Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco? [Archive] - Page 2

werbil

6th Jul 2008, 11:48

We also have a proven and operational ADS-B system that provides coverage to close to the surface in the following locations (Source: High Altitude ADS-B Coverage (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/)):

High Altitude ADS-B Coverage

When operating outside of radar coverage, ADS-B derived ATS surveillance services will be provided to operators of authorised aircraft whilst within the coverage volume of commissioned ADS-B ground stations.

ADS-B ground stations are line-of-sight facilities. The ability for a ground station to received ADS-B data from an aircraft depends on altitude, distance from the site and obstructing terrain. Coverage will exist near the surface within 20 nautical miles of the ground station. High level coverage can exceed 250 nautical miles.
Note: In airspace where ADS-B coverage overlaps radar coverage, the radar derived aircraft position will be displayed to ATC.
The charts below shows the approximate ADS-B coverage provided by currently operating ground stations at FL300.
ADS-B Coverage effective 20 December, 2007

National coverage overview (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/ADS-B_Coverage_20Dec07.pdf)
Alice Springs (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Alice_Springs(AS).pdf)
Billabong (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Billabong(BLB).pdf)
Bourke (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Bourke(BKE).pdf)
Broome (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Broome(BME).pdf)
Bundaberg (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Bundaberg(BUD).pdf)
Esperance (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Esperance(ESP).pdf)
Karratha (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Karratha(KA).pdf)
Longreach (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Longreache(LRE).pdf)
Tennant Creek (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Tennant_Creek(TNK).pdf)
Thursday Island (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Thursday_Island(TUD).pdf)
Woomera (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Woomera(WRA).pdf)

So if you have ADS-B fitted and operational at any of the above places ATC can see you.

Why did they install it rather than SSR? - $$$$, and it works.

Flying Binghi

6th Jul 2008, 11:54

and it works

For how long werbil ?

werbil

6th Jul 2008, 12:09

FB,

You're arguments as to the power GPS gives terrorists are valid. Due you suggest that US should turn the system off now before someone uses it for terrorist purposes?

Civilian airliners have been used very effectively as terrorist weapons. Should they be banned permanently? The US government only TEMPORARILY grounded ALL civilian aircraft on 9/11.

Whilst GPS is unavailable in ADS-B airspace, the fall back of procedural separation will still be available. A (smaller) network of NAVAIDS is planned to be retained to provide a redundant alternate system.
W

Jabawocky

6th Jul 2008, 12:12

For how long werbil ?

This debate is getting really stupid............:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I can not quote you exact numbers, for exactly the reason YOU CAN NOT argue my suggestion, but I dare say the ADSB, even if they have some "outages".... will be having a much higher "UP TIME" than any of the radar heads we have had in the past or future.

FB FFS build a bridge mate and get over it......... I am starting think you are the radar salesman who is starring down the barrel of a losing battle. Get your company to start working on an ADSB system to suppliment (not totally replace) the worlds radar needs!:ooh: gee there is a novel idea!

J:ok:

Scurvy.D.Dog

6th Jul 2008, 12:41

Evening Jaba et al

One last one on this to ensure there is 100% factual clarity on this GPS availablity issue!

Please all, read them ... I mean, grab a cuppa and READ THEM IN FULL!

What we know so far:-

The system here and abroad will have:-

- Back-up ground based navaids
- PRIM and SSR around the capitals
- VHF and procedural sep options in the CTA GAFA and elsewhere
- TXPDR's that will (if like Microair's) be able to be selctable as A, C, S or ADS-B (redundant in other words if GPS is U/S)

All the above .... just in case GPS falls over ... no matter how unlikely!! :D

How unlikely? .... read on ;)

2002 U.S. Global Positioning System and European Galileo System
U.S. Global Positioning System and European Galileo System (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/8673.htm)

A nice PPT that puts much of today’s GPS and related (including Aviation) together
http://pnt.gov/public/2007/2007-09-ICG/providersforum.ppt

Current PNT state
National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (http://pnt.gov/)

US/International Co-operations
National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (http://pnt.gov/international/)

Current PNT Policy
U.S. Space-Based PNT Policy (http://pnt.gov/policy/)

And last but not least, a historical document suite that provides a background to the decisions that have led the GPS systems to where they are today.
RAND | Monograph/Reports | The Global Positioning System: Assessing National Policies (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/)

These links provide a clear (and verifiable) context to the significance with which the GPS systems are utilised across industries around the world, and therefore of such significance, that the number of agencies and governments (including DoD's internationally) have strict protocols, inclduing in the worst case scenario, ‘local’ :oh: contingencies in place, as the broad brush SA or OFF options are just not feasible anymore!!

…. That is off course unless something so substantial were to occur to warrant it …. When read in context with the safe guards in the PNT policies above, and the intergovernmental considerations within!

…. In such an event if the decision was sactioned and taken by multiple governments either locally or globally, the loss of civilian GPS is not likely to matter to many folks when in comparison to the event that would preceed taking such a decision IYKWIM :ooh:

Enjoy the reading ….. Bing :p

Flying Binghi

6th Jul 2008, 17:19

I can not quote you exact numbers

Try me Jaba ...and you will need to do better than insults :E

Flying Binghi

6th Jul 2008, 17:23

- Back-up ground based navaids
- PRIM and SSR around the capitals
- VHF and procedural sep options in the CTA GAFA and elsewhere
- TXPDR's that will (if like Microair's) be able to be selctable as A, C, S or ADS-B (redundant in other words if GPS is U/S)

All the above .... just in case GPS falls over ... no matter how unlikely!!

Errr.... Scurvy, why all the back up if ADS-B is so good ???

Biggles_in_Oz

6th Jul 2008, 21:10

because only a lunatic would base everything on one system which is not directly under their own control.
Yes, GNSS can be (and has been) spoofed, degraded and/or jammed, but there non GNSS methods which the zealots can use to guide HE where they want., not as cheaply or conveniently as GNSS, but ...

I have issues several aspects of the JCP but on the whole, ADSB is a good idea (tm).

james michael

6th Jul 2008, 21:49

I have read through these last 20 posts and I salute Bin Liner for the impact his efforts have made on Binghi.

Tools may be used for good and bad; in the ultimate civilisation keeps those with a balance of good and takes measures to reduce the harm.

Cars - transport versus road toll. Knives - eat versus kill. And so it goes.

Terrorist scenario - red herring of miniscule impact - Binghi, ADS-B is working NOW around the world, how many terrorist GPS guided V2's have landed? But, let's turn off the constellation and that will stop them, won't it? Whoops, now they're using trucks. Let's ban them - you can drive to the farm for your produce.

Why have backups - through life we have backups. As does the human body. Tell us Binghi, why do you carry a spare tyre (space saver acceptable) in your vehicle given the reliability of tyres today. And, on the aviation front, let's all fly single engine aircraft over water at night with passengers.

I don't believe there is any substance forthcoming re the Binghi scenario that furthers my research.

Jabawocky

6th Jul 2008, 23:01

FB

Insults???:confused: What insults??? Any thing I said to you was about "getting over it" If that insulted you, your tough exterior just had a small breach! Patch it up quick!:ok:

And if you have predicted ADSB down time Vs actual Radar down time, how about you share it with us then?

- Back-up ground based navaids
- PRIM and SSR around the capitals
- VHF and procedural sep options in the CTA GAFA and elsewhere
- TXPDR's that will (if like Microair's) be able to be selctable as A, C, S or ADS-B (redundant in other words if GPS is U/S)

All the above .... just in case GPS falls over ... no matter how unlikely!! Errr.... Scurvy, why all the back up if ADS-B is so good ???

I think you missed the point again. Ground based navaids are already there, Terminal radar was always part of the plan, ADSB is to be used where no radar is feasable....the great Aussie FA.....and replace enroute radar. Proc sep is used now when radar is offline and in the GAFA so whats new there.....

Comments like that are a poor attempt at scuttling Scurvy's well reasoned debate. ADSB hasa never been proposed as the one and only piece of the puzzle.

J

Dick Smith

6th Jul 2008, 23:10

James Michael, let me try to answer your earlier questions. Basically what you are saying is that seeing the GA industry is going to get $100 million worth of equipment for “nothing” we should not complain.

Why don’t you give me a phone call so we can discuss this issue? My numbers are 02 9450 0600 (work) and 0408 640 221 (mobile). It is very basic. If we have in our industry $100 million to spend, we should allocate that money to where it is most effective in improving safety.

Your question is something like, “If they are going to waste $100 million, what is wrong with them wasting it on fitting black boxes to GA aircraft if we don’t have to pay anything?”

James Michael, I can’t really offer you anything other than to say that it is not going to happen as proposed. As I have stated previously on this site, no Government will risk being the first in the world to close down all secondary surveillance radar in high traffic enroute areas and to be the first to rely totally on a single ADS-B GPS based system.

Your second question (in relation to the second stage of the ADS-B mandate for GA aircraft requiring ADS-B above 5,000 feet) is very basic. You have mentioned that Stage Two affects:

VFR operations that currently require carriage and use of a VHF radio

Uniquely in Australia, because of the old Flight Service days, we have a mandatory radio requirement above 5,000 feet for VFR aircraft. Strangely, we have no mandatory radio requirement for many busy airfields which have airline traffic. So by Stage Two bringing in a requirement that ADS-B be fitted where we currently require the carriage and use of VHF radio, we will have the ridiculous system where you need ADS-B at 5,500 feet over the Simpson Desert, but you do not require ADS-B at Taree – an airport serviced by RPT traffic.

This is happening because rather than people looking at addressing risk in a scientific way, we actually make our decisions on what we have done in the past – no matter how much those decisions allocated the resources incorrectly.

Bob Murphie, the $100 million is coming from the claimed saving of closing down the enroute secondary surveillance radars that operate between Sydney and Cairns. In the USA – where they are planning to go to an ADS-B mandate from 2020 – all of the secondary surveillance enroute radars which give a service above FL180 are remaining.

James Michael, before you start attacking me personally, why not put your own name on the post (or is it your own name?) and why not phone me and have a discussion? I’m happy to put you in the right hand seat of the Citation, and we can head off for a meal (say, at Bathurst) and discuss the issues.

It does matter where the money comes from if it is a gross misallocation of the finite resources of our industry. We cannot afford to lose $10, let alone $100 million.

Also, the cost of maintaining the equipment in VFR aircraft will be millions of dollars per year with no subsidy at all.

james michael

6th Jul 2008, 23:58

Dick Smith

In the order of your post:

I find no value in wasting my time ringing or meeting you if you have no fact to add, as what you have posted adds no value to my research. But thank you for your offer.

My question is NOT about wasting $100 million. I believe the business decision proposed by Airservices is one of the greatest safety forward moves in our lifetime. That's why the RFDS is identified out the middle of nowhere in WA already where radar coverage is non existent.

So no-one is going to rely on a single system en route? Are there then two radar heads at each en route location now?

Next to radio. You selectively pick one example - Tarree - that is NOT a CTAF R. Unsurprising as Tarree averages a mammoth 3 RPT flight in per day (ditto out). Even so, once ADS-B is on the go, there is an improvement in information available to those who wish it.

But, try all the CTAF R that now exist and I note CASA is currently reviewing the entire CTAF R situation so I expect more, not less.

"We make our decisions based on the past" - I felt this ADS-B decision was a breath of fresh air and thinking beyond the past. If you read the NAS DP V1.4, another part of my research, ADS-B allows your famous NAS Class E to be placed on top of CTAF (1200') and provide RPT security all the way up and down. And, GA will require to have ADS-B in Class E won't they, Mr Smith, if it follows the transponder mandate that was imposed for Class E.

Now to a sore point "before you start attacking me personally". Really, Mr Smith? Was it not you who did the personal attack ON ME about identity, not contacting you being proof of a separate agenda, etc.

What makes you think you can scare away my friend Peuce with a comment he has defamed you (laughable) yet YOU make improper claims about me. If this is to be the debate style, do not expect me to participate with you. He apologised to you, almost offered you a bouquet of flowers (tulips, perhaps), yet you feel YOU can blithely criticise my motives. I had already explained my ambition was ADS-B in the cockpit.

I find no news or value to the debate in your previous post.

Capn Bloggs

7th Jul 2008, 01:12

why not put your own name on the post (or is it your own name?)
Good one Dick. :rolleyes:

james michael

7th Jul 2008, 01:43

Thank you Bloggs, it reminded me Mr Smith had no compuction implying I am a fibber and that is a concern to me:

On Saturday I stated (Post 229) I am proud of my name James Michael, has been mine for many years.

And today Mr Smith questions my integrity with the quote you have noted. Am I to debate in this culture?

I feel we have reached a point of debate acknowledged by Leo Tolstoy in 1893:
"Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration."

I commend Dick Smith as a very intelligent man.

I am also intrigued at this intrusion into the business of Airservices. How they wish to propose a business case to aviation and government is not mine to argue - I am researching only the pros and cons for aviation.

Perhaps Airservices can reciprocate and send in a team to help Mr Smith with his businesses :)

Bob Murphie

7th Jul 2008, 02:16

Dick;

From discussions I have had the cross industry subsidy works like this.

1) Airservices pass on any savings to the Airlines, (I think they are already doing this) and,

2) The Airlines pass on their savings to GA.

However I can't see any evidence of any Airlines agreements to pass on anything to GA. I can't find any statements from Senior Management or the respective Boards.

Has there been such an agreement from say, Qantas, Virgin or REX?

james michael

7th Jul 2008, 03:09

Bob Murphie

In your enquiry, my research can assist.

Your advisors are possibly misplaced with their concepts.

The JCP is our shepherd, check the words at 9.6 and 9.7. Airservices are the money managers.

StallBoy

7th Jul 2008, 04:09

Dear Dick,
I hope you never get into a position of power in the FAA or any other government instrumentatily again. When I heard that you were being considered by the howard government I started looking at the sailing times of passenger ships to travel out of and too Australia.:(

Bob Murphie

7th Jul 2008, 04:15

Extract, JCP 9.7:

"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".

Has there been any documented evidence that "the customers" are a party to this suggestion that would allow Airservices to issue the vouchers to GA?

james michael

7th Jul 2008, 04:29

b Mu

Bob Murphie - the above is your name with gaps because I left it incomplete. This also is so with the part of JCP 9.7 you quote - it is incomplete and so out of context.

9.6 says
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.

and 9.7 further says
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.

Airservices pricing is set by Airservices.

If, as you suggest, the customers refuse to allow Airservices to conduct its business as planned, then the contractual arrangement of the JCP falls over. Offer - acceptance - consideration. Like the fire triangle, one element missing means NO GO.

My research is that this latset JCP Phase 1 concept comes from the last ASTRA (ABIT GIT) meeting. ASTRA is argued by some as having a high airline component. My informant was that there was universal acceptance of the revised JCP. That means airlines also.

Only a year ago on here, it was argued that Qantas would never fit ADS-B. Life remains full of surprises.

I remain amazed to remember the old jingle "See a pin and pick it up, all day long means good luck". Why are so many people anxious to stick the pin in themselves instead? Is it some reversed Not Invented Here syndrome?

Bob Murphie

7th Jul 2008, 04:46

I said it was an extract;

Here is 9.6 and 9.7 so we can all be at ease with the contents, which I note you have also used extracts from.

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,
Aviation Satellite Technology for
Policy Group Joint Consultation Paper Surveillance & Navigation
July 2007 Page 21
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-20144.
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.
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.
Aviation Satellite Technology for
Policy Group Joint Consultation Paper Surveillance & Navigation
July 2007 Page 22
• 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.

I am an Airservices customer, but don't pay enroute charges. Lets be as simplistic as we can. The Airservices customers they intend to fund this cross industry subsidy are mainly the Airlines.

My concern isn't sticking pins or having good luck. My concern is that I haven't seen anything from the Airlines. Have you.

