boxes and UAT in aircraft??But, don't let me put you all off. Quick! race off and support it anyway. ….. no better still, just say no its shite’ don’t want a bar of it .. and we can all get some sleep!
.
Here is the link to the oft mentioned (but never properly quoted) Booz Allen Hamilton guide:-
.
National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia (2nd edition, December 2006) (http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/index.aspx)
.
... go on Big L .... so us all how off the mark the JCP really is against BAH .... wholistically that is :=

OZBUSDRIVER
20th Sep 2007, 00:30
Is that the Booz Allen Hamilton report that is refered to? You can't be serious? Surely there is a link I am missing on that page. These guys are trainspotters!

OZBUSDRIVER
20th Sep 2007, 01:05
CC, the transponder also needs to transmit an integrity signal.A NIC/NUC value. That is the prime target of the AS/CASA compliance tests.

LeadSled
20th Sep 2007, 02:05
Scurvey,

Old mate, you have the wrong BAH DRAFT report, BAH have been commissioned (didn't you read the Minister's press releases) to produce guidelines for CBA, in the last few months, values of life, and a a range of interesting matters, of which WAAS for AUSTRALIA ---- not just aviation use ----- is one. Try the CASA web site.

Clearly you are unaware, but GNSS is used for many purposes, I did list a few, and the penny has dropped that the AsA "decision" on WAAS is not a case of "What's Good For Airservices Is Good For Australia".

Who will pay for it? Australia, presumably --- who else ---- just the same way as we pay --- for satellite time ---- how many ways are there, now??

As for most of the rest of your last post, when "ye got that ol' time religion", it wouldn't matter what I said, or anybody else who disagrees with you. It would also seem that you only have a limited grasp of the technicalities involved and don't really understand why:

WHY ICAO PROPOSED A COMMON BROADBAND DATALINK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Instead of having a plethora of datalinks, which is where we are going now.

I think it is axiomatic that a single common broadband datalink would be cheaper than multiple datalinks on the one airframe, particularly when bandwidth limited. This is NOT to say that the current Mode S TXPD/TCAS II won't be with us for a long time yet ---- a large part of the reason the two major large airframe manufacturers have expressed disinterest in ADS-B IN, seeing it as a air/ground ATC function only.

You do understand, do you, that a 1090ES ADS-B ONLY signal will not trigger TCAS, do you, you need the full Mode A/C. I doubt that we will see any diminishing of the role of transponders ----

Range?? As UAT works in the same frequency range as transponders, I would assume the basic range was about the same. This was a claimed advantage of VDL-X, being VHF, it has a longer range than UHF, but whether the theoretical differences translate to practical differences is moot.

Ozbusdriver ---the prime target of the AS/CASA compliance tests.

And Garmin have told us that the GTX330D will meet DO260A, so far the only other (but I am sure there will be more) is one P/N Collins TDR-94D)

Tootle pip!!

Scurvy.D.Dog
20th Sep 2007, 06:47
..you said on 16th September 2007, 04:22 post #154 (to Gaunty) if the requirement for proper risk analysis and cost/benefit justification, as required by the Act, are carried out.
It seems obvious, in you case, that the current Booz Allan Hamilton exercise, on behalf of DoTARS, has not triggered a thought as to why BAH are doing what they are doing, if it was all a foregone conclusion.
If you ploughed through the BAH draft reports (on DoTARS web site - particularly but not only CBA 3.10.3), then re-read the JCP with an open mind, it might be an interesting experience for you --- provide your mind is not open at both ends. …. Did you intentionally lead us off to the DoTaRS website knowing that the BAH stuff (on the DoTaRS site i.e. linked through BTRE to Australian Transport Council) was a furphy?
.
Then todayScurvey,
.
Old mate, you have the wrong BAH DRAFT report, BAH have been commissioned (didn't you read the Minister's press releases) to produce guidelines for CBA, in the last few months, values of life, and a a range of interesting matters, of which WAAS for AUSTRALIA ---- not just aviation use ----- is one. Try the CASA web site.
.
Low and behold, there tucked away in the OAR pages:-
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/airspace/draftreport.htmlPublic comment
.
These documents are currently open for public comment. Comments should be emailed to [email protected] by COB 14 September 2007...and the documents are dated ….. 27 Aug 2007’
.
18 days for public consultation/feedback on the document that our regulator will base decisions on airspace matters into the future!?
.
… how many people/groups/organisations new about this and had time to feedback (before closure of submissions) on the final draft of such an important document?
.
Background on BAH:-
.
http://www.boozallen.com.au/booz_allen_ANZSEA/aboutus/13489780
.
Aviation:-
.
http://www.boozallen.com.au/booz_allen_ANZSEA/capabilities/13495364/transport/transport_industry_sectors#Aviation
.
Then for a flavour, look at the Economics Values document:-
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/airspace/draftreport.html
.
- Airspace depiction on Page 6 …. 2004 … and clearly wrong in context of C airspace over D (that exists both before and after the untested AusNAS2b) …. There are others, but lets sit on them for now!
.
…. one other notable omission …. Who were the SME’s engaged to formulate this? …. Bill? … anyone?
.
…not withstanding …. (I ask again specifically) .. what in the current JCP/CBA does not comply with or require the assumptions drawn by BAH?
.
Key to this is another pearl that you refused to answer previously on this subject ….. where is the statistical data on VFR flights outside CTA and/or surveillance areas?? … and in its absence .. what assumptions can be made?
.
None the less, in response to the rest of your latest post:- Clearly you are unaware, but GNSS is used for many purposes, I did list a few, and the penny has dropped that the AsA "decision" on WAAS is not a case of "What's Good For Airservices Is Good For Australia"... what I said was …. so who is paying for the WAAS satellite/s and where is the CBA comparing to Ground based???? ….. you keep banin on about process, lets see it! ..and WAAS/GRAS … why would ASA give a hoot ….. oh yeah … it is a little easier to install AND SERVICE a regional augmentation system than A SATELITTE ……
.
What are the cost comparisons for GRAS V’s WAAS eh? … and who will pay?… no penny drop … the BAH process should compare the utility and safety outcomes of both WAAS and GRAS for all that might use it … when will we see it? .. and who will pay? …. Australia?
.
..you said Who will pay for it? Australia, presumably --- who else ---- just the same way as we pay --- for satellite time ---- how many ways are there, now?? … I see CDMA/WAAS/GRAS … how much are GA to be levied for that investment? …. Or are you suggesting funding as a Community Service Obligation without recovery from General revenue? …. Hmmm … I’d like to see that … better lock it in before you wax lyrical about it! As for most of the rest of your last post, when "ye got that ol' time religion", it wouldn't matter what I said, or anybody else who disagrees with you. It would also seem that you only have a limited grasp of the technicalities involved and don't really understand why:
.
WHY ICAO PROPOSED A COMMON BROADBAND DATALINK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
.
Instead of having a plethora of datalinks, which is where we are going now. …. If you say so oracle …. Lets count them though (even though I have no grasp) :rolleyes::-
.
GA UAT
.
- Traffic on UAT and 1090ES when in range of a ground station
- WX notams (by subscription) when in range of a ground station
- Requires dual band ground stations and CDMA footprint
.
Costs? …. You cannot tell us!
.
1090ES
.
-Traffic (all) via 1090ES irrespective of ground station in range
- WX and Notams (via Sat XM etc) (by subscription) available anywhere anytime
- Requires single band ADS ground station (no CDMA network)
.
Cost? (XM Sat V’s CDMA ground network)? …. You cannot tell us .. yet you tell us UAT is the go …. How does the industry decide on the other (non traffic stuff until a CBA comparison is done?? … hmmm … hypocritical maybe? I think it is axiomatic that a single common broadband datalink would be cheaper than multiple datalinks on the one airframe, particularly when bandwidth limited. .. which completely ignores the ground based costs and the requirement to be within ground station range to see all UAT and 1090ES (RPT) traffic … do YOU understand? This is NOT to say that the current Mode S TXPD/TCAS II won't be with us for a long time yet ---- a large part of the reason the two major large airframe manufacturers have expressed disinterest in ADS-B IN, seeing it as a air/ground ATC function only. .. this assertion has been said and tested that many times here .. and each time you provide no basis in fact to support it! You do understand, do you, that a 1090ES ADS-B ONLY signal will not trigger TCAS, do you, you need the full Mode A/C. I doubt that we will see any diminishing of the role of transponders ---- …. how many will squitt A/C/S/ES together? …. How does that compare with UAT?Range?? As UAT works in the same frequency range as transponders, I would assume the basic range was about the same. .. you sure? This was a claimed advantage of VDL-X, being VHF, it has a longer range than UHF, but whether the theoretical differences translate to practical differences is moot …. Depends on what sort of benefit/utility you want/expect from the ground based infrastructure doesn’t it?
.
As for the rest:-
.
… no comment (again) on Part 103 … !
.
… no comment (again) on CBA/Risk for a tangible reduction in TXPDR/VHF carriage in certain classes of airspace …. !
.
…. Wonder why? ….. TXPDR’s? …. VHF?
.
Readers might be interested in Part 103 :-
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/103/download/nprm0603os.pdf
.
Take particular note of :-
.
- Page 7 :suspect:
.
- Page 18 (3.5.12) :suspect:
.
- 103.063103.063 Inconsistency with other provisions
(1) If a provision in this Part is inconsistent with a provision elsewhere in these
Regulations, the provision in this Part prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.
- 103.360103.360 Obligation to maintain radio listening watch
(1) If an aircraft is fitted with serviceable radio communication equipment and a serviceable means of generating electrical power sufficient to enable the equipment to be operated continuously, the aircraft’s pilot in command must:
(a) maintain an effective listening watch; and
(b) make any reports and broadcasts required:
(i) by or under these Regulations; or
(ii) if the requirement is not inconsistent with these Regulations — by the procedures manual of the relevant RAAO.
.
Note: This regulation applies to all radio-equipped aircraft that are capable of continuously powering a radio, whereas regulation 103.350 and subregulation 103.355 (2) apply to all aircraft when they are in the stated situation, regardless of their electrical generating capability.
.
..bit different to the current reg eh Lead/Bob!
.
... where is the limitation/requirement to have the equipment fixed?
.
.. was it you Lead that said recently that Sport owners were removing TXPDR's? :=
.
.... will make any attempt elsewhere in the regs to mandate VHF carriage and use moot .... then the argument for CTAF only fly's right out the safety window .... eh :hmm:
.
Emperor …. and Threads mate … take a captain cook in the mirror! :ok:

