ADS-B and Terrorism – Not a Red Herring

[Dick Smith]

Readers will no doubt remember a while ago I made statements in relation to ADS-B being used by terrorists and also others “spoofing” the system to stop it operating correctly. I made the point that these issues should be addressed before Airservices Australia goes ahead and leads the world on ADS-B.

I have recently seen the following comment on the internationally recognised aviation news resource AVweb, see the link here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/downloads/avweb1.pdf). Particularly note the comment:

“The Department of Defence is concerned ADS-B might work a little too well. It doesn’t want to advertise all its flights and wants a way to fit in the system without letting everyone know its aircraft are there at times, which, of course is the exact opposite of the main selling point of ADS-B. DoD is also concerned that ADS-B can be hijacked by terrorists or enemies and wants to know what is going to be done to prevent “spoofing” the system.”

Isn’t it interesting how Airservices Australia seems to have gone very quiet on their ADS-B proposal?

[Plazbot]

ADSB is still being rolled out and used. It is without doubt the most useful addition to ATC that I have ever experienced. The sooner they let us use it like a radar the better. It is top notch and when in full swing, will be a massive saving to for levels and other requests over the GAFA. An aircraft Adelaide for Darwin or points north is under ATC surveilance the entire way to the northern FIR boundary.

Dick, this may help.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

[Dick Smith]

Plazbot, what about the hugely promoted low level ADSB proposal? Whats the bet thats it's been abandoned as proposed.

[Plazbot]

Why would you want low level ADSB? I thought you were all for flying no radio, no transponder, playing classical music while you see and avoid. Low Level ADSB sounds like an unnecessary cost to General Aviation. Surely you must agree, as an advocate of user pays.

[Dick Smith]

Plazbot, the low level ADSB proposal was originated by AA. I have never supported the proposal as I cannot see what safety issue it is addressing. Do you realise a small fortune has been spent and if the proposal does not go ahead it will all be wasted? This money could have employed more controllers.

And by the way- I introduced transponder requirements for GA aircraft in Australia that no other country has!

[Plazbot]

So lets get this right, a proposal, that you think was bad, has been abandoned, and you think it is bad?:rolleyes:


And by the way- I introduced transponder requirements for GA aircraft in Australia that no other country has!

So this would mean that the NAS you propose is not actually the same as the US version then.:rolleyes:

[Dick Smith]

As everyone knows it has extra safety features in relation to transponders and radio for GA -as agreed to so that GA could obtain some of the efficiencies of the proven North American system

[Plazbot]

As per C over D, if they don't need the extra transponder requirement in the US, then why here? Why one and not the other? You claim to pick a proven concept and implement and this is why you are financially successful. As everyone knows, it is obvious that the airspace system you attempted to have implemented was not the same hence why it has failed and the attempt has wasted tens of millions of dollars that could have funded more important things like, oh, I don't know, say anti terrorist measures or something..... no one like a stinking terrorist.

[Dick Smith]

Plazbot, the so called "wasted tens of millions of dollars" cost you and your collegues,not me.
So I guess Karma worked in this case

You can continue to unintentionally destroy your industry by not copying the best from around the world. It won't effect the amount of flying I do or my personal income .

One day some "young turks" will come along and introduce the necessary change and aviation in Australia will boom as it should!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick's post refers to this article-AvWeb ADS-B (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1065-full.html#197312)

Yet, on today's AvWeb ADS-B wins the Collier Prize.

AvFlash (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1067-full.html#197322) Top News

The Collier prize recognized as the epitome of aviation innovation and excellence.

The US groups are having their grumbles about who is paying for the installs the same as here. The standards to be set and whether the final system will actually recognise the early adopters or whether they will have to get a complete new upgrade when the final system is installed.

[Quokka]

On the subject of ADF aircraft not wishing to announce to the world (electronically) where they are... what if ADF aircraft were to squit a daily changing, random Flight ID instead of a unique hexadecimal code...?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Personally, I want Dick to demonstrate his hypothesis. I am very sceptical about whether or not it is possible. If it is true then a demonstration will reveal where the flaws are. If it is BS then...well I think Dick can work that out.