I made the post to Dick hoping he could be in a better position to garner a response from Mr Dixon than I.

My question remains unanswered.

james michael

7th Jul 2008, 05:34

Bob Murphie

You miss my point.

I do NOT need to see anyhting from the airlines as you suggest.

If they withdraw, there is no deal. If they are in, there is a deal. I doubt it will walk through the Minister's office without being very specific but that is NOT my/our issue or problem.

Let your question remain unanswered; it makes no difference to the end game. I suspect in any case you may be as likely as Mr Smith to get an answer from Mr Dixon - he has a business to run.

Bring on my TSO 146 GPS.

Bob Murphie

7th Jul 2008, 06:48

I have noted in your "research" a constant that makes me think you have already made up your mind, your last post confirms that. There are others who are in opposition to a system that addresses a problem that doesn't exist and indeed doesn't offer the aircraft owner anything more than he/ she already has.

I have a mode C transponder that gives me separation from TCAS equipped RPT. My windscreen and eyes gives me separation from other VFR aircraft. My 400Mhz ELT will give me crash security. Exactly what else justifies this journey into money laundering.

I will await the outcome which may take longer than the regulatory reform process, or Minister Albanese may chuck the whole lot out.

I guess one way or another we will find the answer to my question.

max1

7th Jul 2008, 06:59

Bob Murphie,
I answered your question as simply as I could previously.
Here it is again. ASA will pay for the GA subsidy, and again, ASA will pay for the GA subsidy.
Q. Where is ASA getting the money? A. From its customers i.e. pretty much the airlines.
Q. Where is ASA getting the money?A. From its customers i.e. pretty much the airlines.
Q. Why are the airlines willing to pay, through ASA, to outfit the GA fleet rather than get money back now?
A. Because the airlines (now listen up Flying Binghi) run a business, and are aware that longer term that they will save money because their supplier will have cheaper costs through running a proven , reliable and cheaper system through a network of ADS-B ground stations than by having to instal and maintain a network of SSRs that have moving parts.
ADS-B will give them much greater coverage at a cheaper price.Long term they will see a reduction in nav charges.

The airlines are onboard.

Dick, do you think Qantas, Virgin etc would allow ASA to go down this path, basically spending airline navcharges, if they weren't comfortable with the technology. They have been using it for some years now, and are involved in the implementation and testing of it.

Bob I think you'll find that in the excerpt you posted that

"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"

International,domestic and regional airlines ARE in on it.

Dick ASA DONT have $100 million floating around, it is the future navcharge payers money ( pretty much the airlines) . I'm sure that they would rather not pay it, and ASA have committed to reducing charges. As I have stated, in this case, it is a one time close-ended deal.

If ASA have to commit to replacing old radar heads and installing new ones around Australia, that money is G-O-N-E.

To summarise, ASA pay for avionics upgrades with the navcharges from the airlines, the airlines are onboard, the system works, there are redundancies, ATC can go to procedural control if it goes suddenly offline (just like now if we lose radar). FB, the airlines run a business, probably a bit bigger than yours, and they are happy with it.

CaptainMidnight

7th Jul 2008, 07:38

Not sure if info re this has been posted here, but:

Dick Smith's position on the Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) and the $100 million subsidy (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Letter_to_Minister_Albanese.php)

Bob Murphie

7th Jul 2008, 07:43

max1;

Tooth Fairy stuff.

I have never been given anything from any Government Quango in my life, indeed the exact opposite.

Airservices can't give GA money because as a Corporation they have a duty to their shareholder (s), not PBGA.

If they wish to use the tax from the fare paying pax, (enroute charges included in fare), I simply want to know where is any documentation by the Airlines from these collected taxes will guarantee the laundering of this cash to pay somebody other than the shareholder (s), and not including members of an "implementation team" that probably don't include the decision makers.

It's not that unreasonable to ask such a simple question.

james michael

7th Jul 2008, 08:08

CM

Please, more warning before sending us off to read somethng like that :)

Bob Murphie

Certainly my research has caused me to believe I want that GPS. In the balance of what I have researched and read, that's my belief.

Airservices CAN give GA money because first they can make a business case that they are speculating to accumulate and second their shareholder is only the government who are not backward in making money.

Implementation team that does not include 'the decision makers'? Have you not noted the representation at ASTRA?

Now, what colour GPS shall I order :D

OZBUSDRIVER

7th Jul 2008, 09:22

There needs to be one individual who is there for the long term, totally understands the project, and will be held accountable for its success or failure.

In the past I have been involved in the decision making for complex air traffic equipment where risks were high. I offer my services to the Government in an advisory capacity to help ensure the correct decision is made.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING:yuk:

Scurvy.D.Dog

7th Jul 2008, 09:44

Mr Michael said it earlier

Tolstoy

"Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration."

.... of the Bitter and Twisted brigade:-

Tooth Fairy stuff.

Airservices can't give GA money because as a Corporation they have a duty to their shareholder ...

.... I simply want to know where is any documentation by the Airlines from these collected taxes will guarantee the laundering of this cash to pay somebody

.... such a simple question

A slow-witted man? or persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably? bit like the other bloke

I ask (as I have asked many other Ministers) that you make sure this project does not go ahead until proper research and consultation takes place, and capable people are put in charge.....

.... The same situation exists with the Airservices ADS-B proposal. There needs to be one individual who is there for the long term, totally understands the project, and will be held accountable for its success or failure.

..... there was never one individual who had the responsibility, really believed in the project, could listen to advice from others and be held accountable for the decisions. and

..... In the past I have been involved in the decision making for complex air traffic equipment where risks were high.

Such as Alphabet airspace, The G Airspace trial, Location Specific Pricing for GA, AusNAS, ARG and the Taskforce to name but a few!

I offer my services to the Government in an advisory capacity to help ensure the correct decision is made. :hmm:

Both have form in the 'Old Guard' GA aviation arena :yuk:

And in full knowledge that were they sucessfulOf course, running the two systems in parallel will completely remove the $100 million claimed cost saving that was the basis of the JCP proposal. ... the GA Subsidy is gone!

Anyone else not see the pattern here :suspect: :mad:

Jabawocky

7th Jul 2008, 09:50

Scurvy

You can lead a horse to water, ya can't make it enjoy the view!

:ugh:

J:ok:

werbil

7th Jul 2008, 10:19

Dick Smith's letter published on his site is dated 3rd July 2008 - written, well, well after the closing date for responses to the JCP of 31st October 2007.

Dick I assume you submitted a response to the JCP - you were certainly aware of it in August 2007 as you participated in the thread started by Scurvy.D.Dog to encourage responses. Would you care to publish your response?

Before you ask, the response I provided to the JCP at the time was:

I support the proposal providing the subsidy will cover the cost of installing the minimum necessary equipment in the aircraft and there is the availability of LAME’s to complete the installations.

Additionally, I see no reason why aircraft without an engine driven electrical system cannot be included in the proposal. Battery technology has progressed to the point where with an increased subsidy these aircraft could be included as well. and included my name and ARN. Here my identity can remain anonymous - it neither adds or subtracts the credibility of my arguments - if you really think it makes a difference and want to know PM me and I will tell you.

Dick, you are quite adament in you opposition to the JCP proposal. What do you suggest should be done instead, and how do you suggest it should be funded?

max1

7th Jul 2008, 10:30

Bob M,
Take a moment to read, I mean actively read, what has been previously written.
ASA do not have Shareholder (s).
They have one, the Australian Government (as I have written before). Ready, they have one shareholder, the Australian government.

They , after consultation with the interested parties which you have previously posted yourself,

"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"

are making a pitch to their 100% shareholder, the Australian Government to bring in ADS-B coverage . Alot of the area it will be covering had NO previous surveillance. Dick, this means they are NOT in most cases replacing SSRs, but putting in radar like coverage where previously there was NONE.

For this to work effectively, ie to see everyone, they are going to subsidise the fitment into the GA fleet of ADS-B. As an Air Traffic Controller the ability to see aircraft in 'real time' is a god send. We are not there to play Big Brother, we are there to make sure people get from A to B safely with as few delays as possible.

Bob, I understand when you say "something that seems too good to be true. usually is". This case is the exception, the airlines are willing to pay so that we (ATC) can see you.

They understand that you would scream blue murder if you were forced to pay for your own kit (and you vote, and have members of Parliament, who happen to be the Australian Government, who happen to be the 100% shareholders of ASA). Please grasp the fact that the airlines and ASA know that GA have to be, for want of a better term, 'bribed' through the subsidy.

It is no skin of my nose , if you kill the whole thing. We will just have to continue with the very restrictive procedural separation.

I hope you now have a better understanding of why they are willing to pay for your fitment. ADS-B(Broadcast) is being used outside of radar coverage right now.

ADS-C (Contract), where aircraft downlink via satellite or ground based VHF on a time or event based reporting rate, has been used for at least 8 years in Australia. It allows us to use 30nm longitudinal separation over the ocean, instead of a 10 minute (about 70-80nm) standard.

It also incorporates Controller Pilot Dialogue (CPDLC)which comes up on our, and the pilots displays, to ask for level changes, Wx diversions, football scores etc, we have been using this for over 11 years, and Flying Binghi,guess what, it kept working right on through the morning of 911 and was invaluable for communicating with the aircraft already in the air from the States coming to Australia on that fateful day.

Dick, our ADS(C) guru goes to the States (they pay) to instruct and lecture the US military, he is also a front line controller. He is internationally regarded as one of the leaders in the field. Sometimes you might want to admit that we actually are leaders in the field and some of what we do is 'Worlds Best Practice'. (I hate that saying)

ferris

7th Jul 2008, 11:24

Bob Murphie...
Tooth Fairy stuff.

I have never been given anything from any Government Quango in my life, indeed the exact opposite.

Airservices can't give GA money because as a Corporation they have a duty to their shareholder (s), not PBGA.

If your opposition to this thing is that you dont believe you will be given a subsidy, then I suggest you withdraw. Regardless of whether AsA can or can't pay you a sudsidy, the government can. Off the top of my head, the govt pays subsidies to individuals, sole traders, corporate entitites etc. for a wide range of things like LPG conversions, solar hot water conversions, farm subsidies, apprentice workers etc. etc. Yes, it's true, I myself have received such subsidy.
So from that point of view, I dont see a whole lot of difference between an LPG conversion or an avionics conversion. I'm not familiar with the instruments or modality of how such subsidies are paid, but I'm pretty certain that if AsA as a corporation, or the govt., promise to pay you something, and subsequently didn't, you would have no shortage of litigation available to you.

Reading over the thread, the reasoned argument for going with ADS- B fitment, as opposed to what is offered as "argument" against, is pretty compelling. So for that, I'd like to thank Mr. Smith. Well done. Any objective reader or decision maker should have no problem now.

Flying Binghi

7th Jul 2008, 11:44

Spend a day out in the paddock, and look what greets me... :hmm:

and Flying Binghi,guess what, it kept working right on through the morning of 911 and was invaluable for communicating with the aircraft already in the air from the States coming to Australia on that fateful day.

No aurgument from me max1 :)

Terrorist scenario - red herring of miniscule impact - Binghi, ADS-B is working NOW around the world, how many terrorist GPS guided V2's have landed? But, let's turn off the constellation and that will stop them, won't it? Whoops, now they're using trucks. Let's ban them - you can drive to the farm for your produce.

james michael, The scenario I presented is NOT about V2's. It is compareing the terror effects of a Buzz bomb like device, basicly a small UAV. My understanding of Hitlers terror weapon, the buzz bombs, were that the British military deemed them to be not worth bothering with as they caused little real damage. The politicians of the time thought otherwise, and had considerable resources (and lives) diverted to suppress these highly inaccurate terror weapons.

Imagine what it would have been like if Hitlers Buzz bombs had a delivery accuracy of 30 metres...

... and the reason it has'nt happened yet .... ??? I dunno, pax jets were around for 40 odd years before 9II.

And re truck bombs - they will come from within Oz, and will damage a particular target... not indirectly take out the entire Oz air-nav system (edit - an ADS-B air-nav system) The Oz security people are pretty good at identifying 'in-house' terrorists (exhibit A - the Footy bombers) the problem is stopping terror weapons launched from outside Oz.

IMHO, we need to think very, very carefully, before we throw away our current well proven radar based air-nav system.

.

Scurvy.D.Dog

7th Jul 2008, 12:01

Bing

IMHO, we need to think very, very carefully, before we throw away our current well proven radar based air-nav system.

'Our current well proven radar based air-nav system' will be retained where it matters i.e. Primary radar (you do know the difference between PRIM and SSR radar I take it) in the capitals, that will uniquely provide non-SSR skin return radar + MLat + ADS-B .... surely you can see the significance of that PRIM radar decision ... WITHOUT IT BEING SPELT OUT!

In Enroute airspace (where SSR only exists), it would be replaced with ADS-B! ... more accurate, reliable, cost effective where wide area procedural ATC separation can be utilised immediately as a back-up! .... the loss of SSR only radar in these areas will effectively make no negative difference. What will make a difference is the ability at comparatively very low cost (where a need is identified), provide addtional areas of accurate ATS surveillance where it currently exists and where it is needed elsewhere such as the goldfields!

That all said (and its been said many times by many folks already) .... in your scenario .... would said persons (who would seek to harm us) equip said airbourne delivery device with a god damd TXPDR??? :rolleyes:

.... think about it mate! The areas that need the PRIM eyes to see sneekies will still have it, and where it won't exist, it currently does not anyway!

Fecken hell :ugh::ugh:

Quokka

7th Jul 2008, 13:01

... think about it mate! The areas that need the PRIM eyes to see sneekies will still have it, and where it won't exist, it currently does not anyway!

Bing, listen to Scurvy. Primary Radar is the one that bounces a beam off anything metallic that's moving... including, on occasion, trucks barreling down the highway. Primary Radar exists in all of the big cities... and it's not about to be de-commissioned.

Secondary Surveillance Radar - SSR, over a broader area of the East Coast, plus Perth, Adelaide and Darwin, is the RADAR that is proposed to be replaced by ADS-B. SSR is not a surveillance RADAR used by Defence because it is a participatory system of surveillance, that is, you have to agree to participate in the system for the the surveillance to register your presence. If you don't turn on your transponder, we can't see you.

ADS-B is also a participatory system of surveillance, but a far more advanced system... more accurate, more reliable, more data transferred (not just a selectable four-digit code and pressure altitude), and a lot more cheaper. Because it's cheaper, we can justify installing it across the continent, and thereby achieve a RADAR-like system for the whole country, not just a small corridor around the East and Southern coastlines plus a small circle around Perth and Darwin... instead, the whole continent.

If your argument is that SSR should be retained for security reasons... think again. It is total useless as a form of surveillance for Defence purposes. But then, there are far, far better means of surveillance in use than RADAR. It has had it's day, a very significant day, but it is no longer the means of surveillance of choice, it is primitive and antiquated when compared with other technologies and therefore... insignificant in the security world.

ferris

7th Jul 2008, 15:01

I believe what FB is trying to say is that if terrorists were to somehow employ the GPS system in some sort of attack, the US might turn it (the constellation) off. His reasoning is, therefor, it would be short-sighted to base the entire aviation surveillance and navigation systems on GPS.

IMHO, I think he is correct insofar as; if there were some sort of large-scale, co-ordinated attack using GPS guided weapons against the US, they might indeed interrupt the signal. In much the same way as pretty much EVERY commercial passenger jet in the WORLD was grounded on 9/11. For a short time.