Chimbu chuckles
21st Sep 2007, 07:00
Flight information services-broadcast (FIS-B)

FIS-B provides weather text, weather graphics, NOTAMs, ATIS, and similar information. FIS-B is inherently different from ADS-B in that it requires sources of data external to the aircraft or broadcasting unit, and has different performance requirements such as periodicity of broadcast.[1]

In the US, FIS-B services will be provided over the UAT link in areas that have a ground surveillance infrastructure.

1090ES

In 2002, the FAA has announced a dual link decision using 1090 MHz ES and UAT as mediums for the ADS-B system in the United States. The 1090 MHz Extended Squitter ADS-B link for air carrier and private/commercial operators of high performance aircraft, and Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) ADS-B link for the typical general aviation user.

Europe has not officially chosen a physical layer for ADS-B. A number of technologies are in use. However, the influential Eurocontrol CASCADE program uses 1090ES exclusively.[4]

With 1090ES, the existing Mode S transponder (TSO C-112 or a stand alone 1090 MHz transmitter) supports a message type known as the Extended Squitter (ES) message. It is a periodic message that provides position, velocity, heading, time, and, in the future, intent. The basic ES does not offer intent since current flight management systems do not provide such data – called trajectory change points. To enable an aircraft to send an extended squitter message, the transponder is modified (TSO C-166A) and aircraft position and other status information is routed to the transponder. ATC ground stations and TCAS-equipped aircraft already have the necessary 1090 MHz (Mode S) receivers to receive these signals, and would only require enhancements to accept and process the additional Extended Squitter information. Unfortunately, 1090ES does not support FIS-B service.

Honest question SSD...how does that gell with;

1090ES
.
-Traffic (all) via 1090ES irrespective of ground station in range
- WX and Notams (via Sat XM etc) (by subscription) available anywhere anytime
- Requires single band ADS ground station (no CDMA network)

My understanding is that airliners get this information via ADS-A via ACARs link...Never experienced it myself...our 767s don't have ACARs.:hmm:

I think that any system introduced into Australia needs to have the capability to bring LPV style approaches to places like Lockhart River and other remote destinations...if that can be achieved with GBAS/GRAS all well and good...but I get the impression this is not AsA's aim.

OZBUSDRIVER
21st Sep 2007, 09:02
Remember this post on another site-

CASA plans satnav for minnows
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commissioned a study to find the best way of allowing smaller planes to use the Global Navigation Satellite System to measure their height during landings.

The six-month Booz Allen Hamilton study will look at the most cost-effective way to allow GNSS approaches with vertical guidance, a system already used successfully by airlines and estimated to be eight times safer than current straight-in approaches.

Australia has been at the forefront of vertical guidance development for some years but the International Civil Aviation Organisation has yet to set a standard.

Under the current GNSS system, aircraft descend using a series of steps that define a minimum altitude. Any confusion between the steps can have disastrous consequences.

A vertically guided GNSS approach would allow the planes to descend at a steady rate with continuous feedback on whether they are too low or too high.

The aviation regulator was asked by the Aviation Policy Group to review the available technology and do a cost-benefit study.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said that various jurisdictions were looking at different ways of introducing the vertical separation technology for small operators.

"We're looking at what's best for Australia and to mesh in, particularly with the Asia-Pacific region," he said.

"So there's a six-month consultancy period for them to go away and look at all those things, and the cost-benefits as well, and put it to the industry."

Mr Gibson said the study was a first step but the issue was important.

Mr Gibson said the system would probably have been another defence against the Lockhart River crash.

CASA navigation expert Ian Mallett said the system would give pilots safety, operational and environmental benefits.

"Benefits include safer approach path guidance, simpler approach procedures and lower minimum descent altitudes in adverse weather," Mr Mallett says.

"The major airlines, with the advanced navigation technologies of their new-generation aircraft, such as the Boeing 737-800, are already using this type of approach around Australia and overseas.

"It is now time to make vertical guidance available to anyone with the technology in their aircraft and the training to fly using the instruments.

Source: The Australian
The Australian newspaper (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22101164-23349,00.html)

Howabout
21st Sep 2007, 09:07
First post, so I will keep it simple. I am utterly confused as to the problem that we are trying to solve. I have read the posts and am none the wiser. Scurvy D seems to be a committed person for 1090ES, but I got to the stage where his posts were so long that I just lost interest.
The US is going UAT/1090ES - so the question I ask is how will this decision impact on the cost of units to GA here if we, in this country, only go 1090ES? I also read that the Russians and Swedes are doing a trial with VDL-4. Is our solution as locked in as some would have us believe? I suppose I am asking what is the real cost.

Sorry - says 19, add 20

Chimbu chuckles
21st Sep 2007, 09:23
But was that before SBAS/WAAS was thown out?

How do they achieve those aims with the GRAS/GBAS technology without vaste numbers of ground stations?

I look at Figure 3 in the JCP and wonder why they don't include shading, or better yet a separate chart, for coverage at ground level with the end state 39 ground stations in place.

Can anyone give a link to such a chart?

Given the detail in Ozbusdriver's post you would think that sort of information was readily at hand and might be of, more than, passing interest to the industry during the consultation phase.

Scurvy.D.Dog
21st Sep 2007, 09:55
Evening cobba..I think that any system introduced into Australia needs to have the capability to bring LPV style approaches to places like Lockhart River and other remote destinations...if that can be achieved with GBAS/GRAS all well and good...but I get the impression this is not AsA's aim. … I agree … it is the single biggest safety advantage we can deliver to GA IFR ….. BUT
.
.. the protagonists of THIS proposal are trying IMHO to muddy the waters to avoid this ADS TXPDR revolution …. Their voice is not speaking to the real and ancillary benefits, rather an agenda of no surveillance or comm footprint OCTA!
.
The fact that the JCP talks about LPV capable GPS to drive the ADS transponder is (in the absence of any other reason) to avoid IFR squandering the funding on non-LPV GPS (to drive the ADS) when in reality 15K towards LPV capable GPS lays the capability for augmented approaches in the not to distant future, and for those already 129a IFR capable that cannot afford (with the 15K funding) to update to 145/146a (i.e. 129a glass .. maybe?) an acceptable ADS 129a approval exists!
.
.. as usual, thinking folks as yourself are homing in on the logical reason that 145/146 TSO has been nominated for IFR new install’s …. As for glass etc that already has a 129a class 1 engine .. if the cost of 145/146 is going to be cost prohibitive, then the AC provides the out for acceptable GPS driver for ADS transponder.
.
As for the ancillary services such as notam and WX …. SAT data link is already built in to many systems (XM capability etc) … if IFR folks want it (above and beyond free via ATS voice VHF) then so be it BUT, that assumes they aready have systems that (without much fuss) will accept XM etc .. if they do not already have such systems, then what will they need to invest to receive the ancillary data (WX notams)???? ….. I (and I assume the industry) are not going to jump into that void unless and until the ancillary costs are known, and the number of IFR users (wanting the service) are quantified.
.
Lockhart River et al is about LPV capability.. not notam’s and WX .. and that’s the crux
.
How much and when?
.
The JCP potentially gives IFR 15k of subsidy to provide the ‘additional’ building block for LPV nav under the guise of an ADS TXPDR driver
.
….. opportunity lost? .
.
…. I don’t think so!
.
Do you think AsA (gov’t) should pay for new LPV nav system's (beyond current installs) and TXPDR when the funding break is for the ATM system?
.
... 145/146 TSO GPS is better than they need ….. gift horse and all that!
.
… bottom line … if ADS was not funding ES TXPDR’s …. What would IFR pay for LPV ..and who would be responsible for that cost? …… AsA? …… think not!
.
.. as far as augmentation goes ... WAAS, GBAS, GRAS ... I dunno! .... the cost and performance of each needs careful analysis .... WAAS is good no doubt .... minimums are higher than GRAS ... which is higher than GBAS, inversely proportional to range ..the cost and compatibility of each is still a bit smoke and mirrors .... thus I would not jump one way or the other .... nor would I therefore link the two .... what I do know is that whatever LPV system is used 145/6 will be required to monitor the parameters needed ..... back to the above .....
.
.. that is why, (after much time looking), I cannot see why the current plan is net negative for GA .... even if there is individual (based on owner selected options) a small additional cost (if any) .... what do you loose?
.
… but then what would I know!
.
Best :ok:
.
Scurv
.
P.S.
.
Howabout
.
... the long posts (time invested) . is to explain the DETAIL .. lest vested motherhood statements dilute the guts!
.
... if you cannot invest a few minute to read those .... well ... that speaks volumes of your interest in disclosure .... those that do ... know! those that do not .... suffer in yer jocks I'm afraid! :suspect:

Howabout
22nd Sep 2007, 09:01
Sorry SDD. I respect your grasp of the intracacies, but don't really appreciate what this is all going to cost. Yes, I know the JCP quotes some figures, but if the yanks go UAT low-level, what impact does that have on price-per-unit for GA here? I just don't feel comfortable with some of the assumptions.