[Flying Binghi]

In the not wanting to be seen catagorie, I suppose we had better include all coast watch, customs and police aircraft.

[Islander Jock]

Flying Binghi,

You could also add that pilot who flew the Aztec into Jandakot last week!
I'll bet he didn't want to be seen either.:}

[Buster Hyman]

What's wrong with you people? Haven't you all seen Die Hard 2???:=

[Plazbot]

I think Flying High sums this rubbish up better:zzz:

[Flying Binghi]

Islander, a good point you raise. Crims useing aircraft for their dirty deeds will not have the ADS-B turned on.

Buster, I havnt seen die hard one yet.

[Flying Binghi]

Flying Spike, If I recall corectly Dick Smith started out in an electronics shop - I imagine he's got a fair idea of electronic type stuff.
Edit - Flying Spike, where you gone :confused:


why do ALL the airlines want it?
Good question DH.


Re the Collier prize referenced in Ozbusdrivers post. Have a look at the list of sponsors to the NAA - it may get some thinking.
It would be nice to know the composition of the Collier prize voteing panel.


This thread is ADS-B and Terrorism, but I'd ask again some of the questions covered in depth in other ADS-B threads -
It would be interesting to know the true cost of a fully GPS based ADS-B airnav system in Aus. How many GPS satilites are needed for Aus airspace and how often replaced, how many ground repeater stations will be needed for full ground up use, and to prevent hacking, how much protection will be needed for the ground stations - will we need troops/police at all ADS-B ground stations? And what is the backup for sun spot activity GPS outages?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Flying Binghi, all Dick has to do to make a believer of me is just do one successful spoof of at least ten targets at the same time and have them register within TAAATS as legitimate targets. I will be happy to go away and mind my own business.

I too have read all the negative sites found in the US. Until the terrorists get an ability to make and launch very sophisticated missles that have never even been invented. It is one thing to come up with the idea of a missle with a seaker head that will detect and read a unique ADS-B signal and then home in on that signal and an altogether different thing to actually build it. You have got a far better chance as a terrorist to go and buy a Dick Smith scanner and some black market obtained ex-military gear like a stinger or an RPG and a bit of intel when your target is going to be arriving in a safe area.

There is already a problem in the US where industrial spies are keeping tabs on certain corporate aircraft to know when the opposition is on the move and to where. So what if there is another tool to do this. The goal is to get a more affordable system into THIS country! Covering as much territory as possible. The Pilbera will be a good starting point followed by a large swathe of WA followed by replacing the en-route SSRs. Terminal primary radar and SSR will always remain.

I am pretty sure the DoD has a similar wearyness of Google Earth!

[WhatWasThat]

OH - -MY --GOD. The stupidity hurts my head, truly it does.:ugh:

The consequence of no surveillance over most of our wide brown land is that aircraft are required to announce their positions at convenient intervals via their R-A-D-I-O.

Any terrorist or lamo plane spotter can currently locate these aircraft just by listening to their cut price chinese manufactured scanner they can then "spoof" the system by broadcasting on VHF. Terror in the skies eh? Maybe I should put out a press release.

The threat is not that imaginary terrorists MIGHT see where the aeroplanes are but that we - ATC - are struggling to keep up with the surging traffic levels in some parts of the country when we CAN'T.

ADS-B is our first best hope to introduce something resembling a first world ATC service outside the YMML-YSSY-YBBN corridor. The fact that this sort of ridiculous, ignorant, sensationalist garbage may further delay or hinder the introduction of something that is urgently required makes me want to :yuk:

To those who would pat themselves on the back for their part in delaying the further roll out of ADS-B, shame on you.

[Quokka]

A substantial amount of tax-payers money is spent every year training ADF pilots to operate "in the dark". If the threat to ADF aircraft is so significant as to warrant their non-participation in ADS-B, then perhaps they should be operating over continental Australia in a complete electronic black-out.