However, based on the RISK, should we not proceed? Well, was every passenger jet permanently grounded? Did everyone regret ever having passenger jets, thinking "they were a huge mistake"? No, we mitigated and moved on. If every aircraft in oz is being navigated and surveilled using GPS technologies, what would happen if they signal was interupted unexpectedly? Would everyone crash? Would anyone crash? No, there are mitigators. As has been stated (over and over), the surveillence aspect is covered in that ATC would revert to procedural control and primary radar surveillance ie. go backwards a few years- inefficient, yes, dangerous, no. Aircraft navigating- well, there are plenty of aircraft using only GPS already. Pilots are trained (hopefully) in what to do, and there will be other mitigators (retention of navaids etc). If you are a GA pilot wandering around without any idea where you are without your GPS, then your airmanship might be questioned. But will you immediately perish? No.

Mr. Binghi would have to agree, that the risk of the GPS signal being interrupted is minute. The reward for utilising ADS-B now is massive. Risk/reward? It's a no-brainer.

It doesnt hurt to raise things, FB, and now hopefully another perceived problem is given it's proper perspective and put to bed. Thanks.

james michael

7th Jul 2008, 22:04

Binghi

I think the point you miss is that UAV are designed to be piloted by a ground station and do not need GPS guidance. A simple matter of navigation from a ground station using a forward looking camera or FLIR on a datalink.

Have a look at the BAE Systems information if you can track it down.

They DO NOT need a GPS to blow you out of your paddock (although nice to know you are a man 'outstanding in your field' :)

Bob Murphie

Have a look at the signatories to the original JCP - they are going to make fools of themselves by making such an offer then having the airlines withdraw - "I'd like to see that" ;)

Does anyone know where I can get a polka dotted TSO 146 GPS to match my dashboard - ADS-B, coming to an aircraft near you :D

Dick Smith

8th Jul 2008, 00:01

James Michael, when you came on this thread not that long ago, you made statements and asked questions as follows:

Thank you for confirming my limited understandings.

I'm confused about

(I think I will soon need a dictionary of aviation acronyms.)

Mr Dick Smith

My confusion is still with me.

When I offer to have a phone conversation with you so that some of the information can be explained far better than it can be going backwards and forwards on PPRuNe, you refuse. Why would this be so? You have not even taken up my offer on a ride in the Citation.

You say that you post under your own name James Michael but a check with Google brings no hits that could be meaningful. It is obvious from your quotes from Leo Tolstoy that you are educated and not as confused as you make out.

Actually, I think I’m on to you. Has anyone else worked out what I have?

Dick Smith

8th Jul 2008, 00:03

Max1, I can tell you who will be paying for the $100 million subsidy for ADS-B – it is the passengers. Don’t think for a second that the airlines pay the airways charges – they don’t. They pass every cent (and a bit more) on to the passengers. Once the passengers know that they will be subsidising equipment in general aviation aircraft when there is no measurable safety advantage, they will object to it.

How will the passengers know? Eventually it will filter out through the media and to the political players.

Dick Smith

8th Jul 2008, 00:13

Werbil, you ask:

Dick, you are quite adamant in you opposition to the JCP proposal. What do you suggest should be done instead, and how do you suggest it should be funded?

With the limited amount of information I have (because I’m kept out of the loop in every way possible – as is everyone who doesn’t blindly support the JCP), I believe that we should continue with the high level ADS-B installation as planned. Then we should iron out the problems and take a careful look at how it works compared to the multilateration system currently being installed in Tasmania. A proper discussion paper should then be released showing the advantages and disadvantages of each system, with the relative costs.

In the meantime, I believe we should enter into a contract which keeps the existing enroute secondary surveillance radars operating until at least 2020.

Gradually, during the intervening years, we should encourage the installation of ADS-B equipment as it becomes available – or as it is installed at no charge in new aircraft.

I believe within the next two years, we will find which system will become the de facto world standard. That is the one we should stick with.

In relation to funding, I believe that the costs will be so low by 2020 that they will be no more than an existing transponder, and this price will also provide an ADS-B or TCAS ‘in’ equivalent.

As I have said before, I totally support ADS-B, but not rushing into it when we don’t even have proper certified units at a reasonable price for GA aircraft.

james michael

8th Jul 2008, 00:24

Dick Smith

There you go again - if one does not ring you they are guilty of something. Would you like me to drive or fly down from Canberra to visit you as well?

No hits on google? Wow, that's definitive. Ever heard of a non-directory listing?

I know you are out of puff when you have to attack the player instead of the theme.

You state Actually, I think I’m on to you. Has anyone else worked out what I have?

Well, Mr Smith, let me tell you what I have worked out about your efforts with ADS-B.

In your letter to the Minister you state
I fully support ADS-B, but believe it should initially be installed in conjunction with our existing radar system, and a reasonable length of time allowed for the two systems to operate in parallel so any problems can be ironed out. I would imagine this period would be a minimum of 5 years, and more likely 10 years. Of course, running the two systems in parallel will completely remove the $100 million claimed cost saving that was the basis of the JCP proposal.

Well Dick the next opportunity for the subsidy is in the year 2028. So here you come thundering in to save whom from what - knowing full well that if you succeed YOU are consigning General Aviation - not all of whom have your boundless bucks - to a possible ADS-B mandate at a later stage - THAT WE ALL HAVE TO PAY FOR OURSELVES.

And, even if the whole ADS-B 1090ES project turns out to be overtaken by new technology in 5 or 10 years - it's no skin off the nose of GA because WE are not out of pocket.

What can you tell us of ICAO Annex 6, 6.13, and its likely consequences without ADS-B, Dick?

Getting back to what's posted - have a read of the information to those who post on Pprune, Dick. If you are on here, live with what you see is what you get.

My confusion? - I'm a fast learner Dick. And my research has gained a lot from the commonsense posts placed upon here by many people.

Kaptain_Kaos

8th Jul 2008, 00:44

Wonderful post James :ok::D

A word of caution however. You may be painting Dick into a corner with logic. He may just trot out the usual threat of defamation very shortly.

He is quick.... Tolstoy and education. Wow.

Dick Smith

8th Jul 2008, 00:47

James Michael, the problem is that I don’t believe the actual subsidy will go ahead. In my experience with the general aviation industry in the last decade, it is screwed in every way with a one-way ratchet – supporting the airlines and degrading general aviation.

I believe that at the last moment, the Government or someone will say that it is not possible to actually subsidise, and that GA must pay for the equipment itself. I believe that legislation will be in place, so GA pilots will have to pay for the ADS-B ‘out’ and once again everyone in the GA industry will be outraged but impotent.

Can anyone give me evidence that the scenario could be different to what I describe?

Willoz269

8th Jul 2008, 00:48

He is not quick mate, he is bipolar...why be in a forum when you can't take the heat when it is directed at you?

Nice post James, thanks for bringing some straight light into the subject, rather than turning the subject into self serving agendas.

Cheers.

james michael

8th Jul 2008, 01:01

Dick Smith

You could be correct, however, on the balance of probability I do not believe any government would take on the total industry as you describe.

Your concept is 'conspiracy theory' - seems to spread even to you needing to track down my identity. Pay attention to what is said, not he who speaks.

The evidence is that the subsidy is on the table. In the courtroom of pprune, I suggest the onus is on YOU to give me evidence that the scenario could be different to what I describe

In researching your site, I find parallel of deep concern. Reading the Avalon section I find GA had unlimited access to Avalon - until you acted - now it is to be Class C a lot if not all of the time. On behalf of GA, thank you for shutting the gate on me if I ever fly through there.

Back to ICAO Annex 6 - your comments are .........

Will and Kap

Thank you. I will keep my comments to Dick Smith carefully worded and not end up under attack like my new friend peuce so recently.

Bob Murphie

8th Jul 2008, 01:01

ferris;

Your post makes sense, but the JCP proposes a cross induistry subsidy which in effect means the airline /passengers are paying it, not the Government or any Quango Corporation.

ferris

8th Jul 2008, 01:04

Dick, some of the things you say here are quite comical....
Once the passengers know that they will be subsidising equipment in general aviation aircraft when there is no measurable safety advantage, they will object to it.
very funny.

Can anyone give me evidence that the scenario could be different to what I describe?
Yes. "Slater and Gordon".

Is it so hard to see an avionics conversion being similar to an LPG conversion, except that the govt wont be out of pocket for the avionics?

Bob, you say "in effect the passengers are paying for it". I don't see the difficulty with this. The money AsA collects ends up in general revenue, where it is paid out in farm/apprentice worker/solar panel etc. subsidies. I truly do not see what your issue is.

james michael

8th Jul 2008, 02:07

Ferris

I see you, and double you in your good quote :)

Dick Smith stated when there is no measurable safety advantage

We await his return from reading ICAO Annex 6.

To my understanding, once ADS-B OUT talks to TCAS (knowing one example is on limited test in Airbus) think of regional PTO in Class G airspace and CTAF.

No measurable safety advantage? I must again read the arguments Dick put forward about serious and imminent risk at Avalon :rolleyes:

Bob Murphie

One enjoys Jarlsberg cheese. The visual delight is in the holes - the substance of life is in the cheese. These arguments of passenger concern or airlines default are visually delightful - let us instead imagine what passengers will think if they are told how ADS-B will improve their safety in most of australia ;)

Bob Murphie

8th Jul 2008, 02:34

Dick, I think I see what you are on to.

james michael is Forrest Gump, traded the box of chocolates for Jarlsberg cheese.

Jabawocky

8th Jul 2008, 03:09

Anyone else noticed his "fake" poor use of english, sort of like an Asian student kind of translation to english in earlier posts has turned into a rather more fluent Anglo-Saxon version?:rolleyes:

I think he might just be a wolf in sheeps clothes!:=

J:ok:

bushy

8th Jul 2008, 03:32

Ferris
I suggest you delete the "GA" from your post where you say
"If you are a GA pilot, wandering about without any idea of where you are without your GPS....."
This is inppropriate.
Part of the problem with Australian aviation is that GA is undervalued and expected to be second rate. We wrongly accept this attitude and so we have things like LHR happening.
Please do not perpetuate this attitude.

ferris

8th Jul 2008, 04:11

Bushy- please believe me when I say I wasn't trying to cast apsersions on GA pilots (I guess when I fly, I am one). The post could be read that way. The post should be read in the context of FB's posts re; risks if the GPS signal is lost. The big end of the industry are covered, and we are talking about fitment to the GA fleet. I was trying to point out that pilots, full stop, shouldn't be navigating on GPS without any other clue, and so the "risk" in losing the GPS signal as per FB's scenario, is miniscule.
Fully agree that GA is undervalued, and maybe ADS-B fitment is a step in inlcuding GA in a more professional aviation system? As opposed to the "dirt road", backwards and exclusionary 'vision' vaunted by some posters here.

james michael

8th Jul 2008, 04:20

Jabba

Did you miss my earlier post - I was unintelligible back then but the CASA introduced English Language Testing, and my quick learning, has turned me into a veritable Rhodes Scholar.

Examine what is said, not the delivery - this wolf has no designs on any lambs herein ;)

Ferris

Well put. Although a little thread drift, aviation is not helped by this 'us and them' syndrome. If one researches errors and risks, 300 hours and 3000 hours are milestones. Many conducting PTO are in the latter category, and examination of ATSB data and aeronautical studies confirms that throwing stones may often be throwing boomerangs.

Bob Murphie

No, Gump I cannot be as that would be a false name. James Michael I remain. Perhaps Dick Smith would be better turning his investigative skills that I admire from 'Private Investigations' of my ancestry (often questioned in outback bars might I say) to a balanced investigation of the plus and minus of ADS-B, otherwise we may have to rename him Mark Knopfler and he may end up in dire straits :D

His tale is not assisted by another quote from his letter to the Minister Minister, no country in the world of which I know is planning to rely totally on Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) as proposed.

As my (wolf) colleague by ancestry Mr Dog has pointed out, that is NOT what is proposed. In the primary traffic areas radar of primary/SSR capability will REMAIN. Australia is not proposing what Dick Smith suggests.

Worse, Mr Smith does not point out to the Minister the many locations that would NEVER get radar that will have safety through cheap ADS-B provision. Perhaps rather than awaiting my fone call (ad infinitum) Dick Smith should ring the RFDS in WA about how they feel re ADS-B.

Greater good for the greater number and safety in Australia unheard of in the world. Are we a to allow defeat to be snatched from certain victory by management through rear view mirror :ugh:

max1

8th Jul 2008, 04:59

Dick,
You stated

"Max1, I can tell you who will be paying for the $100 million subsidy for ADS-B – it is the passengers. Don’t think for a second that the airlines pay the airways charges – they don’t." I think I have said this previously.

It is abundantly clear that airlines get their money from people who travel or send freight on their aircraft. It is the same as saying ASA don't pay my wages, the people who pay navcharges do. The airlines pay their money in good faith to ASA and expect them to train, rate and endorse suitable numbers of controllers to deliver an Air Traffic Control service, but that is another story.

Australians are an egalitarian society, my health is reasonably good, I work, and I am not upset that my taxes go towards the general health of Australians through Medicare, which due to good health I subsidise.

If a hospital buys a new piece of expensive equipment, I would trust that they have had a good look around, tested, and opted on a proven system that can deliver the enhancement, or replacement an outdated piece of equipment, they are looking for. If they have been involved in the development and certifying of this equipment, and it is also proven cheaper , so much the better.

If they were now looking at increased efficiencies and greater screening, would you suggest that money saved now be put towards installing Xray in those places that previously never had it. Or, would you suggest putting in the cheaper , better system that would deliver better outcomes.

The passengers really wouldn't have a clue what percentage of their airline ticket goes toward navcharges( I don't). But in paying this money they would think they have paid to get from A to B safely, and that part of this money goes towards longer term planning i.e. new systems, etc.

I wouldn't see them getting upset (unless someone, who has admitted that he doesn't have all the information but, who does have a place in the general publics aviation psyche that he is a guru on all matters aviation, riled them up ) when the safety and cost benefits are expained to them.

The airlines would love to pay less in navcharges, however they are in a safety critical business and appreciate that what they are getting through ADS-B is an enhanced level of surveillance, that will lead to greater safety. It may cost them in the short term , but long term they will get savings in a reduction to navcharges, which can then be passed on to the fare paying passengers, or put in their own pockets as profits.

If we miss this window of opportunity, the 'passengers' will be paying out 'their' $100 million on installing and replacing antiquated SSRs, GA will miss out on subsidised ADS-B avionics, great swathes of Australia will have no surveillance and its inherent safety, there will be no future savings to pass onto the navcharge payers and their customers (passengers), ASA will continue to use procedural separation and its inherent delays.

Dick will you then don the Teflon jacket and play Mondays expert?

Scurvy.D.Dog

8th Jul 2008, 10:11

Dick will you then don the Teflon jacket and play Mondays expert?
.
Max ... maaaaaate .. of course..
.
.
he won't :E
.
.
Stand by for an F350 (campervan in the wasteland bog in upper A-Z#istan) update via sat phone to Macka on a sunday morning in a week or three!! :} :p
.
.
.
. That should fireim up!! :} :E

Flying Binghi

8th Jul 2008, 10:47

That all said (and its been said many times by many folks already) .... in your scenario .... would said persons (who would seek to harm us) equip said airbourne delivery device with a god damd TXPDR???
.... think about it mate! The areas that need the PRIM eyes to see sneekies will still have it, and where it won't exist, it currently does not anyway!

Scurvy, we must drink different brands of beer ...or something :hmm:

... in the scenario I have presented in this thread, I am not making a case for keeping the current radar based air-nav system as an aid to spotting incoming buzz bombs (a good idea though) Perhaps, in my last post, instead of saying current radar based air-nav system, I should have written that we should retain our current, well proven, and robust air-nav system (which is basicly what I wrote many posts ago :rolleyes:) and not go to a totaly GPS based air-nav system, i.e. ADS-B.

When the dozens of little GPS guided buzz bombs turn up in ATC radar range, it is probably too late anyway... :(

Flying Binghi

8th Jul 2008, 10:59

.... RADAR. It has had it's day, a very significant day, but it is no longer the means of surveillance of choice, it is primitive and antiquated when compared with other technologies and therefore... insignificant in the security world.