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Sep 2007, 09:54
.... I agree (as would most I assume)! ... that is the point of this .. narrow down the specifics ... then write them into your feedback to the JCP ... :ok:
.
.. the more informed and specific the responses, the less likely the important bits will be missed! :) ... and as importantly ... the aspects that are supported will be retained!
.
...one sure fire way to be ignored is to respond with non-specific objections! ;)

gaunty
22nd Sep 2007, 14:45
Scurvy mate, :ok: excellent work.

To the confabulators a great and I hope virulent pox on you.

It's like this.

What you call the "big airline" end of town is prepared to "pay" and it IS them who are "paying" for it, for them (Airlines and ATC) to be able to "see" the 9-10,000 "lighties" who seem to be led by the I would say idiot "Pied Pipers". They want to be able to "see" them anywhere they, the "lighties", go in order for the airlines and "responsible" operators with TCAS etc to avoid a coming together that would have adverse consequences = kill their pax = huge payouts. The death of your constituents may be unfortunate but really do not figure in the scheme of things. All this on an Auatralia wide "virtual radar" system that is otherwise financially impossible.

Who cares if its 129, 149, E=C2, Smithspace compliant or within the Hall's :rolleyes: of doom.

It's being offered for FREE (and if you want to add the cockpit screen you can pay for it) and will most likely prevent your early demise.

Read my lips, IT'S FREE. WHO THE **** CARES WHETHER IT CAN CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION OF THE EARTH OR NOT. WHETHER YOU CAN SEE THEM OR NO 'TIS IMMATERIAL THEY (AIRLINES AND ATC) CAN SEE YOU AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
So you should look a gift horse in the mouth. Anybody who thinks this is NOT a good idea can line up behind all the other flat earth pointy alfoil hat lunatics that follow Leadsled and his little mate.

Creampuff
22nd Sep 2007, 21:09
But Gaunty, I thought:

• the proposal is for a ‘subsidy’, not a 100% reimbursement – that’s not the same as ‘free’, is it?

• the subsidy doesn’t apply to maintenance – every additional box fitted to an aircraft has to be maintained. Who pays for that?

• ‘big’ aircraft can ‘see’ ‘little’ aircraft on TCAS, if ‘little’ aircraft have serviceable transponders, and where traffic densities dictate, there’s primary and secondary radar on which ATC can see the ‘little’ aircraft as well – why not subsidise fitment and maintenance of just transponders?

I’ve come to the same conclusion as some others, for different reasons.

The few lessons I’ve been clever enough to learn and remember in life include this one: There’s always a sting in government proposals that include ‘free’ fistfuls of dollars. Always a sting.

I am comforted by the fact that the likes of CC don’t support this proposal, on ‘operational’ grounds. To the extent I understand the technical/operational issues, it seems to me Australia’s at risk of spending lots of money on a low-tech orphan system with no substantial safety benefit.

I hope I’m wrong - it seems the lure of the ‘free’ boxes is irresistible for the majority.

Scurvy.D.Dog
22nd Sep 2007, 23:57
.. this is effectively about 'low-level' surveillance/anti-collision systems ... one assumes that is about air-air and air-ground means where it is currently expensive or non-exisitant• ‘big’ aircraft can ‘see’ ‘little’ aircraft on TCAS, if ‘little’ aircraft have serviceable transponders, ... OK ... so if RPT are operating in G/CTAF ???and where traffic densities dictate, .... and how exactly is that determined? ... i.e. wheres the REAL data .... mores the point how does one collect that data? there’s primary and secondary radar on which ATC can see the ‘little’ aircraft as well – .. only around the Primary's ... which is not what this program is about why not subsidise fitment and maintenance of just transponders? ... fair question .... I assume it will be in you JCP submission! :ok:The few lessons I’ve been clever enough to learn and remember in life include this one: There’s always a sting in government proposals that include ‘free’ fistfuls of dollars. Always a sting. .... I agree ... but then most of you know my views on same through my posts here and elsewhere .... why then would I be spending so much time discussing this here? ..... cause it is IMHO unheard of for Gummint to provide such a funding proposal .... Unusual? ... yep! ... hooks? .... maybe! .... what are the options if it is not funded like this? ..... how much will that cost? .... how much will industry pay if ADS-B does not happen .... there are some knowns in all of that!
.
... which brings us back to why a red ragging anti establishment leftie like me would be bothered!I am comforted by the fact that the likes of CC don’t support this proposal, on ‘operational’ grounds. To the extent I understand the technical/operational issues, it seems to me Australia’s at risk of spending lots of money on a low-tech orphan system with no substantial safety benefit. ... if after all these pages and linked doc's, that is your conclusion ... so be it .. nothing I or anyone else will say will change that! .... but please, put in a submission articulating your concerns, so they are considered and answered/addressed :ok:
.
Cheers
.
Scurv

werbil
23rd Sep 2007, 03:44
I have submitted my response today.

For those like me that are to lazy (like me) to fill in the form and post it you can respond by email - the details can be found at http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airspace/jcp/#respond

Further to Scurvy.D.Dog, no matter what your opinion is make sure you respond to the JCP. Otherwise put up with the consequences and don't bitch about what happens later. :ok:

LeadSled
23rd Sep 2007, 05:49
Gaunty,

-----THEY (AIRLINES AND ATC) CAN SEE YOU AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
Dear chap, you really do have a slight problem with the technical details, done you, if you actually read some of the posts that are less than rapturous about the wonderful thing is being done for (or is that to?) us, you would see the slight technical problem, if you can understand the detail. That would be far more useful than just getting indignant about those you regard as the devil incarnate.

You never did come back with the details of what equipment the RFDS are using for a "trial" in your part of the world. You don't seem to understand that the QFLink Dash 8s are ONLY getting ADS-B OUT. You seem to have very great difficulty understanding the TOTAL lack of ICAO/ATSO compliant equipment available for ADS-B IN.

Howabout,
The fact that the JCP talks about LPV capable GPS to drive the ADS transponder is (in the absence of any other reason) to avoid IFR squandering the funding on non-LPV GPS (to drive the ADS) when in reality 15K towards LPV capable GPS lays the capability for augmented approaches in the not to distant future,

With all due respect to Scurvey,part of the problem is that he and many others do NOT understand the technical details. LPV requires WAAS. and a minimum of a C145/146 Gamma 3 GPS.

The GBAS Airservices is talking about is NOT compatible with receivers designed for WAAS. Do we really want another unique Australian system for GA. The ECONOMIC case for GBAS at major airports for the heavy metal operators is a completely different issue, and nothing to do with "safety".

Scurvey
I see CDMA/WAAS/GRAS … how much are GA to be levied for that investment? …. Or are you suggesting funding as a Community Service Obligation without recovery from General revenue? …. Hmmm … I’d like to see that … better lock it in before you wax lyrical about it!


-----levied?
About the same as fishermen, coastal boat operators, farmers, surveyors, road transport operators, particularly parcel delivery services, --- there is a very long list of uses for WAAS enabled GPS. Get it out of your mind that only Airservices will make these decisions, Airservices do not own any of the satellites they now use for data transmission. Who would host and Australian WAAS capability ---- Inmarsat, who did the last one, until it was moved, PanAm Sat, ----

Forget about your continual references to CDMA, as if a CDMA ground ground network has anything to do with UAT. "CDMA" is a signal format, like TDMA, or VHF AM or FM. Remote ground stations could retransmit UAT signals just as easily as VHF voice and 1090ES data.

Creamie
• the proposal is for a ‘subsidy’, not a 100% reimbursement – that’s not the same as ‘free’, is it?
Precisely, and ONLY for VH- aircraft on the register on a date to be fixed, and even the amounts quoted will reduce over the transition period, it is not even AUD$10/15,000 fixed.
• the subsidy doesn’t apply to maintenance
Precisely, and don't forget that the JCP proposal does NOT comply with the Airspace Act 2007, and this Act was passed in the full knowledge that the ASTRA "plans" (carried into the JCP paper) contained no risk justification or acceptable CBA.
• ‘big’ aircraft can ‘see’ ‘little’ aircraft on TCAS, if ‘little’ aircraft have serviceable transponders,
Precisely, but with the Australian complication that we don't follow ICAO/FAA TCAS requirements, the local operators didn't like the cost, and didn't believe TCAS was justified, given the very low traffic densities in Australia. So many regional airline aircraft do not have TCAS. If that's the case (and it was accepted by CASA -- as you know) why is ADS-B justified to achieve the same result as mandating TCAS as per. ICAO.
I hope I’m wrong - it seems the lure of the ‘free’ boxes is irresistible for the majority.
Sadly, I think you are right, the "selling" job has been quite effective, particularly the in my opinion quite deliberate mixing of GNSS and ADS-B benefits to claim mutual dependence, when is is simply not so. ADS-B is not a requirement to generate C145/146 GPS navigation/operational benefits, and in the absence of WAAS/LPV, about the only benefit left is the ability to use an IFR alternate that has no ground based navigation aid. It is this that enables Airservice to propose removing many of the NDB and VOR, with the resultant savings to Airservices ---- It has nothing to do with ADS-B.