As for the broader threat... as I've said before, spend a day with our beloved Plane-Spotters and it'll dawn on one how ridiculous Mr Smith's argument is that ADS-B should not be implemented in Australia because of a perceived terrorist threat... you don't need an ADS-B receiver to achieve the aim... you just need the missile.

[Flying Binghi]

Until the terrorists get an ability to make and launch very sophisticated missles that have never even been invented

Ozbusdriver, the US supplied some high tech surface to air stuff to the Afganys a few years back - I dont think they been able to buy them all back yet.


Personaly I think the crims useing ADS-B to target aircraft is a furphy aurgument. There are other easier non aviation targets about.

Knowing where customs/coastwatch aircraft are would be very usefull to the drug runners, people smuglers, etc - hence my previous mention of customs, etc, not wanting to be seen.

The biggest threat to ADS-B that I see is with the GPS system its self, remember ADS-B is a GPS based system - no GPS = no ADS-B

[Plazbot]

Far more expensive for who and why?

[Dick Smith]

I have never claimed that ADS-B would be used by terrorists – I have simply stated that it could be used by terrorists and that Airservices should consider all the pros and cons before making a decision. The Airservices paper simply looked at the pros – because of the claimed financial savings for Airservices – and therefore increased profits – without looking at the disadvantages.

The quote in my first post makes it clear that the US Department of Defence has concerns in relation to ADS-B, especially in relation to “spoofing”. Of course spoofing can be largely prevented by using multi lateration and having more stations than originally planned. If this is to be done, the cost should be put into the cost benefit equation so we know all the facts.

I am strong supporter of the principle of ADS-B. I simply believe that it is unwise for Australia to lead the world – we have done that before at great cost – and I believe we should canvas all the issues before making a definite decision.

The proposal in the USA for a dual “system” is I believe needlessly expensive and complicated and will be the wrong way to go. I am hoping that some of the publicity that has been created by myself and others around the world, will result in the FAA re-looking at the whole issue and perhaps coming up with a simplified system.

As stated previously on this thread I have not been able to see any measurable safety benefit for the plan for low level ADS-B in Australia.

[Quokka]

Of course spoofing can be largely prevented by using multi lateration and having more stations than originally planned.

By stating this, you already know that any risk of "spoofing" does not preclude global implementation of ADS-B for all aircraft in the aviation industry. Ask an Electrical or Electronic Engineer for a solution to a problem... any problem.

I am strong supporter of the principle of ADS-B. I simply believe that it is unwise for Australia to lead the world

How can you say that you are a supporter of ADS-B when you have taken action to prevent the implementation of ADS-B in Australia?

As for Australia not leading the world... why not? Australia has a long history of innovation and leadership that is under threat by attitudes and actions such as yours... stifling the very thing that has historically been the cause of our prosperity as a nation... in mining, agriculture, medicine and aerospace... innovation and leadership.

The proposal in the USA for a dual “system” is I believe needlessly expensive and complicated and will be the wrong way to go. I am hoping that some of the publicity that has been created by myself and others around the world, will result in the FAA re-looking at the whole issue and perhaps coming up with a simplified system.

Now here's an idea... how about 1090ES? Simple, cheap and effective.

[peuce]

Dick,

Once more you have me confused:


You don't want us to lead the world, but you don't want us to use the US system ... who do we follow?
You are a long term supporter of ADS-B ... but you can't see any safety benefit in low level ADS-B???
Do you not see the safety benefit in having ATC aware of the position of all (most) aircraft in Australia????

[Flying Binghi]

Can Australian aircraft owners and pilots afford ADS-B ?

[Dick Smith]

peuce,

The answer is simple. I think we should wait a while before deciding on which ADS-B system we should go to.