Quokka, I addressed your other pionts in my previous post.

re the quote - One thing our current ATC system has, it is here, now, and it works when it is properly maintained and staffed. With the system of independant NDBs and VOR/ILSs and dedicated ATCers, there is not really any key component that, if removed, could bring down the entire system. ADS-B on the other hand....

IMHO, a robust ATC system has a lot of relavance in todays 'security' world.

.

Flying Binghi

8th Jul 2008, 11:18

As has been stated (over and over), the surveillence aspect is covered in that ATC would revert to procedural control and primary radar surveillance ie. go backwards a few years- inefficient, yes, dangerous, no. Aircraft navigating- well, there are plenty of aircraft using only GPS already.

ferris, your post makes a fair assessment of the scenario I have presented.

I will take issue with the part quoted above though...

I see you make mention that the system would revert to an inefficient, and non-dangerous state... :hmm: a system, aparently, that has less ATC and nav-aids then we currently have... Hmmm...:)

Flying Binghi

8th Jul 2008, 11:24

Did you miss my earlier post - I was unintelligible back then but the CASA introduced English Language Testing, and my quick learning, has turned me into a veritable Rhodes Scholar.

I think the point you miss is that UAV are designed to be piloted by a ground station and do not need GPS guidance. A simple matter of navigation from a ground station using a forward looking camera or FLIR on a datalink.

james michael, yet again you make a fool of your self :hmm:

max1

8th Jul 2008, 11:27

Jabawocky

8th Jul 2008, 11:37

Righto Times up!!!

Which one of you is a thalesman...?

Hands up and admit it!

J:ok:

Flying Binghi

8th Jul 2008, 11:50

Flying Binghi
Where exactly do you work in our ATC system? Dick doesn't know the half of what is going on, and I think this is what irks him. He probably feels that he has been pensioned off before his time.
Dick may still have something to offer, but the world moves on.

FB, I'll risk "the dozens of little GPS guided buzz bombs " that apparently are hurtling towards me as we type, and take the advantages of an Australia wide inclusive ADS-B system if its all the same to you.

max1, I am self employed and do not work for Airservices, CASA, the airlines, or any radar companys (happy Jaba)

... and I carnt aurgue with what you want to risk max1, and as it seems you have addressed a comment about Dick Smith to me... all I will say is it seems to me that some posters in this thread will disagree with Dick Smith no matter what the issue is :hmm:

Flying Binghi

8th Jul 2008, 11:55

This debate is getting really stupid

Insults??? What insults??? Any thing I said to you was about "getting over it" If that insulted you, your tough exterior just had a small breach! Patch it up quick!

And if you have predicted ADSB down time Vs actual Radar down time, how about you share it with us then?

Jaba, I have no idea of any radar/ADS-B down time... its not what I'm about here though is it :hmm:

Scurvy.D.Dog

8th Jul 2008, 12:09

... pffffffff :} :p :E

Jabawocky

8th Jul 2008, 12:10

FB

you said in response to werbils post

We also have a proven and operational ADS-B system that provides coverage to close to the surface in the following locations (Source: High Altitude ADS-B Coverage (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/)):

Quote:
High Altitude ADS-B Coverage

When operating outside of radar coverage, ADS-B derived ATS surveillance services will be provided to operators of authorised aircraft whilst within the coverage volume of commissioned ADS-B ground stations.

ADS-B ground stations are line-of-sight facilities. The ability for a ground station to received ADS-B data from an aircraft depends on altitude, distance from the site and obstructing terrain. Coverage will exist near the surface within 20 nautical miles of the ground station. High level coverage can exceed 250 nautical miles.
Note: In airspace where ADS-B coverage overlaps radar coverage, the radar derived aircraft position will be displayed to ATC.
The charts below shows the approximate ADS-B coverage provided by currently operating ground stations at FL300.
ADS-B Coverage effective 20 December, 2007
National coverage overview (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/ADS-B_Coverage_20Dec07.pdf)
Alice Springs (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Alice_Springs(AS).pdf)
Billabong (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Billabong(BLB).pdf)
Bourke (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Bourke(BKE).pdf)
Broome (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Broome(BME).pdf)
Bundaberg (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Bundaberg(BUD).pdf)
Esperance (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Esperance(ESP).pdf)
Karratha (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Karratha(KA).pdf)
Longreach (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Longreache(LRE).pdf)
Tennant Creek (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Tennant_Creek(TNK).pdf)
Thursday Island (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Thursday_Island(TUD).pdf)
Woomera (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/adsb/coverage/Woomera(WRA).pdf)
So if you have ADS-B fitted and operational at any of the above places ATC can see you.

Why did they install it rather than SSR? - $$$$, and it works.

Quote:
and it works
For how long werbil ?

Quote:
I can not quote you exact numbers
Try me Jaba ...and you will need to do better than insults :E

and now you say
Jaba, I have no idea of any radar/ADS-B down time... its not what I'm about here though is it :hmm:

So tell me then...... you were bluffing as you had no idea all along about reliability of ADSB V Radar???

There are so many very well researched and experienced folk at the coal face here advocating the ADSB proposoal, and none of them selling anything...... yet some here refuse to listen to common sense. Dick included.

I think i found the thalesman Mr D Dog......

J

Scurvy.D.Dog

8th Jul 2008, 12:21

... a thale of two thities no less ... Mr Jaba :} :} .. :ooh: ..
.
. alert :eek: ... SPLEEN ... FAIL :}
.
Laugh :E ... Ah dear o dear :} ... pfffffff :E

Flying Binghi

8th Jul 2008, 12:29

Jabawocky

8th Jul 2008, 12:30

Ohhhh and while I am at it.......and much to the displeasure of the radar salesman......I have it on good word that the upper level ADSB and the lower level trial in Bundy had exceptionally good UP TIME.

And if some of the good folk on here who I know have acess to the info were brave enough to post it without fear of their employer.....you all might be surprised to see it.:}:}:}:}:}:}

J:}

Jabawocky

8th Jul 2008, 12:35

Jabawocky, it would seem to me that my limited education does not give me the facility to express myself in a way that you can understand :rolleyes:

.... or is it that you've just had more beers than me :E

Nahhh mate don't sell yourself short!.......

But no I do not understand :hmm:

More beers......I ain't had one all night! Wild Turkey perhaps!

Maybe Scurvy, Max, Quokka and myself can buy you one or three so you can appreciate a good step forward in aviation seperation and technology some time!

J:ok:

Flying Binghi

8th Jul 2008, 12:35

... a thale of two thities no less ... Mr Jaba :} :} .. :ooh: ..
.
. alert :eek: ... SPLEEN ... FAIL :}
.
Laugh :E ... Ah dear o dear :} ... pfffffff :E

LOL, Youre a bit slurred there Scurvy, another beer perhaps... :)

Scurvy.D.Dog

8th Jul 2008, 12:38

Nup ... :} .. jober as a sudge ... but laughin me TXPDR off :} :} :E
.
But lets be sensisable about it though ...
.
OK OK .... :) Hat ... Coat .... Stage Left :ok: :} :E

ferris

8th Jul 2008, 13:08

FB
I see you make mention that the system would revert to an inefficient, and non-dangerous state... a system, aparently, that has less ATC and nav-aids then we currently have... Hmmm... Even though some posters dont seem to understand your concern (and I'll say it again- for clarity: FB is worried that the loss of the GPS signal will cause chaos if oz moves to a GPS-reliant system). How can I say this so that your fears are alleviated? Your fears are unfounded. Loss of ADS-B due GPS failure/removal/interruption is not dangerous. It will cause inefficiency, but not DANGER. Many aircraft operate daily under procedural control. All day, every day. What do you think happens across the ocean between even the US and Europe? Lots of radar, til they get about 200nm offshore. Then......shock, horror, PROCEDURAL CONTROL. And there are NO NAVAIDS!! In the future, with ADS and satellites, that (ATC) WILL be different.
Furthermore, I would expect EVERY single controller in the world has at some time been working when they have had a technical failure resulting in loss of their radar or screen or TAAATs-like thing. Very much like the sudden loss of the GPS signal you describe. THERE ARE CONTINGENCIES. Do we stop using radar because it might fail at times? The risk is miniscule, and the rewards are great.

Does that make you feel better?

Quokka

8th Jul 2008, 22:28

I have no idea of any radar/ADS-B down time...

My last shift... my most significant RADAR failed and it was off for about five hours before it was fixed.

When I was working in Australia, the main RADAR that I relied upon would be shut down every year for a "grease and oil change" as we used to jokingly call it... yes, a RADAR has moving parts, in fact, the Mother-of-All moving parts... the RADAR head itself.

Like all moving parts, it needs to be lubricated and bits of it have to be replaced routinely.

Like all moving parts... it has a higher probability of failure... and it does fail.

Like the night shift when the Automatic Emergency Stop was activated... for no apparent reason. It just stopped turning... and I lost my RADAR picture. A tech was called in the middle of the night and he drove up the hill to the RADAR site to ascertain why it had stopped, but couldn't find a reason.

ADS-B = no moving parts.

Dick Smith

8th Jul 2008, 23:59

Werbil, you bring up an important issue

and there is the availability of LAMEs to complete the installations.

Surely you can understand that there could not possibly be the capacity to fit 7,000 aircraft in the time available. I have my radio servicing and installation done at Bankstown Airport. There seems to be only one competent shop left, and you can sometimes wait months to get work done.

I understand that you want to remain anonymous on PPRuNe and I respect this – but can you answer why Airservices never puts anyone up publicly to debate my views?

You would think that if they really believed in what they were doing, they would have an expert who would be happy to talk to anyone – including coming on this website to explain the benefits of their low level ADS-B subsidy proposal. Thousands of pilots read PPRuNe and that would obviously be a great way of communicating the advantages and debunking my claims if they were wrong.

A competent manager in charge of such an important project at Airservices would make sure there was a technical expert who answered all questions wherever they were asked – whether it be on PPRuNE, the AOPA website, or to the media. This doesn’t happen.

For example, when I ask (both publicly and on PPRuNe) why they are installing a hugely expensive multilateration system in Tasmania when they have plans to go to ADS-B, they never answer the question.

It is almost as if the organisation is so dysfunctional, one group has no idea what another group is doing. If I ran one of my businesses like that I would be broke.

I believe the reason Airservices are not completely open with this is that they have lots to hide – things like the cost benefit study being flawed, and also the subsidy to GA aircraft not being based on any measurable risk.

James Michael, my statement in the letter to the Minister which contained the words “as proposed” means as proposed by Airservices. That is, in the enroute airspace that had previously been covered by secondary surveillance radar, they are now planning to remove the SSRs and rely totally on ADS-B. That is where they plan to get the subsidy from – the saving in the removal of the secondary surveillance radars.

In relation to the locations that would never get radar but require a system for safety, I would certainly support ADS-B. If the RFDS wants ADS-B in Western Australia, go ahead with it. It can be fitted to IFR aircraft that operate in the area. But why would you then want the enormous expense of fitting the units to VFR aircraft? Are you telling me that the RFDS in Western Australia has a problem in separating themselves safely from VFR aircraft? I don’t believe it.

If there are delays in Western Australia because of the procedural separation standards required for IFR aircraft, this can easily be solved by fitting ADS-B to a relatively small number of aircraft.

Already the high level ADS-B ground stations are being installed in Western Australia. All Airservices has to do is to add a few more at the relevant locations, and then by fitting ADS-B to IFR aircraft have a very safe and relatively inexpensive system.

Why that should be linked to removing secondary surveillance radar on the east coast and funding VFR GA aircraft is beyond comprehension to most thinking people.

Max1, I say again – what is the safety issue being addressed in fitting $100 million worth of ADS-B primarily to VFR GA aircraft? The collision risk is greatest near an airport – most often on the runway. That is why I am pushing for a manned Class D tower at Avalon Airport. With 1.5 million passenger movements per year, it must be a cost effective way of improving safety.

Or is someone going to suggest that the $100 million GA ADS-B subsidy would improve safety at Avalon Airport in some measurable way?

It looks to me as if this $100 million primarily VFR aircraft subsidy issue is being pushed by those who emotively want to get VFR aircraft back in the ATC system as they were in the days of the old full position reporting. That system didn’t give any measurable increase in safety, and there has not been one fatality attributed to the removal of the full position reporting system since it ceased 17 years ago.

Everyone should take note that Airservices is so badly managed, they can’t even organise their air traffic control staffing levels. How can this same management team be trusted to lead the world in highly complex technical design and purchases?

I would like to see the evidence.

james michael

8th Jul 2008, 23:59

Binghi

Seems you crew had a good night last night :)

I stuck to my usual 17:00 knock off time. But, I always welcome advice to further my research. It seems you consider I am a fool for indicating that UAV may be manually flown or use video/FLIR?

Perhaps you can offer comment on this:
For the manual control of the flight path of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), the instruments provided in a UAV Control Station (UCS) are similar to those found in the cockpit of an aircraft. Typically the out-of-the-window view is represented by a forward looking camera and a plan-view display containing an electronic map is used for navigational
conformance monitoring.

Obviously, the richness of the visual-, motion- and auditory cues that is available to the pilot of a manned aircraft is not available to the UAV operator. In addition, the information that is available to the UAV operator typically suffers from low update rates and resolution, caused by sensor and data link bandwidth limitations.

Furthermore, compared to manned aircraft, the data presented by the instruments in the UCS is subjected to an increased latency due to the (digital) data link. Even when using a flight director (FD) command display, the manual control task is considerably more difficult compared to piloting a manned aircraft.

and

A high resolution color CCD camera capable of 800K pixels, 25x optical zoom and 1.0VP-P composite video output give you exceptional day imaging capability with the MP-DAYVIEWPTZ.
A FLIR sensor operating in the 8-12mm spectral range, 50mm germanium lens, 320x240 resolution, sensitivity greater than 85 degrees mK and a frame rate of 30Hz in the MP-NIGHTVIEWPTZ give you crisp image results under night conditions.

I don't profess to be an expert on UAV but I'm not sure why you believe they need GPS to fulfil a mission - more fool I?

james michael

9th Jul 2008, 00:12

Dick Smith

You state But why would you then want the enormous expense of fitting the units to VFR aircraft? Are you telling me that the RFDS in Western Australia has a problem in separating themselves safely from VFR aircraft? I don’t believe it.

1. I DON'T want the enormous expense of fitting the units to VFR aircraft. I want the subsidy.

2. RFDS and separation from VFR - ask them, not me. I am guided by the NAS that stated the risk decreases with the distance from the CTAF.

Have you looked at the coverage of ADS-B in WA even in late 2007 - just about the entire desirable coastal area. And the radar coverage in WA is......?

Go talk to the RFDS Dick - you wanted me to ring you to hear your gospel, how about talking to the RFDS and getting some REAL feedback with no conspiracy theory embedded from people who fly in all conditions.

3. You don't believe it? Where are CASA doing airspace studies at present? Does not CASA have a study into CTAF R at present re the safety of PTO? Obviously SOMEONE believes it.

4. How are you going re ICAO Annex 6? Your replies appear to be very selective.

Dick Smith

9th Jul 2008, 01:16

James Michael, I’ve just spoken on the phone to the Chief Pilot of the RFDS in Perth who confirmed what I already understood. That is, the RFDS supports the introduction of ADS-B.

Interestingly enough, the RFDS is currently fitting its aircraft with KT-73 transponders, then taking the GPS information from the King Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System. The RFDS believes this system is certified by CASA, however I’m not quite sure what this certification standard is.

As I have stated previously on this site, the cheapest quote I could get to upgrade my Proline 21 for certified ADS-B in the CJ3 was over $100,000.

Most importantly, the RFDS has TCAS, and at the present time if we fit more aircraft with Mode C transponders, the RFDS will get proven traffic information from aircraft so fitted.