As P.T. Barnum is purported to have said: "There's one born every minute".

Tootle pip!!

PS: I almost forgot.
How do we get VFR data ---- the same way we always have, including doing what the NAS 2C Post Implementation Review team did, you will also find that on the DoTARS/CASA web sites.

OZBUSDRIVER.
CASA press release:CASA plans satnav for minnows

CASA navigation expert Ian Mallett said the system would give pilots safety, operational and environmental benefits.

"Benefits include safer approach path guidance, simpler approach procedures and lower minimum descent altitudes in adverse weather," Mr Mallett says.

"The major airlines, with the advanced navigation technologies of their new-generation aircraft, such as the Boeing 737-800, are already using this type of approach around Australia and overseas.

But Ian is talking about RNP/RNAV, nothing to do with WAAS/LPV or GBAS, it is here now, not subject to any WAAS or other augmentation requirement ,but at some time in the future, GBAS will offer lower minima --- Cat1 and below ---an economic benefit.

Scurvy.D.Dog
23rd Sep 2007, 08:47
The GBAS Airservices is talking about is NOT compatible with receivers designed for WAAS. .. GBAS or GRAS? …. are you referring to the delivery Freq and/or the actual data used to augment positional accuracy? Do we really want another unique Australian system for GA. .. nope! …. But you again won’t answer the bottom line … do you want any ADS or VHF requirement OCTA? …. Do you REALLY not want 15K funding for LPV (capable) GPS for GA IFR? …. bazaar ... this is all about the other issues you leave unanswered isn't it?? The ECONOMIC case for GBAS at major airports for the heavy metal operators is a completely different issue, and nothing to do with "safety". .. different issue is it? ..why would commercial operators want augmentation to the lowest possible minimums ... bit like RNP for which a HUD and crew qualification for specific approaches is required?
... IYHO ....it is NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY .... lowering minimums safely, which mitigates Misd App's and Diversions (see the YPPH incident) maaaate, do you seriously think folks are buying this?
.
.... you infer the low-level ADS funding proposal is indelibly linked with ‘heavy metal operator' costs of ADS equipment when clearly it is not …. you seek to dilute the efficacy case for GA by suggesting there is little safety benefit when clearly there is! …. It is becoming clearer why that might be the case ... Pot calling Kettle .. Pot calling Kettle …. Over
.
BTW …. GBAS augmentation … how does that work for the heavy metal operators’? … perhaps you might enlighten the readers with the GBAS, GRAS and WAAS technical?Scurvey
I see CDMA/WAAS/GRAS … how much are GA to be levied for that investment? …. Or are you suggesting funding as a Community Service Obligation without recovery from General revenue? …. Hmmm … I’d like to see that … better lock it in before you wax lyrical about it!
-----levied?
About the same as fishermen, coastal boat operators, farmers, surveyors, road transport operators, particularly parcel delivery services, --- there is a very long list of uses for WAAS enabled GPS. … absolutely …. WAAS could be available to those with an augmentation system (and Sat WAAS link) …. How much? Get it out of your mind that only Airservices will make these decisions, .. never said they did .. it is convenient (and a little typical) for you to attempt to put words in my mouth! .. not gunna wash though! Airservices do not own any of the satellites they now use for data transmission. Who would host and Australian WAAS capability ---- Inmarsat, who did the last one, until it was moved, PanAm Sat, ---- .. sure … who pays? …how much will be the Aviation industry component? .. and how does that compare with GRAS? …. Do you know? .. mores the point do you care? …. Or is it simply upping the ‘signal to noise’ ratio? .. I guess so!
.
..on the one hand you do not want ADS or 145/6 GPS funding .. yet you sell sell going with WAAS augmentation .. apparently all on your say so .... where is the CBA/RA/JCP is all I’d say to you! … do you see the hypocrisy?Forget about your continual references to CDMA, as if a CDMA ground ground network has anything to do with UAT. … presumably a ground network will be required? "CDMA" is a signal format, like TDMA, or VHF AM or FM. Remote ground stations could retransmit UAT signals just as easily as VHF voice and 1090ES data. .. no doubt … but half the traffic (commercial) will be 1090ES, and the rest (if you had your way .... or would they?) on UAT! ….. therefore the ground box will need a computer to receive, convert then retransmit on each band … CORRECT? …. As opposed to one band (1090ES) ground receive only! … CORRECT? …. And the point you continually avoid … for each to see type to see the other requires the ground station processing! .. add on benefit of UAT (WX and NOTAM) requires a subscription and in range of said GS .. that assumes a company would even be prepared to provide the service! …. the "selling" job has been quite effective, particularly the in my opinion quite deliberate mixing of GNSS and ADS-B benefits to claim mutual dependence, … gooord, we’ve come full circle now … it was you who mixed the GNSS and ADS-B in an attempt to noble both!ADS-B is not a requirement to generate C145/146 GPS navigation/operational benefits, who said it was?. but without CIF for ADS ... how do GA IFR pay for LPV (145/6) GPS? :hmm: …. mud mud mud :suspect: and in the absence of WAAS/LPV, about the only benefit left is the ability to use an IFR alternate that has no ground based navigation aid. hurray .. you acknowledge 1 of the benefits:D .. howabout:-
.
- Future Augmentation ready?! ….and
- IFR GPS capability for IFR that currently HAVE NO GPS NAV!
.
…. it would be stupid in the extreme to fund a GPS sys to drive the ADS that was not future ready .. would it not? …. It really gets in your rib’s doesn't it that GNSS future tech is catered for in this program, thereby denying the naysayer’s oxygen on that score! It is this that enables Airservice to propose removing many of the NDB and VOR, with the resultant savings to Airservices .. this is the sort of drivel that weakens and clarifies your position …. the whole way along, you have suggested the benefits of the CIF were rubbish, now at the eleventh hour you acknowledge the basis for savings invested into funding for the system that will facilitate removal of more expensive old tech back-up NAVAIDS … this has been part of your ballgame right from the outset! ….. the real 'tell all' is the usual crap attached . that being ‘Airservices savings’ ….. have you actually read the documents? … the money saved by not REPLACING existing back-up NAVAIDS and ENROUTE RADAR is covering the CIF …. The savings beyond that, as has been the case for years, are returned to those who pay for ATS …. THE INDUSTRY! ---- It has nothing to do with ADS-B. garbage … this is (as is clearly articulated in the JCP) a multifaceted program:-
.
- ADS (Surveillance) i.e. ADS-B
- GNSS (Nav) i.e. replacing back-up ground based aids
.
NOTHING TO DO WITH ADS-B eh := .. The charade is over cobba!
.
As P.T. Barnum is purported to have said: "There's one born every minute". bout the only reality thus far … Alas … tis silly to assume the industry are not smart enough to see through the façade!
.
VHF and TXPDR’s OCTA Lead .. Part 103 … i.e. no VHF or TXPDR carriage OCTA in G/CTAF
.
… that’s the real objection to ADS-B isn’t it? ….. the silence on that score is deafening!
.
… we wait with baited breath for your next literary ‘Masterpiece’ (as self described)!
.
Edited to addPS: I almost forgot.
How do we get VFR data ---- the same way we always have, including doing what the NAS 2C Post Implementation Review team did, you will also find that on the DoTARS/CASA web sites. ... what a dude with a note pad for a few days? .... and that captures all the VFR OCTA particualrly in areas where RPT climb and descend :rolleyes: ... OoooooooooooK then :hmm:
.
.. How was VFR data collected and/or considered in the AusNAS2b changes you championed? :ugh:

Creampuff
23rd Sep 2007, 21:06
I enjoy your clinical dissections of Leaddy's posts SDD (I used to indulge in them a bit, myself), but fair's fair.

Where's the REAL data (your emphasis) to show that mid-airs involving RPT in G/CTAFs are on the increase?

I don't understand why it has to be a 'surveillance/anti-collision' system, if the aim is only the latter. My understanding is that there aren't enough controllers with enough sectors to be able to watch aircraft in G/CTAF at places like - let's pick a well known one - Benalla.

I don't really care who knows where I'm flying - If that's Leaddy's underlying concern, we'll just have to increase the dose and double the layer of tinfoil.

However, I'd like to understand how the 'surveillance' part is going to work. Is AA going to have the people to watch screens at sufficient resolution to work out RPT are a collision risk in G/CTAF? If the RPT is going to be alerted of a bugsmasher collision risk without ATC intervention, what's the point of the surveillance component?

If 'little RPT' don't have TCAS, what do you perceive to be the greater benefits of fitting ADS-B compared with fitting TCAS, in terms of safety in G/CTAF?

SM4 Pirate
23rd Sep 2007, 22:50
If the RPT is going to be alerted of a bugsmasher collision risk without ATC intervention, what's the point of the surveillance component? I'd suggest that "inside" the CTAF the CTAF procedures should be robust enough for the appropriate spacing/segregation; but out in "G" ADS-B surveilled traffic will be more relevant, more pertinent and real; like in a radar environment. When flying in radar you will be alerted to any VFRs where a collision risk exists, workload dependant, the same would naturally apply to ADS-B surveillance.