I cannot see any reason to speed into this other than Airservices profits. Hopefully the US will go to the single system ADS-B mode S squitter and then if we harmonise our industry will be able to purchase units at very low prices in a competitive environment.

peuce, most importantly I do not see a safety benefit in ATC, being aware of the position of all or most aircraft in Australia. I see this is a huge misallocation of resources because a typical controller in a typical sector might have a dozen airports which have low level ADS-B transceivers and this controller would then have a responsibility for traffic advice or separation at each of these airports. This would either mean a staggering increase in the number of controllers or a situation where a single controller will not be able to provide any meaningful service. At local airports I would rather see a UNICOM or Class D with a tower, as accidents are most likely to happen on the runway, or in the circuit area where ADS-B from a controller servicing lots of airports may not be effective.

[Dick Smith]

Quokka,

Let me explain again. There is a risk of spoofing in relation to ADS-B because once you remove the expensive rotating antenna as used for primary and secondary surveillance radar, the only confirmation of the position in a simple ADS-B system, is what is transmitted by the sender. This position can be false. One way around the spoofing, is to have a system where there are a number of ADS-B receivers and they compare the position transmitted with the time intervals to each receiver.

The key to this is cost. What I have made very clear is that if you are going to leap into ADS-B, you need to have all of the relevant costs shown.

I understand that Airservices Australia did not consider spoofing at all, whereas the FAA is looking into it. Remember the FAA plans to keep all the secondary surveillance radars in place to provide a radar service above flight level 180 across the mainland USA and Alaska after the ADS-B mandate of 2020. The Airservices Australia plan was to remove the en route secondary surveillance radars so everything would rely on ADS-B in the simplest form – as shown by their proposal.

I don’t understand what you mean by “when you have taken action to prevent the implementation of ADS-B in Australia?” I certainly communicated that the project has not been properly thought out and that the relevant cost benefit study has not been completed. If it’s what you mean by me taking action to prevent the implementation, well I accept your statement.

The problem with Australia leading the world is clearly shown in the situation with the Seasprite Helicopters. Rather than purchase one of the latest Sikorsky proven products we decided that we needed “better or different software”, this meant in effect we had to issue a contract to design it ourselves. That has now cost $1 billion which must come off – among other things – the future salaries for people within the Defence Force.

The same thing happened at the time when I was Chairman of CAA in 1990-1991 when people wanted us to bring in a radar system that would be essentially designed for Australia by Hughes – Hughes had never built a civilian airtraffic control system at the time. Others were convinced we should go for proven equipment and the Thompson TAAATS system ended up winning awards and operated well. In the meantime Hughes attempted to build a system in Canada and Switzerland. Both failed and they moved out of civilian ATC.

[Quokka]

Let me explain again. There is a risk of spoofing in relation to ADS-B because once you remove the expensive rotating antenna as used for primary and secondary surveillance radar, the only confirmation of the position in a simple ADS-B system, is what is transmitted by the sender. This position can be false. One way around the spoofing, is to have a system where there are a number of ADS-B receivers and they compare the position transmitted with the time intervals to each receiver.

True, the position could be false... but don't forget that it is the responsibility of every controller to correctly identify an aircraft symbol on any surveillance display in accordance with a long list of rules that are universal. It is then the responsibility of the controller to verify that the information transmitted and displayed in addition to the symbol is true and correct. ADS-B makes it significantly easier to achieve this, but doesn't remove the requirement for identification and verification.

As for unlawful transmission of ADS-B information... every working day using RADAR I have to sort out the legitimate RADAR symbols from the Angels, Ghosts, Reflections and Garbling (all terms that we use to describe common anomalies displayed on the RADAR).

As for the radio transmissions, I hear the same voices, see the same aircraft, process the same flights. You become very attuned to what is real and what is not. That is how both pilots and controllers ascertain that some idiot with a hand-held radio is attempting to play pilot or controller. It stands out like canine genitalia.

When an itinerant flight comes along, it attracts a different sort of attention... a search for, and full scan of the flight plan... identification of the aircraft by more than one means... an informal assessment of the pilot's English comprehension skills and apparent competency in receiving and complying with ATC instructions.