I made enquiries about fitting a King KT-73 transponder and connecting it to the GPS in the Citation. The engineer just laughed and said it could not possibly be certified in any way.

As I have said consistently on this site, I support ADS-B, but I don’t support Australia rushing in with a half-baked system when we can immediately get higher levels of safety using existing certified equipment.

James Michael, you may believe there won’t be an “enormous expense” if it is subsidised. Unfortunately the enormous expense still exists, and as stated previously I believe at the last moment the subsidy will disappear (because of the clout of Qantas and the other airlines) and you will find that all GA owners will be forced to pay for their own equipment. This will mean even fewer GA aircraft operating, and more people forced onto the airlines – which is exactly what Airservices and the airlines want.

Dick Smith

9th Jul 2008, 01:19

James,Sorry I forgot to answer the ICAO annex 6 question -is that the bit that allows CASA and Airservices to let big jets fly across Australia without any ATC at all?

T28D

9th Jul 2008, 01:33

Since all one needs to operate an aircraft <5700 kg VFR in G airspace is a clock, compass and altimeter. And if you want to use a CTAF (R) a VHF transciever.

Can someone tell me why you might need ADSB ?????

Are the "croppies" ready for the ADSB experience ????? should be really useful spraying cotton at night out in the boonies.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Jul 2008, 01:49

(I give up) Dick, you have been told over and over again TCAS is NOT a separation device

Dick Smith

9th Jul 2008, 02:06

Ozbusdriver, this is what I said:

Most importantly, the RFDS has TCAS, and at the present time if we fit more aircraft with Mode C transponders, the RFDS will get proven traffic information from aircraft so fitted. (My underlining)

Ozbusdriver, you seem to think that if traffic information is given between aircraft using TCAS, it is somehow inferior to an air traffic controller looking at traffic information on a screen and then passing it on to the pilots concerned. I believe both systems provide a traffic information service, and the advantage with TCAS is that it is more automated and works outside coverage by air traffic control radar or air traffic control ADS-B.

I say again – at the present time, nowhere in the world is there an ADS-B operated aircraft to aircraft traffic information device which has an audio call out.This means the pilot would have to look down at the ADSB screen all the time instead of keeping a good lookout.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Jul 2008, 02:34

Dick, when are you going to get it that traffic avoidance is NOT traffic INFORMATION.

The only thing that is accurate on your little TCAS screen is the baro from the target aircraft.( and only then if the target aircrafts owner has a regular check of his system) You are a very brave man to rely on azimuth information solely from a TCAS unit.

I would trust a little PDA screen hooked up to ADS-B with "IN" over a TCAS anyday for TRAFFIC INFORMATION!

Capn Bloggs

9th Jul 2008, 02:50

T28D,

all one needs to operate an aircraft <5700 kg VFR in G airspace is a clock, compass and altimeter.

Provided you remain at or below 5000ft AMSL. AIP ENR section 4 refers. :ok:

Dick Smith

9th Jul 2008, 04:07

Ozbusdriver, what you are saying is that you would trust an unproven system that has not been certified yet - i.e. ADS-B ‘in’ - over a proven certified system, which (when Resolution Advisories are complied with) has never resulted in a midair collision in its history. I know which equipment I would be trusting, and that is the proven equipment.

Jabawocky

9th Jul 2008, 05:02

Ahhh Mr Bloggs, and as I am sure you will agree that below 5000' on approach and in CTAF's is where the danger increases!:uhoh:

Dick, if the entire fleet of GA and RAA etc etc had mode C that would be nice for the TCAS equiped RPT/RFDS etc. However, the government would be nuts...and you would right have a good reason to complain if they set out to offer free Mode C gear to all and sundry + paid out for new enroute radars + ongoing running costs + had no cost saving for airlines.

Compare that to bring in ADSB low level, subsidise PVT ops inc RAA etc, and save in the future.

Which makes better economic sense? AND, ADSB is well proven and the 1090ES is the way of the future !;)

J

T28D

9th Jul 2008, 05:42

Yes below 5000 above that and your ears might bleed, so do we need ADSB in croppies aircraft ???? gets real crowded close to the ground you know.

Capn Bloggs

9th Jul 2008, 06:11

T28D, you've lost me.

bushy

9th Jul 2008, 06:19

Croppies need power line detectors to find the aeroplane traps.

james michael

9th Jul 2008, 07:10

Dick Smith (and T28D re CTAF R)

Sorry, a day of meetings.

No, Annex 6 is the one that is our crystal ball for the future of airspace.

Obviously you have not read it or you would be able to quote exactly what I am about to alert everyone to.

Try the note to 6.13.2 (which itself states that from 1.1.2003 all aeroplanes shall be equipped with Mode C TXPDR).

The intent is also for aircraft not equipped with pressure-altitude reporting transponders to be operated so as NOT to SHARE airspace used by aircraft with airborne collision avoidance systems.

(Exemption can be given by designating airspace where such carriage is not required)

Have a read of NAS DP V1.4, Dick - particularly pages 9 and 13, and REMEMBER - YOU gave us transponders in E as the precedent.

Where do you think we are heading, Dick? And are you single-handedly going to save us from the subsidy so instead we have to pay for the privilege of flying in and over CTAF R/T? perhaps we should, after all you were big until recently on 'user pays' and 'affordable' safety - and YOU can afford it :)

I sometimes feel I am like a dog yapping at your heels but then I remember your past 'successes' for GA. What you have done with ADS-B is trot out every negative you can find. Rome was not built in a day but the way you have attacked this matter Rome would never have been built at all.

Now you even throw up the lack of avionics fitters. free trade and market forces Dick - why don't you open a few?

While my derriere points towards terra firma I do not believe ANY Government would be able to back out of the subsidy and pull just a mandate. Unless of course the subsidy deadline slips past thanks to your negativity and we then cop a mandate.

Whose side are you on? Tell me tomorrow, it's 5:06 and like a good public servant I'm orf to do what my colleagues on here did last night, hic!

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Jul 2008, 08:11

Dick, you said-
Ozbusdriver, what you are saying is that you would trust an unproven system that has not been certified yet - i.e. ADS-B ‘in’ - over a proven certified system, which (when Resolution Advisories are complied with) has never resulted in a midair collision in its history. I know which equipment I would be trusting, and that is the proven equipment.

Your TCAS is not certified for traffic INFORMATION. I will trust an uncertified ADS-B "IN" supplying traffic INFORMATION data to an uncertified PDA over using a TCAS for the same task. TCAS is the LAST line of defence. It matters not how accurate in azimuth(it cannot be used for this purpose) When your alarm goes off you follow the TCAS instructions immeadiately, do what the TCAS tells you to do to avoid the conflict. Climb or Dive NO TURNS!

Look, TCAS software is brilliant considering the time it was invented, it has been improved by errors and incidents over the years to arrive at what you have now as part of your million dollar avionics suite. It just doesn't compete with radar or ADS-B simply because every bit of data TCAS uses is relative to your aircraft position, which is dynamic. TCAS calculates any threats within a certain parameter sphere around the entire aircraft. Its good enough to deduce 1200kts and 10000fpm vertical closures to give you TIME to react to any threat. However, because it is relative it is easily tricked.

This is why you must never use TCAS for traffic separation maneuvers. You could just as easily turn yourself into your worst nightmare in seconds. Only radar and ...yes, you guessed it...ADS-B will give the actual vector information of your target. Without this information it is impossible to calculate whether you are safe or not. TCAS cannot tell where that aeroplane that is stationary in your windscreen that is actually going to collide with you is. It will tell you it is 45degrees to your side regardless of the actual position relative to you.

This is why I mentioned so many posts ago about ATC not necessarily being happy about a pilot second guessing and trying to arrange their own separation. TCAS does not have the information to allow a pilot to self separate. So, I say again, I will trust a non certified ADS-B "IN" any day over a TCAS to actually show me where the traffic is and where IT is going.

Stop trying to prop up your argument like you have been doing for the last gawd knows how many years. TCAS is not a traffic INFORMATION device.

Traffic Collision Avoidance System, there is nothing in there that says information.

EDIT- just to add, ask someone from Grumman about the problems they are having trying to use TCAS to give them some sort of traffic awareness to the Global Hawk. Once ADS-B is up their problems go away.

Flying Binghi

9th Jul 2008, 09:04

james michael, it sounds like those GPS guided buzz bombs have got you flustered, and they hav'nt even been used ... yet :hmm:
I will take this issue up again tommorow.

TCAS is not a traffic INFORMATION device

OZBUSDRIVER, the Avidyne TAS 600 in my little aircraft may not have all the bells and whistles of a pax jet TCAS, though it will show transponder equiped traffic, for example, orbiting around an airfield that I am approching under IFR.

The Avidyne TAS unit is self contained within the aircraft, and it reads other aircraft that have transponders - and those transponders are self contained within the aircraft. If the ATC system and/or the GPS system became inoperable for any reason what so-ever, the TAS unit in my aircraft will continue to show those transponder equiped aircraft.

max1

9th Jul 2008, 09:59

T28D,
Reading Australian Aviation July 2008, last night. Aircraft leaving the register, two crop dusters mid-air. Condolences to the families, who knows what enhanced surveillance may have achieved?

Quokka

9th Jul 2008, 10:24

It looks to me as if this $100 million primarily VFR aircraft subsidy issue is being pushed by those who emotively want to get VFR aircraft back in the ATC system as they were in the days of the old full position reporting.

I can assure you Mr Smith, I have no desire for the re-introduction of VFR full position reporting.

Full position reporting provided Situational Awareness to the controller and to all participants in the system where no surveillance, or limited surveillance, existed. In controlled airspace, when an aircraft is identified and in receipt of a control service, full position reporting ceases. Where VFR aircraft broadcast position reports, they are not in receipt of a control service and are broadcasting their position and intentions to all other participants in the system to "plug the gap" in the Situational Awareness picture and close the bigger holes in the Swiss Cheese.

ADS-B is a surveillance system that has the capability to provide all participants with Situational Awareness... those who are being provided with a control service... and those who are not being provided with a control service... provided that all participants are equipped with ADS-B transmitters.

Therefore... ADS-B removes any requirement for VFR full position reporting... provided that all VFR participants in the system are ADS-B equipped.

ADS-B is an E-Airspace enabler... outside of airspace where a FLOW Control service is being provided for aircraft arriving at a Capital City airport.

Jabawocky

9th Jul 2008, 10:59

FB

The Avidyne TAS unit is self contained within the aircraft, and it reads other aircraft that have transponders - and those transponders are self contained within the aircraft. If the ATC system and/or the GPS system became inoperable for any reason what so-ever, the TAS unit in my aircraft will continue to show those transponder equiped aircraft.

Ever wondered how many in the circuit area do not have Mode C ?:eek:

Now as you have your fancy TAS unit and see 3 or 4 a/c ahead, you feel all waarm and fuzzy and make your calls and circuit.........only to discover there are 2 x Tiger Moths doing slow formations, 2 x RAA Jabirus, 1 x RAA Drifter and 3 gliders......ALL in the circuit:ooh:.

I am not a big fan of ADSB IN for PVT GA, however if you are going to have it you really need to be sure you are capturing ALL the info. Much less than all is more likely to be dangerous.

And the day when the GPS is off for 30 min...... you might have to revert to MK 1 EYEBALLS:sad:.

J:ok:

mjbow2

9th Jul 2008, 11:07

It seems so many on this forum a mad keen to rush into ADS-B arguing it gives better surveillance and control even in remote places. If everyone is so eager for greater surveillance then why don't we fix up surveillance where it counts most and where we can have an immediate impact. ie low level radar in terminal areas.

At the moment we have perfectly good radar to low level in places like Launceston, Canberra, Ballina to name just a few yet we seem so enamored with reverting to procedural separating from up to 30nm from the airport when the tower is open and completely abandon any separation services at all when the tower is closed, despite having a very expensive radar available.

Surely we should be arguing for these enhancements before pushing for ADS-B? After all, if ADS-B is going to be so good for Surveillance some time in the future then lets enhance what we already have available, today.

What do others think about this?

Jabawocky

9th Jul 2008, 11:19

mjb

Not so sure about Ballina, however Hervey Bay Bundaberg Gladstone and similar places around the country are lucky to have any radar below 4000-5000 feet.

When you try to be active in the system on VFR FF and youare below 7500 there are big holes in places that surprise me and many others.

With no Mode C units at a minimum in many small bugsmashers in regional ports, the heavy metal guys will never see them if they stray into the path of a 737/320.

J

Bob Murphie

9th Jul 2008, 11:58

One thing about being a pessimist is that I am never disappointed.

I hope the subsidy goes all your way which will mean mine as well, (wait for the Unions call to alms about bludgers), however excluding a plethora of self opinionated Pprune private hire pilots that just want more gadgets to twiddle with for 50 hours pa at the owners expense).

The "double condom" brigade who know nothing about airmanship or aviating with safety.

I have serious doubts when there are unanswered questions that spindoctors, salesmen/ women, and self interests fail to respond to except with blind faith that The Gov't and their Quango's are honest.

Crikey!!

If we have Global Warming, why am I so cold?

Except for how, when, where and why, nobody has convinced me that ADSB is the answer to any problems which exist today, and given the decline in GA B010 activity, the "problems" are logarithmically getting smaller as the days progress.

Has anyone done an analysis on the future growth of GA? Maybe we do need duplicate seatbelts, rearward facing airline seats, passenger airbags, and panic buttons.

Perhaps airlines will start backing into mountains, and then need to change the seats to forward facing.

Stop the World, I want to get off.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Jul 2008, 12:17

FB, my gripe is the use of TCAS as a traffic management device.

This isn't the argument. The argument is rolling out a surveillance system with a different transponder. The old system works where it is available, the new one is cheaper to roll out in more places and be every bit as accurate or better than the existing system.

Mr Quokka, could not put it any better than that.
Full position reporting provided Situational Awareness to the controller and to all participants in the system where no surveillance, or limited surveillance, existed. In controlled airspace, when an aircraft is identified and in receipt of a control service, full position reporting ceases. Where VFR aircraft broadcast position reports, they are not in receipt of a control service and are broadcasting their position and intentions to all other participants in the system to "plug the gap" in the Situational Awareness picture and close the bigger holes in the Swiss Cheese.

ADS-B is a surveillance system that has the capability to provide all participants with Situational Awareness... those who are being provided with a control service... and those who are not being provided with a control service... provided that all participants are equipped with ADS-B transmitters.

Therefore... ADS-B removes any requirement for VFR full position reporting... provided that all VFR participants in the system are ADS-B equipped.

ADS-B is an E-Airspace enabler... outside of airspace where a FLOW Control service is being provided for aircraft arriving at a Capital City airport.

If this was already rolled out, Smithspace would have been a walk in the park:ok:

My question of the system would be once it was up and running would there still be the need to gather VFR flightplans from the bin when a request for flightfollowing or airways clearance is made or would the unique tag allow my flightplan to be connected automatically.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Jul 2008, 12:26

I hope the subsidy goes all your way which will mean mine as well

Bob? A chink in your argument? After all these years:E There may be hope for us all yet.

Biggles_in_Oz

9th Jul 2008, 21:43

I like to think that I'm a good data-rat, but I've got a mental block trying to sort out what combination of bits will implement ADSB as suggested in the JCP and whether or not the proposed subsidy is still reasonable.

For quick rollout, the gear has to be available off the shelf now and have a publically visible price tag.
(I'll relent and allow devices that will have TSO certification very very soon. eg, within the next 3 to 6 months)

So., at one extreme is the 'VFR' option which just has a basic GPS engine (no display) and a Transponder.

In the middle would be an 'VFR' / 'IFR' option with moving map only.

At the other extreme is an 'IFR' option with moving map, terrain, ADSB-IN, WAAS etc. etc.