Then it should facilitate the frigging with airspace categories game; as all the pertinent traffic will be visible to the Air Traffic System; it's not about 'watching them, more watching-out for them.

If you have C today in a full surveilled environment you should be able to have E; the risks would be 'improved' by the surveillance; it's simple really?

The terry towelling hat brigade need to understand what air traffic controllers do; it ain't about 'reporting' the naughty VFRs; sure if you bust CTA then you're fair game; otherwise we care not what you do, where you go and aren't writing/recording sh!te; that won't change.

The controllers were once told to deny services to certain airframes that hadn't paid their bills; did anybody notice this? Nope because the ATCs said jam that, we aren't playing that game, stupid.

What makes those who wear tin foil hats really believe that things will change? There aren't enough ATCs to do today's tasks, let alone give them more useless stuff to do; it ain't going to happen.

Scurvy.D.Dog
24th Sep 2007, 04:18
I enjoy your clinical dissections of Leaddy's posts SDD (I used to indulge in them a bit, myself), but fair's fair. … fairs fair is fair enough!
.
.. let he who cast the first stone... :hmm: ;)
.
.. as I said way back in the thread …. It is easy .. in fact child like to use all manner of colourful descriptions of individuals and groups (as on display here) conjoined with motherhood statements and opinions masquerading as facts.
.
Name calling … who gives a rats, it goes with the territory, what is extremely important is the content …. and when content cannot be backed with factual links etc … then it deserves to be called into question on such an important issue!
.
.. is there an ulterior motive??
.
... a simple NO is all that is required, with brief outline of how ADS-B fits with the stance on Part 103 ;) Where's the REAL data (your emphasis) to show that mid-airs involving RPT in G/CTAFs are on the increase? … that’s my point! ... Lead would have us believe that the risk of collision in OCTA airspace is ‘vanishingly small’ …. That maybe true?, but where is the REAL data to support that AS A REASON NOT TO MITGATE further when the opportunity exists at low/no cost to IFR and VFR, as is the case in the JCP, particularly when the added benefits of funding for GPS NAV are also included.
.
As far as the collision pairs data goes, there are obviously airprox ‘s, some of which were not collisions only through luck (as the time from visual acquisition to TOCP was insufficient to flinch, let alone fart or take avoiding). Equally important are the small number of collisions. Add to that things like Olympic Dam, and the unquantified group that seems to be gaining prominence, that of the ‘unreported’ airprox’s, anecdotally (which means little) the number of pilots that have experienced that discomfort seems quite large (only needs to be a small number to be large)!
.
…… the bottom line, the real story most definitely needs to be quantified before changes in service levels are contemplated, but as is part of all contemporary sys safety and infrastructure planning, where an opportunity to provide (at low/no cost) a system that will (whether by third party or individually) provide a further opportunity to avoid loss of life, it must be carefully considered.
.
ADS-B provides such opportunities …. It also fly’s in the face of Part 103, which in practical terms will reduce the number and serviceability of TXPDR’s and VHF comm’s … granted, only in G/CTAF …. But what happens if CTAF and CTAF(R) are reduced to one type ….. does Part 103 operate to the exclusion of other conflicting regs? According to the draft it does!
.
So the argument about TXPDR’s and TCAS is moot!I don't understand why it has to be a 'surveillance/anti-collision' system, if the aim is only the latter. …it is both! My understanding is that there aren't enough controllers with enough sectors to be able to watch aircraft in G/CTAF at places like - let's pick a well known one - Benalla. … agreed …. Who said you needed ‘controllers’ to watch aircraft in G/CTAF? ….. Show me an ICAO rule that says FS (F) or even for that matter UNICOM cannot monitor a traffic picture and provide DTI or ‘Basic information on traffic’ …… that cannot happen with the present system without radar ….. even if you had WAMLat, the cost are still substantially more than ADS-B for the infrastructure!I don't really care who knows where I'm flying - If that's Leaddy's underlying concern, we'll just have to increase the dose and double the layer of tinfoil. … ewww you are naughty !However, I'd like to understand how the 'surveillance' part is going to work. Is AA going to have the people to watch screens at sufficient resolution to work out RPT are a collision risk in G/CTAF? … no not unless it is D or C (TWR) If the RPT is going to be alerted of a bugsmasher collision risk without ATC intervention, what's the point of the surveillance component? as I said above, and with the basic aircraft and ground infrastructure in place it could be ground to air (ATC or FS/UNICOM), and/or air to air TCAS and/or ‘IN’ …. Over time that is …. But it has to start somewhere somehow …. This JCP is it for mine!If 'little RPT' don't have TCAS, what do you perceive to be the greater benefits of fitting ADS-B compared with fitting TCAS, in terms of safety in G/CTAF? If RPT do not have TCAS, but have GPS driven ADS-B … in a year or two, how much will a GA TCAS cost V’s ADS ‘IN’ (with aural) ….. ????
.
SM4 provides further insight from the ATC perspective …. Although:-
.
If you have C today in a full surveilled environment you should be able to have E; the risks would be 'improved' by the surveillance; it's simple really? … true, yet on the safety mitigation side of the equation, why would you deny ATC and IFR the ability to predict and then separate/segregate from VFR by using D … the only difference between E and D for VFR is the basic use of the VHF radio they are required to have in CTA anyway …. Which improve the lot for IFR, VFR and ATC for no additional cost!
.
.. but ferchrist sake don’t get me going on that again :ooh: :ugh: :{
.
Cheers
.
Scurv

werbil
24th Sep 2007, 11:51
Thread drift.

Scurvy.D.Dog,

I have to disagree with you on the 'E' vs 'D' issue.

From a VFR perspective there is a big difference - in 'D' you require a clearance and in 'E' you don't. And if the usual terminal 'D' practice of separating IFR from VFR is applied it effectively becomes C airspace anyway. Granted with ADS-B it is radar separation criteria (rather than procedural) so delays should be minimal.

IMO there is less difference for VFR between 'C' and 'D' - just the minimum VFR/IFR separation requirements, transponder requirements and SVFR/SVFR separation requirements (amazing - you can actually learn on PPRUNE:O).

The only issue I have with the widespread extension of 'E' airspace is developing a radio communications system that allows for VFR to broadcast and hear traffic on frequencies that aren't swamped by retransmission, and don't significantly increase ATC workload (and hence cost). Yes C & D are better for VFR provided delays and level restrictions are not significant (which they shouldn't be with radar/ADS-B surveillance), but it will come at a cost if extra controllers are required compared to 'E'.

W

LeadSled
24th Sep 2007, 13:12
Scurvey,

Lead would have us believe that the risk of collision in OCTA airspace is ‘vanishingly small’

NOT my analysis, but Airservices, so if you don't agree, take it up with them ---Yes, there are numbers for G, even if you want to argue the toss. Likewise the Airservices analysis of C v.E above 10,000 to the base of A also showed both to be "vanishingly small". Vanishingly Small is a valid statistical term used in AS/NZ 4360/2004

…. are you referring to the delivery Freq and/or the actual data used to augment positional accuracy?

WAAS is a publicly available system, available in US/Canada/Mexico/eastern Pacific/all of western Europe, much of eastern Europe, Japan/ and spreading, with a number of manufacturers making compatible and competitively priced equipment for ALL transport modes and many non-aviation uses --- hence the Booz Allen Hamilton consultancy on the subject of WAAS for Australia, not Aviation Australia.

Given the widespread and diverse users of WAAS, there is no practical mechanism to charge for WAAS services, which I would assume made it very unattractive to Airservices

GBAS/GRAS as Airservices are spruiking is a Honeywell proprietary patented system (as is the use of "voice" for collision avoidance ---- it's even patented, that's why there was no "voice warnings" in any of the Alaska Capstone trials). You want to get into the market, pay the license fee to Honeywell, if they will even talk to you.

.. IYHO ....it is NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY .... lowering minimums safely, which mitigates Misd App's and Diversions (see the YPPH incident) maaaate, do you seriously think folks are buying this?
.

Tell me, why do you think there are no low weather minima approaches (Cat II/III) in Australia, after all, they have been available since the late 1960's. Could it be that the airlines will not pay for them, based on their own cost/benefit analysis????????? Airlines don't believe missed approaches and diversions are safety risk, but they are an economic cost, and that is how the AATA/BARA treat it. Don't come back with claims of site problems and interference, what makes you think GRAS/GBAS is immune from interference.
No Cat II/III in Australia is just $$$$, nothing more.

If lower minima and reduced G/As were such a big safety deal, where is the CASA "regulation" to mandate Cat II/III ILS???????? Nowhere, that's where.

… presumably a ground network will be required?

Why? Airservices don't exclusively use ground networks now for the AFTN, do they? In fact, the lack of satellite capacity is a bit of an embarrassment to Airservices, right now, is it not??

… absolutely …. WAAS could be available to those with an augmentation system (and Sat WAAS link) …. How much?

When the BAH Report is public, we will have some idea, won't we. Why do you think it will be particularly expensive, compared to the Airservices announced plans to use a "wide area GBAS", GRAS, as a "partial" substitute for GPS altogether --- a system that will only be aviation compatible --- and subscriber only.

… but half the traffic (commercial) will be 1090ES, and the rest (if you had your way .... or would they?) on UAT!

If the original ICAO plans had been followed, and not shafted by a broke ATA/IATA thinking 1090ES was going to be a cheap system (just minor upgrades to existing transponders was the sales pitch, which we now know is way, way wide of the mark ---- for a Dash 8, about ten (10) times the JCP subsidy figure) we would all be looking at using either UAT or VDL-4, but a common system. I have no particular brief for either.