We know to expect the flight because of flight notifications and approvals received... otherwise a friendly chat with my military liaison officer ensues and the matter is then in his hands.

[Flying Binghi]

Quokka,

So... under the ADS-B system - how do ASA intend to charge for the 'service' they provide... Will it be by the hour ?

[Dick Smith]

In one of the Airservices proposals on ADS-B they claimed that they could provide a “Sydney like service at places like Ayers Rock.” This means they could provide a Class C service at Ayers Rock remotely from the Brisbane centre. In relation to charging – we all know what the terminal charges are in Class C – for both VFR and IFR – very expensive!

[flying-spike]

Edit - Flying Spike, where you gone :confused:

Gee, I guess he might be a bit sensitive and got my post pulled!

[Quokka]

The problem with Australia leading the world is clearly shown in the situation with the Seasprite Helicopters.

I fully agree that there have been serious issues with Defence tendering for assets for a very long time... but 1090ES is a proven product... not a concept.

On the subject of concepts it's worth remembering that while the Thales Eurocat in use in Australia (TAAATS) was a proven product in respect of hardware, the software was a concept, written in response to Australian specifications. It is referred to outside of Australia as "Eurocat X" to differentiate it from the Eurocat systems in use in Europe.

[Flying Binghi]

Seems to me that Aus pilots and ASA could invest big time in a system that could be turned off overnight. I wonder if one of the reasons the US is not charging for the GPS signal is they do not have any obligation to continue to supply the service.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

[ the FAA’s proposed next-generation communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) system is more elaborate than it needs to be and wastes the money aircraft owners have already spent on their current gear. /QUOTE]Erm, isn't this the version you wanted implemented here? If you have gone cold on that abuse the yanks, not us.

You are happy with the costs, greater by an order of magnitude of replacing all the enroute SSR, which are nearly knackered, with more SSR?

Aren't these the same yanks you were congratulating for a spoof-free system that are now whining about spoof on their screens???[QUOTE]I see this is a huge misallocation of resources because a typical controller in a typical sector might have a dozen airports which have low level ADS-B transceivers and this controller would then have a responsibility for traffic advice or separation at each of these airports. Yes, but under your stupid plan the same controller would be responsible for the same traffic at the same dozen airports, but have to separate procedurally, with a HUGE cost to the industry in resulting delays. This technology would ENABLE your stupid plan to be implemented. Bring it on:D

Take a Bex and lie down man:{

[dmussen]

Folks,
Long ago and far away we used to fly tankers with a couple of fighters in tow. We had two navigators who could navigate anywhere on the planet.
All active aids to navigation were switched off and only passive devices were used.
Anyone remember a bubble sextant or a chronagraph?
I assume that the RAAF are not going to advertise position etc. irrispective of any civilian requirements.
Per Ardua Ad Loungebar.

Victor B1a

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Flying Binghi
It's only recently that the Europeans and USA agreed to have some commonality and interoperability on some of the civilian signals, so we'll need to wait until new GPS receiver-frontends are built or old ones upgraded.

It'll still mean that they can both switchoff or degrade their signals when required and anyway, Galileo & Compass are still quite a few years away from being operational so in the interim we are reliant on GPS and GLONASS.

[Lodown]

Gotta watch out! Terrorists MIGHT track aircraft on ADS-B, so the answer is not to implement the Aussie version of ADS-B. But country airports want to put up boundary fences and terrorists do not have any interest in country airfields. It all depends on the motivation behind the statements as to which target is more attractive to the terrorists and which argument is more attractive to the politicians and media.

[Dick Smith]

Even after the FAA brings in ADSB in the year 2020 it is going to keep all terminal radar units in class B and C airspace and also all enroute SSR units to cover FL180 and above. I wonder why? Yes- it's because they know that the GPS signals can be turned off at any time.

Also, it's the US Defence Department who have claimed concerns about spoofing of GPS based ADSB-not the FAA.