For the time being, lets ignore the $k for installation and testing costs.

Any helpers out there ?

james michael

9th Jul 2008, 21:57

Quokka and Oz
At last - two astute posters who comprehend the long term implications of ICAO Annex 6 and can see the Class E end airspace.

Hopefully Dick is reading the NAS DPV1.4 so he can also understand that ADS-B allows his NAS airspace to blossom around Australia with Class E over CTAF R. NAS Nirvana at last, although Dick is most quiet about the Annex 6?

Mjbow
Good point. One suspects as an example that there is no difficulty (except cost) in getting the Lonnie radar feed to Lonnie Tower? Problem is that we are then entering into how Airservices operates its business.

Bob Murphie
You have a point - we probably don't absolutely need all those extras you mention. Your mention of seatbelts and airbags makes one look at all the extra things we have today in vehicles that we don't REALLY need - airbags, traction control, ABS, demister, power steering. Why not keep GA in their 40 year old clunkers at the level of the FJ Holden re safety ........ hey, that's it - affordable safety. Almost like ADS-B.

But your point remains valid - no subsidy, no go. Particularly if we now have another force - the unions - who are going to block it (how?).

I would be interested on expansion of your argument excluding a plethora of self opinionated Pprune private hire pilots that just want more gadgets to twiddle with for 50 hours pa at the owners expense

If the subsidy occurs - what owner's expense? And are you suggesting that these 'self opiniated pilots' gain no benefits and safety by twiddling with the knobs of the owners Garmin 430 or even their own Garmin 296? We could, after all, save all this by returning to the open cockpit, no radio, and following roads of "The Good Old Days", no?

Binghi
While you are researching UAV go back half a century exactly to pre-GPS and the Malkara. While Airbus talk of fly by wire, the Malkara most certainly was an earlier derivative.

You might also like to research payloads for UAV, then the chance of actually purchasing one from the arms dealers, and compare to the availability and payload of a Bonanza or GA8 flown by a suicide pilot :)

Dick Smith
You are a technical issues man. How about researching what is needed in software to translate ADS-B for TCAS use. I dispute that ADS-B is 'unproven' - it is working around the world. TCAS receives data from its ping and feeds it to the display and annunciator with appropriate software massage to advise a decision for the pilot. What is so difficult about accepting another data stream and doing likewise. Apple Mac now talks IBM after all.

All that's needed to move forward is for the glass to change from half empty to half full. Success is a state of mind.

Dick Smith

9th Jul 2008, 22:52

James Michael, I’m sure in the future Garmin and similar GPS units will have the necessary software to translate ADS-B into a TCAS-like use. The problem is that it doesn’t exist at the moment, and I would rather wait until the bugs are ironed out.

I will say again that I’m a total supporter of ADS-B. I’m just not keen on Australia leading the world. I would rather the costly errors be made in other countries, then we reap the benefit of their learning experience.

I cannot see any immediate safety problem that would require VFR aircraft which fly in the low levels to be fitted with an expensive ADS-B ‘out’ unit.

Considering that Airservices is spending a lot of money on a multilateration system in Tasmania that only requires Mode C or Mode S transponders to work satisfactorily, I cannot see the enormous hurry to go to a subsidised ADS-B system for GA.

I have always been cautious and conservative in my business dealings, and this has given great benefits.

Scurvy.D.Dog

9th Jul 2008, 23:16

GPS units will have the necessary software to translate ADS-B into a TCAS-like use
.
It is not the GPS that does that, it is the ADS TXPDR, its called ADS-B 'In', Airbus and their avionics manufacturers are already feeding it into TCAS, BOEING are working on the same, Universal already have the units ready, do some research before guessing in public.
.
Microair have ADS-B IN from their ADS TXPDR that will display traffic on just about all Air situation displays including things such as PDA's and Garmin maps
.
The problem is that it doesn’t exist at the moment
.
Wrong
.
, and I would rather wait
.
You would! :hmm:, how about the rest of the industry? .. or should your opinion count above the rest?

until the bugs are ironed out.

.... What bugs?? point them out ... you have been asked this question time and time again, your musings have been answered fully so many times! .. now you are down to (in the absence of anything else valid) available manpower to fit! :hmm:
.
Keep it up though - You will have ownership of the loss of the subsidy to GA (Nav improvements, TXPDR and Airspace access improvements), if this does not proceed .... a nice legacy to add to your other 'achievements' in recent years :ugh:

Scurvy.D.Dog

9th Jul 2008, 23:25

MJ
.
At the moment we have perfectly good radar to low level in places like Launceston

And

yet we seem so enamored with reverting to procedural separating from up to 30nm from the airport when the tower is open

And

why don't we fix up surveillance where it counts most and where we can have an immediate impact. ie low level radar in terminal areas.

Perhaps some of the local GA and Intra-state RPT crews might like to comment on whether they would like remote separation down to the circuit instead of what they currently get ;)
.
Whilst we wait for that, perhaps you MJ might give us your view on the costs to industry (comparision) of what we currently have v's Remote Surveillance Approach services!?

Scurvy.D.Dog

10th Jul 2008, 00:04

Biggles

So., at one extreme is the 'VFR' option which just has a basic GPS engine (no display) and a Transponder.

In the middle would be an 'VFR' / 'IFR' option with moving map only.

At the other extreme is an 'IFR' option with moving map, terrain, ADSB-IN, WAAS etc. etc.

Interesting Q :ok:

What kit do you currently have, and what would you ultimately like?

james michael

10th Jul 2008, 00:07

Mr Dog

Well said.

Dick Smith

I cannot see any immediate safety problem that would require VFR aircraft which fly in the low levels to be fitted with an expensive ADS-B ‘out’ unit.

First, full subsidy = not expensive. No skin off your nose, not your money.

Second, You cannot see any problem - how about exclusion from CTAF R in the longer term. How about your fabulous Class E cones over CTAF R - have I got something wrong re your NAS - does it not have that Class E situation described and offer according safety?

third, If you were distraught about PTO and GA mixing at Avalon - why should a busy CTAF R be exempt from some extra safety measures - comment welcomed?

(Off to meetings, lot's happening in this disneyland today)

Jabawocky

10th Jul 2008, 00:08

Dick

I fear many of the RPT and RFDS type folk are not bothered looking at this thread any more and hence will not respond. If any of you who are RPT/RFDS/ATC would you please respond with your thoughts on this comment..........

I cannot see any immediate safety problem that would require VFR aircraft which fly in the low levels to be fitted with an expensive ADS-B ‘out’ unit.

I believe that many of them do not see things the same way. I know there are many FIFO jet services to add to this, however here is a list of areas that may not have decent radar coverage below 5000 and many below 10,000. And this is where the capture of likely targets exists.

Horn Island, Weipa, Proserpine, Gladstone, Mt Isa, Longreach, Winton, Barcaldine, Emerald, Blackwater, Thangool, Charleville, Roma, Bundy, Moree, Ballina, Narrabri, Wagga Wagga, Mildura, Albury, Kunnenurra, Broome, Port Hedland, Alice Springs, Ayers Rock, MANY MINING CENTRES in the GAFA........ Anyone want to add more?

If I am way off the mark, my contacts must be telling me big porky pies about their workday adventures:ooh:.

J

Scurvy.D.Dog

10th Jul 2008, 00:22

NAA ANNOUNCES ADS-B PROGRAM AS THE WINNER OF THE 2007 ROBERT J. COLLIER TROPHY

NAA: National Aeronautic Association (http://www.naa.aero/html/awards/index.cfm?cmsid=62)

Arlington, Virginia, March 6, 2008 – The National Aeronautic Association (NAA) announced today at their Annual Spring Awards Luncheon that the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Team of public and private sector groups has been selected as the recipient of the 2007 Robert J. Collier Trophy.

Government and industry leaders who have collaborated for nearly a decade will be honored "for conceptualizing, developing, and the initial implementation of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, the next generation performance-based air-ground, ground-air, and air-air surveillance system."

“ADS-B is a ground-breaking effort for next-generation airborne surveillance and cockpit avionics,” noted NAA Chairman and Collier Selection Committee Chairman Walter Boyne. “Its implementation will have a broad impact on the safety, capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system.”

:D

Dick Smith

10th Jul 2008, 00:56

Scurvy, unfortunately you are wrong. If you purchased the latest Airbus A380, you would find that whilst it transmits ADS-B, it actually shows aircraft on the screen using TCAS. At the present time it does not have any “mix” of the ADS-B signals on that display. The reason for this – as pointed out previously on this site – is because the ADS-B position is very accurate, whereas the TCAS position can vary.

I have researched this thoroughly. Microair do have experimental ADS-B ‘in’ units, however they do not have a TCAS-like voice read out for Traffic Advisories or Resolution Advisories. I have flown aircraft with the FAA Capstone system and they have the same problem. It is more of a gimmick, because you look down on the display and see lots of aircraft appearing, however you cannot study the display all of the time, and once again there is no audio call out when traffic is close.

Whatever you want to make out, the facts are simple. That is, there is no certified (or non-certified) ADS-B ‘in’ unit available which gives an audio call out for nearby traffic. Because a pilot cannot study the display all the time, it means the available systems are not as effective as TCAS.

As I have mentioned previously, this will change in the future. I understand there are some patent problems in relation to audio call outs with ADS-B, and that is why the US Capstone does not feature such announcements.

By the way Scurvy, you know that one of the reasons that you cannot provide a radar service to the lowest level of radar coverage at Launceston is because the tower controllers are not radar rated.

In the USA and other leading aviation countries, the radar covered airspace remains with the Centre until the lower level of radar coverage. Because the Centre controllers are radar rated, and because they are there 24 hours per day, it is quite a superb and safe service.

Australia is the only country I know of in the world where a pilot is forced to leave a radar frequency when in IMC to change to the tower and talk to controllers who are not radar rated.

One day I think we will try the system that is used in the rest of the world, and find that it adds to safety. Of course, that will probably be after someone makes a mistake at a place like Hamilton Island and flies into a mountain because the controllers in the tower had no idea that the error had been made.

And the FAA won the Collier Trophy for the Capstone system which is totally different to that planned here!

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 01:12

lot's happening in this disneyland today

james michael, you've been derogatory of this thread on several occasions - I'm wondering why you bother posting here if its so bad ? you keep coming back for some reason :hmm:

Edit -
I prefer to stand by what I stated which is quite logically linked to 'off to meetings' in THIS disneyland where I am working.

LOL, I'll give you that.

james michael

10th Jul 2008, 01:39

Binghi

Quick coffee break.

Kindly do not ascribe to me things I did NOT state.

I said Off to meetings, lot's happening in this disneyland today

YOU may care to read 'this disneyland' as Pprune given your dreamtime posts about GPS and missile attacks. I do not.

I prefer to stand by what I stated which is quite logically linked to 'off to meetings' in THIS disneyland where I am working.

On several occasions you state? Come back with them when you come back with your substantiation for telling me I am a fool. :=

Dick Smith

But, if you examined ATSAW in the cockpit of the A320/340 you will find traffic selector switches on the dash panel, ADS-B traffic on the navigation display beside the primary flight display, and additional information on the MCDU.

From Airbus - are not facts superior to anecdote :)

ATSAW in Flight - SA and LR Prog - Q1 2009 - TCAS suppliers Honeywell and ACSS.
A380 - TBD
A350 - entry into service

ATSAW on airport surface - development ongoing on all programs.

Must run - off to meetings, lot's happening in this disneyland today (Bing-o)

AirNoServicesAustralia

10th Jul 2008, 01:46

The reason why is because certain people hang their hat on 1. ADSB 'In" not being ready and installed in aircraft. and 2. The reliance on GPS relating to the switchover from SSR to ADSB, and the risk of 'turning off' the GPS network.

Firstly ADSB 'In' is irrelevant in the argument of whether to use ADSB as a replacement for SSR radar. With ADSB 'Out' the changeover is transparent to all operators, as some will still have a TCAS display and some won't but other than ATC being able to run traffic closer to each other in remote (currently non-radar procedural) areas, the operator will not notice any difference. The big change will be from the ATC side of the fence, as they will be able to have widespread surveillance across Australia instead of the current situation where the majority of Australia is currently non-radar. If in the future ADSB 'In' becomes available and widespread then yes it will offer further advantages to operators by giving increased Situational Awareness to operators, but the current lack of this is irrelevant to this current discussion, so please stay on topic and stay relevant.

Secondly as has been mentioned earlier, the Primary radars will remain and I wouls suggest that given there is a lot of overlap of radar coverage on the East Coast, there will be areas where they can switch of a few radar heads (delivering big savings) but not effect the effective SSR coverage to any detrimental degree. What it would mean is some of the current redundancy in the system would be lost, but this would be acceptable given that SSR would now be the backup redundant system anyway. Also if anyone really thinks that the GPS network will ever be switched off or intentionally degraded they are dreaming. That is like suggesting that due to Terrorists using the internet to communicate, the internet will be turned off.

If it really does become apparent that terrorists are using GPS to guide their unmanned bombs (I highly doubt that and think the hijacking of a plane still is the easiest way to achieve the bad guys ends), then I am of the understanding that an error can be intentionally introduced into the GPS network. Now even if 1 Nautical Mile was introduced into the network and we had to run 7NM between all ADSB traffic it still beats 30NM RNAV standards that we run currently in non radar airspace.

I will say again that an ADSB ground unit is extremely low cost, runs on a tiny amount of electricity (easily supported by solar panels) and has no moving parts so minimal maintenance needed. This means that for the price of one radar head and the related calibration and maintenance process, ASA could pay for the installation of an entire network of ADSB units in remote areas. To use a Dickism, "I'm sure you will all agree" that this is a positive outcome for all customers.

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 02:17

Binghi
While you are researching UAV go back half a century exactly to pre-GPS and the Malkara. While Airbus talk of fly by wire, the Malkara most certainly was an earlier derivative.

You might also like to research payloads for UAV, then the chance of actually purchasing one from the arms dealers, and compare to the availability and payload of a Bonanza or GA8 flown by a suicide pilot

james michael, apparently I have failed to explain the scenario correctly.

I used the term UAV to describe a small unmanned flying device that can carry a payload cheaply. The use of the term Buzz Bomb is to relate the scenario to a real terrorist event that actualy happened, and that involved multiple flying bombs designed to terrorise the civy population. This scenario has happened before - just with-out the acuracy of GPS. Imagine what Hitlers Buzz Bombs could have done with a 30 metre delivery accuracy.

The GPS guided Terrorist Buzz Bomb (GPS Buzz Bomb) used in the scenario would not have any off the shelf aircraft components in its construction. Apart from the first prototype, it would be a very cheap to make device, probably less then a grand, and would use components in its manufacture that would not arouse any suspision at the time of purchase.

For example, Jabawocky used an alternate guidance system based on inertial nav - If an idividual walked into an airport avionics shop and ordered a dozen, or even hundreds of inertia nav systems do you think there would be no questions ??? on the other hand if an individual just bought one GPS at a time, ...no questions asked, and no identifiers for the security people.
(obviously the GPS will need to be modified)

Propulsion system - the GPS Buzz Bomb would likely have a wing span of six to 10 feet, so a single cylinder honda engine with a home made prop would suffice... efficient, who cares, its only flying the once.

Payload - The IEDs make a big bang for a small package - a dozen GPS Buzz Bombs turning up all within the GPS 30 metre delivery zone would cause more then a little concern :(

james michael, the alternate operating systems you described are expensive, require an operater for each device to the target, and have multiple tracable systems of operation and device purchase.

GPS Buzz Bombs on the other hand, will be launched off shore, need few people involved in their operation, and are set and foreget ... and where were they launched from....???