Can we get a few facts straight.

(1) LPV from a C145/146 GPS requires WAAS --- Period!!!

To change that, you are going to have to develop a whole new RTCA standard and TSO for a new GPS receiver. Anybody want to take a bet on that, for a tiny Australian market.

(2) GBAS will have an "LPV like equivalent" ( we can do it right now, to as low as 250ft, just with IRS/FMCS/RNP/RNAV) --- to lower minima than WAAS, if you have bought and installed the boxes from Honeywell, and pay the subscription fees to Airservices. If ANY other manufacturer wants into the GRAS/GBAS market, they will have to license it from Honeywell. You can read about the proposed Australian coverage on the net. This GRAS/GBAS (Not LAAS as the local area augmented WAAS) requires a VHF datalink, VDL-4 would have done very nicely, thank you.

(3) I am not anti-ADS-B,and I have long been an advocate of Freeflight ----In its original meaning, the concepts first developed by United Airlines, and the work done in practical trails by United Parcel Service to prove pilot to pilot separation of heavy transport aircraft --- in approach sequencing, not just high level en-route. Remember, UPS bought Apollo for their GPS gear, and the developments resulted in what is now the Garmin 480, the first C145/146 GPS box.

(4) I believe the en-route benefits to airlines of the ADS-B program has been overblown, but that's their problem. And regardless of the views if the fundamentalists it is an economic problem, not a safety problem. The airspace is safe now, it will be in the future.

(5) The whole "savings Airservices will make" and how this will be redistributed to GA for a one-off subsidy is an economic and business nonsense. The claimed capital saving, from not replacing a handful of SSR heads, when looked at as a % of the Airservices bottom line, are between approximately 2% and 4%, that sort of savings is not game changing for any big company. In fact, the business risk, to Airservices, for such a small saving, in my opinion raises some very interesting questions. The savings from navaid reduction comes from C-145/146, you get exactly the same benefits whether (from the navaid reduction) whether or not ADS-B is in there somewhere.

(6) I fully support compliance with the Airspace Act 2007. If the ASTRA plan/JCP goes through in anything like its present form, the Airspace Act 2007 will have failed at its first test.

(7) I do not support the imposition of ADS-B and/or C134/146 on GA. If an IFR operator does his/her homework, and decides that being able to use an airfield without ground based aids as an IFR alternate is sufficiently important, they can go and buy C145/146 based equipment, such as Garmin 430W, 480 or 530W, or use a GDL90 to feed a GLS/XLS, Meggit or whatever. That is a business decision, not a "safety" decision.

(8) Even more lacking in justification is the imposition of ADS-B/C145-146 GPS on VFR, quite simply the "benefits" have been asserted by it's supporters, nowhere in the ---/JCP are the benefits established in any reasonable and supportable form.

(8) I do not support the imposition of ANY equipment where there has been no risk analysis at all, and no cost/benefit justification of any acceptable standard.

Booz Allen Hamilton have produced the new guidelines for CBA and related values of life etc., largely because the whole ASTRA/ABIT/GIT/JCP saga is so fundamentally lacking in risk analysis or CBA worth the name.

Australia is an unchallenged world leader in production of "regulations", in all walks of life, not just aviation. For years, those who understand the cost of unjustified regulation at all levels of Government, and how ineffective grossly excessive regulation generally is, have been trying to get control of excessive regulation.

That is why we have the Productivity Commission, COAG, OBPR etc., and unjustified regulation costs Australia and Australians a fortune.

If "air safety" really was the issue, we should be spending money where the accidents are actually happening, not where they are not happening.


By definition, costs incurred without a corresponding (and genuine and measurable to the person incurring the cost) benefit are economic waste, whether it is aviation or any other field, Australia and (here), the Australian aviation industry cannot afford the costs or bear the costs of economic waste.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I do not travel in stealth mode, my TDR-94D (Mode S) works very well, with a TDR-90 ( just Mode A/C) as the No.2, and if I catch anybody I am dealing with not using a transponder when a serviceable transponder is available, they better watch out.