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 02:31

If it really does become apparent that terrorists are using GPS to guide their unmanned bombs (I highly doubt that and think the hijacking of a plane still is the easiest way to achieve the bad guys ends), then I am of the understanding that an error can be intentionally introduced into the GPS network. Now even if 1 Nautical Mile was introduced into the network and we had to run 7NM between all ADSB traffic it still beats 30NM RNAV standards that we run currently in non radar airspace.

AirNoServicesAustralia, to introduce a large error to the civy GPS signal would cause huge problems - which is what worrys me :(

IMHO, with the ADS-B system, we are going to get too reliant on a fragile GPS based air-nav system.

max1

10th Jul 2008, 02:52

Binghi,
Time for a deep breath, okay , now let it out slowly, okay, better.
On my first reading of James Michaels post that stated "Off to meetings, lot's happening in this disneyland today" I took it that he had to stop posting because his work was a madhouse, somehow you seemed to find it as an insult directed at you and/ or this discussion. Step back and keep your objectivity. I think its great that people,such as you and I and others, are passionate about these issues,. Lets not let this passion blind us to what is being said.

Some salient points,

1. ADS-(B)roadcast has been up and working in Australia for over 2 years and is installed in international, domestic and regional aircraft.

2. ADS-(C)ontract (satellite and VHF based) has been used in Oceanic and remote areas for over 8 years.

3. The GPS signal has never been turned off, even during 9/11.

4. GA will not pay for the Avionics, the airlines (the passengers if you will, Dick) through ASA will pay,as ADS-B out is for the protection of the airlines in areas that currently have no surveillance, hence they are paying.

5. Any GA aircraft with ADS-B Out will not have to pay navcharges if they are not in the 'system' as a flightplan (TAAATS call them Flight Data Records, FDRs), ATC will be able to see these 'blips' in range of an ADS-B ground station, and give traffic to aircraft who are in the system.

6. There is no sneaky plan to make GA come into the system so they can start to get charged, it would overwhelm the system and the controllers. Unless you ask for it, there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.

Also, there seems to be a conception out there that controllers are behind this initiative because it would mean more controllers. I've got no idea how this thinking got started. It makes no difference to us, whether there are more or less controllers, we wouldn't get anymore money, our (lack of) career choices wouldn't change. In fact a redundancy package to get out is looking fairly attractive at the moment, THEN head off to overseas.

For those who say "mmmm, means more controllers" nudge, nudge ,wink, wink,vested interest, could you please let me know what you think the advantages are to me, because I'm just not seeing it.

The advantage of ADS-B surveillance to controllers, is that we can do our job safer and more efficient, with something we have trust in.

P.S. Give the terrorist UAV/buzz bombs a rest, it is getting tiresome.I notice you are a lone voice. Dick, any thoughts on the buzz bombs scenario being a showstopper for GPS navigation?

james michael

10th Jul 2008, 03:30

Thanks Max, exactly what I meant (as I finish my fish and chips on the run). I think Binghi is taking the argument personally, yet I have not called him a fool.

Binghi, go research early UAV developments and their payloads - or more correctly lack of payloads. The scenario you describe is more a Clive Cussler or Dan Brown fiction where the hero knocks off 17 attackers with automatic weapons with his trusty automatic pistol than a probable reality.

We cannot allow our lives to be frustrated by planning our moves around low probability fictional scenarios. You are more at risk flying, or standing in your field and being hit by a meteorite, than the terrorist UAV scenario.

This argument is, as one suggested earlier, going around in circles with little new evidence presented against. On the balance of the evidence presented, I find ADS-B is my shepherd, I shall not want for safety, and deliver us oh CASA from further airspace restrictions as we adopt this technology.

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 04:00

Time for a deep breath, okay , now let it out slowly, okay, better.

Hmmm... max1, why do I need to take a deep breath ? you may like to go back to some of james michael's first posts to better understand things - or, is it that you're just trying to side track the thread :hmm:

Lets not let this passion blind us to what is being said.

..... what am I saying max1 ?

there seems to be a conception out there that controllers are behind this initiative because it would mean more controllers

...errr, reference please max1

P.S. Give the terrorist UAV/buzz bombs a rest, it is getting tiresome.I notice you are a lone voice.

Do I need to write out a full and comprehensive 'How to' hand book before you understand the scenario max1 ?

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 04:14

Binghi, go research early UAV developments and their payloads - or more correctly lack of payloads. The scenario you describe is more a Clive Cussler or Dan Brown fiction where the hero knocks off 17 attackers with automatic weapons with his trusty automatic pistol than a probable reality.

We cannot allow our lives to be frustrated by planning our moves around low probability fictional scenarios. You are more at risk flying, or standing in your field and being hit by a meteorite, than the terrorist UAV scenario.

This argument is, as one suggested earlier, going around in circles with little new evidence presented against. On the balance of the evidence presented, I find ADS-B is my shepherd, I shall not want for safety, and deliver us oh CASA from further airspace restrictions as we adopt this technology.

Why do I need to research early UAV developments james michael. Perhaps I should research the Wright bros aircraft to understand how to build an aircraft from scratch :rolleyes:

further airspace restrictions as we adopt this technology

???

AirNoServicesAustralia

10th Jul 2008, 04:30

FB, I could sit and write 100 scenarios here right now with the current system in place on how to blow things up and cause terror. Any Pilot or Controller could. As I said the September 11 technique is still quite easy to do (even with everyones perfume and open bottles of booze thrown in the bin at the airport), and would be the more likely way to deliver terror than the complexity of UAV delivery using GPS. Face it the world these days is already reliant on GPS and has been for quite a while. It won't be getting turned off, with or without utilisation by terrorists for their own purpose.

I think you would really like to have objections to ADSB, but if this is your only argument you really are struggling to make a case. Maybe until you come up with a more compelling argument, you should let the rest of us discuss the real issues here which are how does the installation get paid for and at what time and in what manner will the SSR network be phased out or reduced. If the buzzbomb argument continues I will just put your posts to the ignore list, and hopefully the rest of the people here who want to actually advance Australian (and the rest of the world's) ATM systems will do the same.

Now enough with the 'Red under the Bed' conspiracy theories and back to the real issues...

james michael

10th Jul 2008, 04:38

Binghi

On the run, but quickly.

Forget the UAV scenario, you have your mind made up to the exclusion of facts.

please, stop taking half the context in quotes - what I said was and deliver us oh CASA from further airspace restrictions as we adopt this technology

What I am saying to YOU is that adopting ADS-B may well save us from further CASA pronouncements of Class C airspace and more restrictions on CTAF R. Recently, with "a little help from our friends" Avalon moved from G to C, OAR has several studies going in WA, and the matter of PTO operations side by side with GA is under review by Ambidji at this very instant. Read ICAO Annex 6.

I am off again and I am not going to keep repeating myself in further circular arguments with you. Go jump in the citation with Dick Smith while he checks out the A320/340 panels. :D

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 04:52

PMs working for you Biggles_in_Oz

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 05:01

Face it the world these days is already reliant on GPS and has been for quite a while.

... and becoming more and more reliant on a very fragile system AirNoServicesAustralia.

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 05:18

Forget the UAV scenario, you have your mind made up to the exclusion of facts.

I am not going to keep repeating myself in further circular arguments with you.

What can I say james michael, I have maintianed a fairly consistant 'message', which I have unforetunatly had to gradualy expand upon so as to aid clarity to rebut many of your posts.

What I am saying to YOU is that adopting ADS-B may well save us from further CASA pronouncements of Class C airspace and more restrictions on CTAF R. Recently, with "a little help from our friends" Avalon moved from G to C, OAR has several studies going in WA, and the matter of PTO operations side by side with GA is under review by Ambidji at this very instant.

I'll leave that discusion to others.

james michael

10th Jul 2008, 05:51

Binghi

I have maintianed a fairly consistant 'message', which I have unforetunatly had to gradualy expand upon so as to aid clarity to rebut many of your posts.

Now you really have done it. I have pulled three chest muscles, coughed and choked and spilt my nice cuppa of canteen coffee, and been cautioned by the boss for disrupting the workplace through raucous laughter.

Please reserve such posting to the approved date - 264 days or so from now,no? :rolleyes:

Yes, you have maintained a consistent message. :ugh::ugh:

Bob Murphie

10th Jul 2008, 05:53

I had hoped I had "voiced my last reasons" and submitted as a pessimist, I am never disappointed, I hoped your subsidy comes through and enabling me to also take advantage of the offer. I even opened myself to the Union type mantra and expected ridicule of not being part of the push for the introduction but accepting the "benefit", which I again say, I don't really need.

Some need a reminder of history when you talk about UAV's and "buzz bombs". One only has to look back at the Gulf,wars, Scud missiles, very much the WW2 state of the art device which could easily be equipped with a satelite guidance system. The recent Lebanon war with Israel copping man made and portable missiles landing in an approximate guesstimate, also easily converted. The Gaza Strip with similar means of delivery to a target today.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat the event.

Why dismiss this possibility out of hand, yet persist in the safety benefit arguement that ADSB gives to a C172 flying VFR between Alice Springs and Boulia below A010?

Jabawocky

10th Jul 2008, 05:54

Thanks folks.......

Now how about we all start lobbying the Government for another leap forward and a massive improvement in Safety and efficiency...........WAAS!

Yes..... this seems to be forgotten about.......

WAAS is worth spending money on!

Anyone care to add to that?

Except FB....he feels that anything GPS is on thin ice:ugh:

J

Bob Murphie

10th Jul 2008, 06:18

Stone the Crows!

WAAS, Why?

T28D

10th Jul 2008, 06:29

Bob, Geez WAAS nobody has yet answered what the croppies in G are going to do with their beaut ADSB let alone Instrument Approaches in the trusty Ag Cat using WAAS.

ferris

10th Jul 2008, 06:43

FB- the reason people are getting frustrated with your "dont' rely on GPS because it might get switched off" mantra is that it just isnt credible. Yes, it's possible, but as has been explained, a temporary outage of the GPS system is not such a big deal (asked and answered). As far as credible threats- if I was assessing threats, a truck laden with fertilizer-based explosive levelling the ACC, the airport or the jet fuel supply sytems would be a much bigger dilemma. Do we not use trucks, or fertilizer, or jet aircraft? You see, not moving to ADS-B because of the possibility of interruption due to the possibility of terrorist use of GPS is, well, a bit "tin-foil hat"? Are you able to have some perspective on the big picture?

Bob
yet persist in the safety benefit arguement that ADSB gives to a C172 flying VFR between Alice Springs and Boulia below A010? It's disappointing that you dont/wont/cant see the benefit to either a lighty, or the airspace system of that AS departure being ADS-B equipped. Firstly, him being equipped would allow the use of smaller sep standards with other users eg that RFDS flight Med1 coming the other way, or the 737 descending inbound (or even another 172 coming the other way). There may also be direct benefit to that 172 eg. SAR/flight following as he heads out into the GAFA. Stuff that just cant happen unless there is a mega-expensive radar head turning, and he is included in the system. Not only that, I can foresee many developments down the road that just arent possible with the continuation with the 1970's technology espoused by some here (how about a panic button/mayday type feature? Who knows?).

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 06:50

Back to the thread eh Biggles :hmm:

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Jul 2008, 06:55

Trojan, do croppies have a transponder fitted? Do they have a radio?

james michael

10th Jul 2008, 06:56

T28D

Can you indicate why croppies in G are going to do with their beaut ADSB

To qualify for ADS-B you must require fitment of transponder for phase 1. From what height in G are these croppies dumping their super? Or perhaps they are dropping UAV GPS guided "super" bombs from above 10,000' to qualify? :rolleyes:

For phase 2, currently deferred, you must qualify for radio fitment. How many croppies in G can demonstrate required radio fitment?

But, good point about the croppies overall - they believe firmly in GPS for precision accuracy - no? And most will probably find a way to qualify for ADS-B so they don't get hit by Bob Murphie at low level on his way to Boulia. ;)

Jabawocky

10th Jul 2008, 06:58

Stone the Crows all right........Some of you are being very self centred and narrow minded.

The Aggies dont need WAAS, sure...... but not everything that flies is an Aggie. Not every aircraft needs TCAS either.....but we have it. Not every a/c needs ILS....but we have it at several airports.

Look at the bigger picture folks!

J

PS You may not need WAAS in your AG machine, but when you fly it into Tamworth, with the free ADSB unithidden under your dash..... you will be in the system. I am not proposing all light a/c have the In function, but it could have help avoid a recent prang.

GaryGnu

10th Jul 2008, 06:58

JM and Bob,

Particularly if we now have another force - the unions - who are going to block it (how?).

Would you care to name any aviation union that is opposing the proposed subsidy?

There is simply no reason for them to do so.

max1

10th Jul 2008, 07:09

FB ,
I trust I'm not being thin-skinned, maybe I am, however you asked for a reference. What are you implying from your post of July 8th.

"I see you make mention that the system would revert to an inefficient, and non-dangerous state... a system, aparently, that has less ATC and nav-aids then we currently have... Hmmm..."

Apologies in advance if I have the wrong end of the stick.

james michael

10th Jul 2008, 07:09

Gary

I think I perhaps did not make myself clear enough.

I quoted Bob Murphie's comment about the unions and added the "how".

That's because I share the same view as you.

max1

10th Jul 2008, 07:22

Reference the cropdusters, I muddied the waters when T28D asked what benefit ADS-B would be to them, I noted that in July 2008 Australian Aviation that 2 had left the aircraft register due mid-air.

With deference to the bereaved, I wondered if that ADS-B was in , that it may have had a degree of influence, however small, on stopping the holes in the cheese lining up.

Scurvy.D.Dog

10th Jul 2008, 07:30

Smith said

Scurvy, unfortunately you are wrong.

Nup not .. see Mr Michaels quote, and I dare say you would do well to contact anyone from the ABIT GIT groups .. you would avoid making embarrassing gaffs like that!

If you purchased the latest Airbus A380, you would find that whilst it transmits ADS-B, it actually shows aircraft on the screen using TCAS. At the present time it does not have any “mix” of the ADS-B signals on that display.
Cite a source .. forgive me for not believing your ‘assurance’ alone

The reason for this – as pointed out previously on this site – is because the ADS-B position is very accurate, whereas the TCAS position can vary.
Cuckoo!

I have researched this thoroughly. :hmm:

Microair do have experimental ADS-B ‘in’ units, however they do not have a TCAS-like voice read out for Traffic Advisories or Resolution Advisories.
… oh OK so now you accept ADS-B ‘IN’ is in play, but the issue is Aural alerts … are you saying that 'IN' without Aural alerts for GA is less safe that nothing??

I have flown aircraft with the FAA Capstone system and they have the same problem. It is more of a gimmick, because you look down on the display and see lots of aircraft appearing, however you cannot study the display all of the time, and once again there is no audio call out when traffic is close.
A gimmick eh? Is that what you consider the TAS type systems (like Bing's) that feed traffic info into moving maps is a gimmick? ..or by the same token having basic Aural but no display such as FLARM (for gliders) are gimmicks??

Whatever you want to make out, the facts are simple. That is, there is no certified (or non-certified) ADS-B ‘in’ unit available which gives an audio call out for nearby traffic.
… again so you now concede that there are certified ‘IN’ units, but your beef is no aural? … hmmm so lets have nothing instead .. is that your case?

Because a pilot cannot study the display all the time, it means the available systems are not as effective as TCAS.
Aircraft with TCAS, will by the time ADS-B is reaching a critical mass have ADS-B input in the same way A/C TXPDR acft are seen by TCAS.. Mores the point, how many GA aircraft will ever have TCAS??? … **** all, ... they could all have ADS-B ‘IN’ .. but NO you would prefer what we/they have now **** ALL!! ..... :ugh:

As I have mentioned previously, this will change in the future. .. I am sorry I missed that earlier mention, could you provide a link to it!

I understand there are some patent problems in relation to audio call outs with ADS-B, and that is why the US Capstone does not feature such announcements.
You understand :rolleyes: ...how? .. could you for once corroborate your musings?