Scurvy.D.Dog
24th Sep 2007, 19:07
Lead would have us believe that the risk of collision in OCTA airspace is ‘vanishingly small’
NOT my analysis, but Airservices, so if you don't agree, take it up with them ---Yes, there are numbers for G, even if you want to argue the toss. ….so Airservices are competent to make such analysis if it supports your contention? …. What would be your estimate of VFR activity OCTA that is not captured? Likewise the Airservices analysis of C v.E above 10,000 to the base of A also showed both to be "vanishingly small". Vanishingly Small is a valid statistical term used in AS/NZ 4360/2004 … apples and oranges! … above A100, geez the VFR activity up there (outside climb and descent areas to to C and D) would really warrant E … NOT … more like F for IFR perhaps or G …. Why CTA E?
…. are you referring to the delivery Freq and/or the actual data used to augment positional accuracy?
WAAS is a publicly available system, available in US/Canada/Mexico/eastern Pacific/all of western Europe, much of eastern Europe, Japan/ and spreading, with a number of manufacturers making compatible and competitively priced equipment for ALL transport modes and many non-aviation uses --- hence the Booz Allen Hamilton consultancy on the subject of WAAS for Australia, not Aviation Australia. … thanks for the mini lecture of the bleeding obvious …. I say again, in the absence of a ‘current’ satellite carrier, how much will Australia pay to get that? … and .. how much would ‘Australia’ levy to the Australian aviation industry for their % use …. Particularly seeing as the majors will not want it or need it as you helpfully point out below (2) GBAS will have an "LPV like equivalent" ( we can do it right now, to as low as 250ft, just with IRS/FMCS/RNP/RNAV) --- to lower minima than WAAS, if you have bought and installed the boxes from Honeywell, and pay the subscription fees to Airservices. .. right, so what is proposed for GA? … this is the question I keep asking you .. what are the comparative costs? (presumably including WAAS capable GNSS install as many won’t/don’t have WAAS capable nav’s at this point!) …I ask as I do not know …. It seems neither do you! If ANY other manufacturer wants into the GRAS/GBAS market, they will have to license it from Honeywell. You can read about the proposed Australian coverage on the net. …. Suppose it depends on licence cost to manufacturers and more importantly which manufacturers would be in the market …… on the face of it, sounds like it has nobs on it …. Which as I said (on the augmentation score) is what I/we want to know …because I do not know! …. I never said I favoured on over the other ….. just wanted comparative costs!This GRAS/GBAS (Not LAAS as the local area augmented WAAS) requires a VHF datalink, VDL-4 would have done very nicely, thank you. … another thing that interested me in this is the carrier for ‘correction’ … presumably a link cost and VHF cost at each augmentation station …. Costs are amounting eh …. Bit like UAT!Given the widespread and diverse users of WAAS, there is no practical mechanism to charge for WAAS services, … agree, just the issue of a satellite and were away which I would assume made it very unattractive to Airservices …. Government more like it (policy makers) …. I am inclined to agree with you hereGBAS/GRAS as Airservices are spruiking is a Honeywell proprietary patented system … hmm (as is the use of "voice" for collision avoidance ---- it's even patented, that's why there was no "voice warnings" in any of the Alaska Capstone trials). … so those TCAD systems buy a licence from Honeywell for aural out do they? ….. bloody hell, that’s like trying to patent a hamburger ….. TCAS aural and ‘DTI” traffic aural are different! You want to get into the market, pay the license fee to Honeywell, if they will even talk to you. …. No thanks .. not interested in flogging TCAS!
.. IYHO ....it is NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY .... lowering minimums safely, which mitigates Misd App's and Diversions (see the YPPH incident) maaaate, do you seriously think folks are buying this?
.
Tell me, why do you think there are no low weather minima approaches (Cat II/III) in Australia, after all, they have been available since the late 1960's. Could it be that the airlines will not pay for them, based on their own cost/benefit analysis????????? ….. hmmm bean counters and ‘safety’ ….. best we not go there! Airlines don't believe missed approaches and diversions are safety risk, but they are an economic cost, …. Yes well to consider it a safety risk requires action does it not?and that is how the AATA/BARA treat it. ….. :zzz: Don't come back with claims of site problems and interference, what makes you think GRAS/GBAS is immune from interference. …. In the context of WAAS/GRAS/GBAS whats your take on interference seeing as you raised it?No Cat II/III in Australia is just $$$$, nothing more. …. So you agree with the bean counters that there is no safety implication?If lower minima and reduced G/As were such a big safety deal, where is the CASA "regulation" to mandate Cat II/III ILS???????? Nowhere, that's where. .. bit like separation standards for RNAV …. But don’t get me going on that!
.
I said in relation to UAT
… presumably a ground network will be required? .. you said in reply
Why? Airservices don't exclusively use ground networks now for the AFTN, do they? …. Dude … UAT needs a band carrier to a ground station to talk to to get those old religion 1090ES signals back i.e. presumably a ground network will be required! ….. what the hell has a ground network THAT TALKS TO AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT .. got anything to do with AFTN data such as NOTAMS and WX to a printer in a STATIONARY TWR In fact, the lack of satellite capacity is a bit of an embarrassment to Airservices, right now, is it not?? .. is it? … they transitioned all of the sat links to a new satellite BECAUSE THE OLD ONE WAS decommissioned, and I believe the transition to a new sat is happening soon ….. what’s your point?
… absolutely …. WAAS could be available to those with an augmentation system (and Sat WAAS link) …. How much?
When the BAH Report is public, we will have some idea, won't we. … good, that’s all I have been asking, you seem to know, do you know the content? Of this BAH report? …. If WAAS is cost effective by comparison, and a sat carrier is available …. Great …. lets go with that …. BUT … as much as I am sure on this score (augmentation) you know what you are on about, I shall wait for the report! Why do you think it will be particularly expensive, compared to the Airservices announced plans to use a "wide area GBAS", GRAS, as a "partial" substitute for GPS altogether --- a system that will only be aviation compatible --- and subscriber only. …. Don’t put words in my mouth Lead … all I have asked on this issue is for the cost comparisons … not favoured on over the other (on cost), rather only pointed to the known’s i.e. ground based servicing and the lack of a carrier sat (at the moment) for WAAS
… but half the traffic (commercial) will be 1090ES, and the rest (if you had your way .... or would they?) on UAT!
If the original ICAO plans had been followed, and not shafted by a broke ATA/IATA thinking 1090ES was going to be a cheap system (just minor upgrades to existing transponders was the sales pitch, which we now know is way, way wide of the mark .. does not answer the ‘operational’ question! ---- for a Dash 8, about ten (10) times the JCP subsidy figure) we would all be looking at using either UAT or VDL-4, but a common system. I have no particular brief for either. …. Or presumably cost for the ATM or aircraft equipment … and the fact that neither talks to the other unless a ground interpreter is in range! FACTCan we get a few facts straight. .. Yippee(1) LPV from a C145/146 GPS requires WAAS --- Period!!! … link?To change that, you are going to have to develop a whole new RTCA standard and TSO for a new GPS receiver. … righto, so you saying that (augmentation) the correction language can only be delivered via sat?? yes or no Anybody want to take a bet on that, for a tiny Australian market. .. clearly if LPV from ground based (other than LAAS) requires a ‘different’ GPS chip then agreed … ridiculous to contemplate (unless the Europeans go that way also)(2) response above (3) I am not anti-ADS-B,and I have long been an advocate of Freeflight ----In its original meaning, the concepts first developed by United Airlines, and the work done in practical trails by United Parcel Service to prove pilot to pilot separation of heavy transport aircraft --- in approach sequencing, not just high level en-route. Remember, UPS bought Apollo for their GPS gear, and the developments resulted in what is now the Garmin 480, the first C145/146 GPS box. .. thanks … I think we knew that already(4) I believe the en-route benefits to airlines of the ADS-B program has been overblown, but that's their problem. And regardless of the views if the fundamentalists it is an economic problem, not a safety problem. The airspace is safe now, it will be in the future. .. which completely ignores ATM and all the issues attached .. do you reckon a couple of solar/battery powered sat linked fridge sized receivers in the Amazon would of made any difference?(5) The whole "savings Airservices will make" and how this will be redistributed to GA for a one-off subsidy is an economic and business nonsense. .. nonsence
The claimed capital saving, from not replacing a handful of SSR heads, when looked at as a % of the Airservices bottom line, are between approximately 2% and 4%, that sort of savings is not game changing for any big company. .. finally the penny drops …. Why would they bother unless there was other community positives involved? In fact, the business risk, to Airservices, for such a small saving, in my opinion raises some very interesting questions. … such as? The savings from navaid reduction comes from C-145/146, you get exactly the same benefits whether (from the navaid reduction) whether or not ADS-B is in there somewhere. .. driving ADS-B via GPS is the benefit for BAC-UP navaid removal …. One does not happen without the other as individuals!(6) I fully support compliance with the Airspace Act 2007. If the ASTRA plan/JCP goes through in anything like its present form, the Airspace Act 2007 will have failed at its first test. … one presumes you hold the same stance on Part 103 and the Airspace Act 2007?(7) I do not support the imposition of ADS-B and/or C134/146 on GA. .. if a 129a engine will do the ADS-B job? If an IFR operator does his/her homework, and decides that being able to use an airfield without ground based aids as an IFR alternate is sufficiently important, they can go and buy C145/146 based equipment, such as Garmin 430W, 480 or 530W, or use a GDL90 to feed a GLS/XLS, Meggit or whatever. That is a business decision, not a "safety" decision. … and the same business owners will presumably consider that in the context of the JCP and the funding available!(8) Even more lacking in justification is the imposition of ADS-B/C145-146 GPS on VFR, .. If 129a can drive the ADS .. then I agree! quite simply the "benefits" have been asserted by it's supporters, nowhere in the ---/JCP are the benefits established in any reasonable and supportable form. ….. your entitled to Bob’s opinion!(8) I do not support the imposition of ANY equipment where there has been no risk analysis at all, and no cost/benefit justification of any acceptable standard. .. you are entitled to Bob’s opinon!Booz Allen Hamilton have produced the new guidelines for CBA and related values of life etc., largely because the whole ASTRA/ABIT/GIT/JCP saga is so fundamentally lacking in risk analysis or CBA worth the name. …. Yes and subjected to 18 days for public consultation …. I have my theories of why that might be! … incidentally, was Bob consulting on that document? .. just outa curiousity
Australia is an unchallenged world leader in production of "regulations", in all walks of life, not just aviation. .. right up there, I agree … unchallenged .. NO For years, those who understand the cost of unjustified regulation at all levels of Government, and how ineffective grossly excessive regulation generally is, have been trying to get control of excessive regulation. … unjustified .. get control of ….. dear oh dearThat is why we have the Productivity Commission, COAG, OBPR etc., and unjustified regulation costs Australia and Australians a fortune. .. in some areas I agree!
If "air safety" really was the issue, we should be spending money where the accidents are actually happening, not where they are not happening. … so when a metro collides with a lighty … we do it then do we? …. If your approach to safety management were the mantra, loss of life necessarily needs to occur to trigger change! ….. that is not acceptable, I’m afraid!By definition, costs incurred without a corresponding (and genuine and measurable to the person incurring the cost) benefit are economic waste, … where are the costs incurred in the JCP and the benefits? whether it is aviation or any other field, Australia and (here), the Australian aviation industry cannot afford the costs or bear the costs of economic waste. … like replacing back-up Navaids and MSSR enroute and regional radars? …. Fecken el …. Half a puzzle does not a picture make!PS: I do not travel in stealth mode, my TDR-94D (Mode S) works very well, with a TDR-90 ( just Mode A/C) as the No.2, … AHHHH and if I catch anybody I am dealing with not using a transponder when a serviceable transponder is available, they better watch out. .. but if they choose not to service or install a TXPDR or VHF that’s all fine and dandy …….Part 103 Hypocrite!

bushy
25th Sep 2007, 03:51
It's hard to service ANY electronics when the nearest reliable workshop is 1500 km away.

Howabout
25th Sep 2007, 08:23
Bushy's reply is brief and erudite. Sorry gentlemen, you continue to confuse. As an addition, I can't see anything that takes account of RAA-type aircraft. Do they qualify for the subsidy? It's a burgeoning, as opposed to a shrinking, market. What effect does this have on the CBA? If a Jabiru, for example, isn't included, and flys into a CTAF that has ADS-B coverage for VH-registered aircraft (that are subject to the subsidy), what's the point of giving traffic information when the unknown RAA aircraft will make just as big a hole in the RPT. I may be a dumb-ass, and maybe there's an answer, but I can't see it unless everyone has the gear.

I don't have any desire to get into a 'pissing competition', I couldn't hold a candle to people on this forum who are across the technical aspects, but I continue to feel dubious about the benefits. I suppose I ask simple questions and want simple answers. It's a bit like the regs!

44WING
30th Sep 2007, 01:45
Apologies - I'm still working though the reams of information on this and I hope this has not already been covered off.

1. If we are considering this as a National Project (National Airspace System, National ATS System etc) should we not also include the cost to Military (Flying, ATC, ADGE elements) both in $ and in loss of traffic priority and effective surveillance should they decide not to participate (partly or fully). This will provide National cost benefit!

2. Is Airservices the best organisation to administer the voucher system, do they have the skills, knowledge, capability and to avoid an ASIC like debacle? How will appeals be managed - are Airservices the best organisation to provide impartial judgment? Do they have a recruitment plan to cope with this and is the administration cost of this fully contextualized?

3. Has a risk analysis been conducted on the micro and macro effects of removal of enroute SSR and navaids to pilot and ATC workload and complexity both with the advent of increased mix of separation standards, increased mix of aircraft navaids, priorities, both with the new technology working and if the new system implementation is delayed or fails? Do most air traffic controllers have the primary skills to calculate procedural standards that they may lose with the loss of enroute and ADS-B surveillance or will this be another dump a la Flightwatch? Will more staff be required to manage and provide the service. Consequent effect on industry. The normal blowout of costs?

These are some of the things that could become reality and I would like some confidence that the analysis is not reverse engineered to secure some other agenda. The bottom line is that if this is and honest and objective risk based analysis that argues for national benefit then it will stand up on its own merit - if not !!!!!!!!!!!!

Howabout
30th Sep 2007, 04:24
I think that 44 Wing's observation is closer to the truth than I previously realised. The term 'reverse engineering' seems to sum it up. Let's build a case for a pre-determined outcome. Would SDDog care to comment?

44WING
30th Sep 2007, 07:32
OK done a bit more reading now and this is complex - waaay beyond my lifetime to pick up all the 1090, UAT, 145/146 ad nauseum variables.

One thing that does bother me though is an apparent or otherwise lack of risk assessment. I am getting the feeling that people (!) are choosing not to comply with rule of law (Airspace, CASR Part 171 CASR Part 172). That I just don't get. How can this possibly get past CASA, as the regulator, as the auditor and the compliance watchdog without due process in compliance? Every risk assessment does not need to be quantitative, dependent upon data, otherwise the majority of risk assessments would be after the fact voiding the point. Most of my risk assessments have pushed through the process, used an honest array of stakeholders and a realistic context and outcome has always provided optimum solution and this is proven in outcome. That is why risk assessment is required by law - because it works and it protects. As with NAS I cannot understand why project managers are so reluctant to use risk assessment to support their case; is it the workload or a lack of knowledge of risk assessment or because the outcome may be preordained in a non-preferred direction.

I am neither detractor nor supporter of this but I do want some governance over how my tax dollars are being spent. If project cost is about $200M, without blowout, and without considering national impact for expense of Defence dollars (ie about another $90 to $180M) then a decent risk assessment as required by Australian law and a Cost Benefit Analysis will prove value.

There also seems to be some doubt about compliance by internationals and not just the airline traffic; how will this be managed? Also, I understand (but am yet to analyse) some discrepancy between the JCP and what is actually intended and cost assessed. Were these two documents not cross-matched by the project team prior to publish or is the audience misunderstanding this.

As one who bought an 8 track I am still smarting at the rush I made to a better system that turned out to be the popular dud!

Scurvy.D.Dog
1st Oct 2007, 13:41
... shall reply tomorrow :ok:

Howabout
4th Oct 2007, 08:03
No doubt, SDD will respond in good time. I've had another look at the JCP and interpret it to mean that RAA-types qualify. So apologies for trawling what might have been a furphy. I still have issues with unit cost and fitment, given the Yanks' decisions on UAT and the possible effects on 1090ES units in a small market vs volume. But after my previous blunder, I am willing to be educated.

Scurvy.D.Dog
4th Oct 2007, 11:09
1st week of leave .... :hmm: .... think I'll go back to work for a rest :\
.
My reading
.
Every form of GA (within the weight limits) is included
.
Bushy's point is very valid and needs to be communicated to the powers that be, AND addressed in the process!
.
44
.
1. Military have been included and consulted, and as is written in the JCP for a number of reasons is to be considered separately :ooh:
.
2. Good question .... I have my doubts .... who should do it??
.
3. 5nm separation standard will/does apply, same as 'enroute' radar ... as far as procedural approach, this subject is multilayered .... suffice to say, 'surveillance' aids in effective, safe and efficient application of procedural standards without the cost of a full surveillance approach service .... now that said, obviously there are locations and traffic mixes that will best suit one or the other .... the surveillance is largely moot in the context of both, except to say that a busy TMA such as YSSY, YMML, YBBN MUST have TAR and 3nm standard surveillance services.
.
I can expand more on this if you like ..... but I am scared shitless that Mrs Scurv will catch me on this thing (AGAIN) and take to it and me with an axe .... She is a tat fed up with being a PPRuNe widow :E :ooh: :uhoh: :\ ... nuf said ;)
.
Re reverse engineering .... the JCP is that by default in so far as the opportunity to save on infrustructure to spend on new better infrustructure ... I personally cannot see an alterer motive .. but then I see this from the ATC/FS/Pilot perspectives ..... and am unashamedly cynical of gov't freebees .. thus the discussion here!
.
In fact, the fact that so many folk have engaged and read this discussion is the whole point, if there is a hook, you can bet, someone out there will find it and highlight it!
.
As far as RA goes, it was discussed at length previously. You raise some valid points re the taxpayer cost to Mil etc ... questions that need to be asked and answered by those that can .. which ain't me!
.
8 track .. well ... all I'd say is this ... if the big end of town are already using it (1090ES) as given all the variables discussed here, UAT may well be the 8 track of today ...... bottom line .... which ever (globally) is the more widley used will prevail ..... with the big end of town already using 1090ES .. and ground stations using single band 1090ES .... even if UAT comes along down range .... will you still be OK with a 1090ES box .... ;)
.
... in the meantime, and still unanswered, is how would Oz afford the necessary infrustructure for a 'DUAL BAND' UAT system? ..... simple .... it would only happen around CTA/R .... and it would only happen around CTA/R if the big end of town needed it ... which they do not! ..... not to mention ... what benefit for traffic OCTA is there in UAT over 1090ES???
.
..gota go :uhoh: :\ :( .... sprung :{

LeadSled
10th Oct 2007, 14:17
Scurvey,

... in the meantime, and still unanswered, is how would Oz afford the necessary infrustructure for a 'DUAL BAND' UAT system? ..... simple .... it would only happen around CTA/R .... and it would only happen around CTA/R if the big end of town needed it ... which they do not! ..... not to mention ... what benefit for traffic OCTA is there in UAT over 1090ES???

Thinx??
Thales have the contract to make the 1090ES ground boxes for Australia.
Thales have the contract to make the boxes for the UAT/1090ES for FAA.

The actual dual mode electronics are all on the same board, which fits in the same rack as the 1090ES board, so I am reasonably reliably informed. Once the signal/signals are processed for transmission from the ground based box (whether via satellite or landlines) it's all the same data stream format, so once it gets to Eurocat (know locally in Australia as TAAATS) it all looks the same. Likewise in reverse.

So how much would it really cost extra, capital cost ?? To maintain?? Wouldn't that largely depend on how good a deal could be negotiated, because the actual manufacturing cost differences of the (already existing) dual ( or as some will be--- triple) boards and the 1090ES board would be sod all.

Why would "re-broadcast" be any more difficult?? The GARMIN GDL-90 is "here and now", and if it was used by Regionals and GA, indeed most Australian aircraft that never leave Australia, ADS-B IN/OUT is a lot easier to organise and cheaper than 1090ES ---- right now.

As for "aircraft to aircraft", those who think universal 1090ES ADS-B IN is just around the corner are being a trifle optimistic.

Clearly, this has a few holes, but not nearly as many as "universal 1090ES", especially no $$$$ black hole.

Tootle pip!!!

werbil
11th Oct 2007, 11:32
Leadsled,

Ever heard of intellectual property? It may be on the same board, but the supplier will normally charge to "unlock " extra features so that they can be used. (Common with PABX's and other communications equipment).

Why do manufacturers do this? Because it allows them to have a number of different products for the R&D costs of just one. It also reduces the per unit manufacturing cost through increased volumes as the cost of the additional components for comparatively small volumes is insignificant.

IMHO the chances of Thales "giving away" UAT enabled boxes for the same cost as 1090ES only boxes would be about zero.

W

LeadSled
11th Oct 2007, 14:55
Werbil,

Tell me something I don't know !! You really should read AND comprehend what I actually said.

So how much would it really cost extra, capital cost ?? To maintain?? Wouldn't that largely depend on how good a deal could be negotiated, because the actual manufacturing cost differences of the (already existing) dual ( or as some will be--- triple) boards and the 1090ES board would be sod all.

Your point was covered, of course Thales will want more money!! How much is the issue.

Tootle pip!!

werbil
11th Oct 2007, 21:50
Leadsled,

So you acknowledge it would cost more. Who is going to pay? That was Scurvy.D.Dog's point. If you can get me a Holden Calais for $20 more than the cost of a Commodore Executive I'd buy one today - it's the same principle. IMHO Thales will charge a significant amount for UAT functionality.

W

OZBUSDRIVER
12th Oct 2007, 03:07
As of SEP27,2007 the Japanese MTSAT is fully operational for supplying a WAAS over the Asia-Pacific region. Australia is squarely within this footprint.

Availability of WAAS is the single impediment for operational TSO145/146a equipment to supply the right NUC value to an ADS-B transmitter.

LeadSled
15th Oct 2007, 00:04
Folks,
The major "policy" shortcoming in the whole WAAS "debate" is that it has been left in the hands of Airservices -- It is not "just" an aviation issue.

From a standpoint of national infrastructure policy, there is a broad application of WAAS that has simply been ignored. The applications are too many and varied to even try and cover here, but suffice to say that they are of great importance to the national economy --- a bit like the broadband v. copper wire --- it in not just about 1940s era phone calls.

However, such is the speed with which such "decisions" are made in Australia, and just to complicate any Government level policy decisions, have a read of the planned capabilities of "GPS II". Except for aviation use, and thanks to those much derided yanks, within the next (very) few years, we will have a free to the public GPS that will equal the present "GPS + WAAS". Sadly, it will NOT be suitable for aviation use for LPV etc.

Don't buy shares in Galileo Inc.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: Nothing I have found suggests that WAAS is required for ADS-B OUT with a C-145/146 GPS, but there are question marks over DO260/260A/260x/ transponder standards for 1090ES. Needless to say, such limitations do not apply to UAT or VDL-4.

OZBUSDRIVER
18th Oct 2007, 23:25
I stand corrected. It would appear that all that is required for Fault Detection/Exclusion to be operational only requires six satellites to be visible. So WAAS is not a requirment for FDE. TSO145/146 has FDE so can provide the correct transmission to show signal integrity is OK.

PlankBlender
18th Mar 2008, 00:39
Does anyone know what the story is now? According to the discussion paper, the $15.000 subsidy for TSO 146 GPS and Mode S Transponder comes into effect at the end of this year for GA IFR aircraft, is this realistic?