And now to the inevitable thread drift that usually occurs before the inevitable chucking the dummy in the dirt hissy fit! :=

By the way Scurvy, you know that one of the reasons that you cannot provide a radar service to the lowest level of radar coverage at Launceston is because the tower controllers are not radar rated.
By the way Richard, you know that one of the reasons regional tower/app controllers do not hold radar ratings is because procedural app class D towers rarely have radar (or any other surveillance) coverage to use. The ones that do, utilise that surveillance in the most effective way possible. Can it used more effectively by towers, yes .... and that has been worked on for some time. I would suggest you ask the regulator why regional towers (with surveillance) are not able to use it for what it should be …. Mind you, what you think it should be and reality are two different things … but then you have had that explained to you multiple times also!

By the way Richard regional tower/proc app controllers use standards that RADAR approach controllers (and more particularly en-route controllers) are unable to use i.e. visual and procedural approach/departures! You know that because it has been explained to you numerous times over numerous years also. It is also a fact that procedural standards if used correctly, enable just as efficient traffic management in those regional environments! .. but then you know that as well, the data on efficiency of ATS here and abroad has been cited many many times .. but as usual you ignore it!

In the USA and other leading aviation countries, the radar covered airspace remains with the Centre until the lower level of radar coverage. Because the Centre controllers are radar rated, and because they are there 24 hours per day, it is quite a superb and safe service.
.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace, it is completely justified such as SY, ML, BN, CS, CG, CB, AD, PH

…. Or are you advocating a separate RADAR/Surveillance Approach service for Launy and like type aerodromes? … you know, the US style which would mean a fully staffed tower (say 6-8 bums on seats), a fully staffed Approach cell in ML or BN running 24/7 (say 12-14 bums on seats) that’s 20+ v’s 6-7 (with no change to en-route numbers) and a multi-million dollar radar head at each location … is that what you are advocating???

Australia is the only country I know of in the world where a pilot is forced to leave a radar frequency when in IMC to change to the tower and talk to controllers who are not radar rated.
Bollocks! .. it was not that long ago your oft quoted Alaskan tower was in just that situation … but wait .. what’s happened there …. ADS-B!! … oh my giddy aunt!!!!

One day I think we will try the system that is used in the rest of the world, and find that it adds to safety. Of course, that will probably be after someone makes a mistake at a place like Hamilton Island and flies into a mountain because the controllers in the tower had no idea that the error had been made.
… well now that depends on whether or not surveillance coverage (ADS-B) is in play, with good IFR TSO146 NAV gear (TAWS etc) being carried by said pilots …. Errrm := who will be responsible for that type of accident if the opportunity being discussed in this proposal, and in this thread is scuttled?

And the FAA won the Collier Trophy for the Capstone system which is totally different to that planned here!
Nope wrong again!

ADS-B was the vision of many prestigious aviation organizations and individuals who both recognized its potential to dramatically improve the current aviation system and who also worked tirelessly for its adoption as the first phase of building the Next-Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Among them are the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Cargo Airline Association, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the Federal Aviation Administration, ITT Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, NASA, MITRE Corporation, UPS, ACSS and many others.

The technology (read functionality) is the trophy winning initiative …!! .. not the ADS-B system delivery frequency!

… but thanks for the fire side sermon there Sir Murray Rivers … better than a cup of Horlicks! :p

RE WAAS ... Got my vote Jaba!!!!

Bob Murphie

10th Jul 2008, 08:01

GaryGnu;

Read my post again. I did not indicate the Unions would oppose anything, but I did say I was awaiting the "union hype" about my possibly accepting the benefits of the subsidy which I still can't warm to.

Call me an enigma if you want but don't rearrange my syntax. I can, and often do that without your help. Ask Creampuff.

I do reserve the right to change my mind however, and I now support the call for WAAS. This will surely put the final political and economic nail in the ADSB low level coffin.

OZBUSDRIVER;

Any croppie that operated from a CTAF (R), now has a radio. If you lot get your way he will have to have ADSB OUT in the future. City folk don't think much of farmers or the maintenance costs of transponder checks, so I would imagine they will get a burr under their saddle about this airline fare impost as well.

But who cares, as long as the private pilot who hires an aircraft and Airservices are happy, the aircraft owner will just cop it, won't he?

Anyway, lets all hear it for a public demand for WAAS.

ferris;

A King Air (RFDS) almost crashed into me one night, "and I was in a boat in the Gulf".

But you are right, I can't see your point, but accept your stance as I do others.

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Jul 2008, 08:39

Why pick on the croppies, Bob? They fit what is required.

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Jul 2008, 08:45

City vs Country, Old aircraft drivers. Owners vs Hirers.Tin foil hats vs the rest. Why make a battle of this Bob. Your sorry arse is in this too.

james michael

10th Jul 2008, 22:26

Bob Murphie

You miss the point of the coming CASA train - the light at the end of the tunnel is probably Transponder in CTAF R.

Therefore, your croppie who has become the focus of your current 'next diversion' is going to REQUIRE a transponder ANYWAY.

It does not matter whether it is a donkey mode C as now or a new mode S re maintenance does it? Except perhaps that the NEW mode S transponder is PAID FOR and likely more relieble with RS232 encoder instead of old donkey one.

ALL

I have to tell you it's freezing in the halls of power this morning. Overnight I realised just how crazy was this debate. If you were all to open your management texts, you could find a general guide to making decisions:
GET ALL THE FACTS
WEIGH AND DECIDE
FEEDBACK AND REVISE

IN THAT ORDER

So, over my morning latte I have found the following quotes:

Dick Smith 28 June
There is no way I and others will allow the removal of the en-route SSR network until the ADSB system is totally operational and proven.This will then throw the "subsidy" figures on the scrap heap!
They won't take any notice of us? Don't you believe it -watch the media.

Dick Smith 3 July
There is simply no reason that we should lead the world – especially when we do not have competent people here doing the “leading.”

Dick Smith 8 July
With the limited amount of information I have (because I’m kept out of the loop in every way possible – as is everyone who doesn’t blindly support the JCP),

So in the past month, the management texts have been re-written.

Dick - acknowledging he does NOT have the facts - has criticised the ADS-B proponents, and determined to stop the program.

Would someone like to re-write the management texts :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I think I personally am also owed an answer:

Dick Smith 5 july
James, I will answer all of your questions on Monday, in the meantime I dare you to phone me this weekend for even more important information.

Dick - three specific questions:
- What's the information - or was that just bait to have me ring on Sunday for a sermon?
- How are you going with ICAO Annex 6?
- Why are you opposing ADs-B that will probably better enable your desired NAS to occur earlier (or are you hoping for a contra deal with the union if you bang the ATC staffing shortage drum as at present?).

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2008, 23:29

Hmmm...

james michael, sounds to me like you are going to make money from ADS-B - is this the case ?

Dick Smith

10th Jul 2008, 23:40

Binghi, I reckon you are on to it! Why else would someone with so much knowledge of this complex field need to keep their name secret if it wasn't to hide something!

james michael

11th Jul 2008, 00:04

Dick Smith

You are very casual with people's reputations; yet very militaristic about your own. And again you go for conspiracy theory about my anon appearance - go read the Pprune rules and preamble.

Binghi

So much for sensible debate. Early on you brag of leading me on, then you call me a fool, now you sail close with the current 'assumption'.

Both of you

I stand to make not a cent out of ADS-B either directly or indirectly. I consider your comments absolutely disgraceful and a clear indication of why this debate has dissolved into tripe.

Kindly withdraw the allegation. Dick, your's sails almost close enough for a bouquet of tulips consequence :=

Further, Dick, you have slagged many good people working on the ADS-B project - IN THE ADMISSION THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE FULL FACTS.

Go to the media as you suggested but don't cry when they get copies of this last few thread items.

BUT, DICK SMITH, INSTEAD OF PLAYING THE MAN - NOW ANSWER MY THREE QUESTIONS - FORGET THE DIVERSION SO KINDLY OFFERED BY YOUR RUNNER BONGO.

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 00:08

Scurvy, from what I can understand you don’t actually know how the system in the USA (and other leading aviation countries) works when it comes to optimising the use of ATC and radar. Have you ever actually sat in a tower in the USA?

I stated:

the radar covered airspace remains with the Centre until the lower level of radar coverage

You then immediately said:

.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace

No Scurvy, that is not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to all radar covered airspace – including airspace similar to what you have at Launceston, and airspace for any instrument approach anywhere in the USA.

Mostly it is the enroute controllers doing the approach work at these airports. Where there is a Class D tower, the tower controllers are not normally rated to do procedural IFR separation. In effect, the IFR “control” comes from the Centre or the TRACON, and the tower controller in Class D is responsible for runway separation and other duties.

It is a fantastic, superb and safe system. It means that in the USA (and most other aviation countries), an IFR aircraft in IMC remains with the radar controller. They don’t have the crazy Australian system where at a place like Albury at 9,500 feet when overflying – until I was able to bring in some changes – an enroute pilot was forced to change to the Albury tower and lose the advantage of radar control.

I will try to explain to the thousands of pilots who read this how a professional system should work.

In Australia we appear to have inherited a system where various groups “control” and “own” their airspace. For example, if you put a block of airspace around Alice Springs to 12,500 feet, it “belongs” to the tower – not to the Centre, and never the twain shall meet.

In other countries, Class D airspace is small – that is, normally 4.3 miles radius and up to 2,500 feet AGL. That is basically the distance that a controller can see – even if using binoculars.

The advantages of the Centre or the TRACON controlling the airspace when IMC exists are great. For example, when the local tower controller is off duty, the airspace reverts to Class E, and the advantages of an IFR separation service remain.

The difficulty I have found in Australia is that the controllers in our non-radar Class D towers (which mostly operate like Class C) maintain that they should keep their “block” of airspace – once to 12,500 feet, now in some places to 8,500 or 4,500 feet – whether or not there is radar coverage. This appears to me to be based mainly on resistance to change.

Scurvy, I’m happy to arrange with Jetstar for you to fly to Hawaii and have a look at the Lihue Tower which Airservices operates there. There are a number of similar attributes to Launceston. The big difference is that instead of the tower “owning” airspace to 8,500 feet, the controllers are basically responsible for runway separation and for traffic information and sequencing in the circuit area. When pilots are in IMC at the airport, they are generally on the radar frequency – it is all very logical.

It is a different system to the one that has operated here for the last 50 years – since before radar. However to me it seems to be far safer and more “professional.”

Scurvy, I’m happy to cover the cost of you going to the tower, to see what they do for a couple of hours, and then for you to advise whether you think it has any advantages over what we do here in Australia.

I found at Lihue that the pilots love it – including the airline pilots – and the controllers love it. It is a totally different system to the one you use at Launceston, so it would be at least interesting to find out why you believe the differences are so great.

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 00:14

Max1, you state:

There is no sneaky plan to make GA come into the system so they can start to get charged, it would overwhelm the system and the controllers. Unless you ask for it, there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.

I am sure you are honestly stating your belief on this, but do you realise that the ASTRA Cross Industry Business Case & Cost-Benefit Analysis ADS-B Avionics Fitment, Introduction of TSO 145/146 Navigators & Extended Surveillance Coverage stated:

The expansion of ADS-B into hotspots such as Broome and Ayers Rock will enable Airservices Australia to provide traffic advisory and other ATC services at these airports. This will essentially provide the same level of ATC service at these airports as is currently provided at major capital city airports.

Max1, as you know, currently the capital city airports have Class C, and this means that Airservices will be able to “essentially provide the same level of ATC service” (i.e. Class C) at places like Broome and Ayers Rock.

Remember that Class C requires separation of IFR and VFR, and VFR pilots pay a terminal charge at the major capital city airports. I read this as a proposal to do the same thing at Broome and Ayers Rock, but to provide the service from the Air Traffic Control Centre in Melbourne or Brisbane.

How do you read it?

Bob Murphie

11th Jul 2008, 00:27

James Michael;

When you first arrived in Godzone you knew nothing?

Then you follow your research and gather information?

Now you are an expert and profess to tell all what they should and shouldn’t do!

Well I for one, am not listening to you and I suspect also, that you may have an agenda. I also note your use of the word “slagging” which is indicative of who you may be or who you get your propaganda from.

Remember: “As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributors may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the Press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists to elect certain reactions.

max1

11th Jul 2008, 00:34

Dick,
Sorry if you didn't understand, what I said was that there is not a 'sneaky plan' to start charging GA aircraft just because you 'paint' on our screens.

As I said if you don't have a flight plan in the TAAATS system ( a Flight Data Record, FDR) you can't be hit with navcharges.

These are the two points I think you refer to.

5. Any GA aircraft with ADS-B Out will not have to pay navcharges if they are not in the 'system' as a flightplan (TAAATS call them Flight Data Records, FDRs), ATC will be able to see these 'blips' in range of an ADS-B ground station, and give traffic to aircraft who are in the system.

6. There is no sneaky plan to make GA come into the system so they can start to get charged, it would overwhelm the system and the controllers. Unless you ask for it, there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.

james michael

11th Jul 2008, 00:34

Bob Murphie

Another who has run out of diversions in the debate and needs to play the man.

Please don't listen to me, that's your privilege.

And, I have an agenda. Sheer Genius, Bob Murphie. I've already expressed it - ADS-B on the panel. Every poster on here has an agenda - what's yours? Are you an aircraft owner?

Tell all what they should and shouldn't do? Perhaps you could elucidate? What I have posted today is FACTS about decision making - which has got me a response from Dick as near as a bee's to defaming me.

It takes a big man to apologise, it takes facts to answer my three questions. I don't expect either based on the way the debate has gone since the facts were trotted out.

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 00:41

James Michael, I think I’ve got you. You state:

Kindly withdraw the allegation. Dick, your's sails almost close enough for a bouquet of tulips consequence

You are obviously referring to the Caroline Tulip issue. Has it occurred to you that if you want to take a similar action, you will then have to say your name – and that is what I want to know?

At the present time there is no comparison with the Caroline Tulip issue because you are hiding behind anonymity. Don’t you understand that? A person who is anonymous can’t be defamed.

Now let me answer your three questions. The answers are as follows.

What's the information - or was that just bait to have me ring on Sunday for a sermon?

No, not for a sermon. I wanted to try to find out why you are spending so much time on this issue, and also provide some important information as to why I believe Airservices do not have one person who is prepared to put their name to and “sell” the low level ADS-B proposal. There is also extra information I would like to give you but I would only do this after I understand your own personal motivation.

How are you going with ICAO Annex 6?

I’ve looked at it, but it is so bloody complex I’m not sure which part you are referring to. As you know, the FAA proudly announced that it has more notified differences to ICAO than any other country. This is because the FAA wants to have a viable aviation industry – which it generally has – rather than an industry which is stifled by inappropriate rules which add to cost but not to safety in an effective way.

In his paper on why Australia should not blindly accept ICAO certification standards, Ron Yates (the past CEO of Qantas) pointed out that ICAO was primarily in place for third world countries that could not afford modern standards of their own.

Why are you opposing ADs-B that will probably better enable your desired NAS to occur earlier (or are you hoping for a contra deal with the union if you bang the ATC staffing shortage drum as at present?).

I am not opposing ADS-B, I think it is the way of the future. I will say again that I don’t want to rush into it, and I believe the proposed subsidy is a major misallocation of valuable safety dollars.

No, I’m not looking for any type of “deal” with the union. I have worked for 20 years to improve aviation in Australia – that is, the whole industry. That is why I am standing up and publicly saying that there is a shortage of air traffic controllers, and this has come about from poor leadership and a lack of planning.

I have always wanted to get more people flying in Australia, and a more viable industry. That can only help air traffic controllers.

Remember, I was the person who led the Board decision in 1991 to give all of the airspace to air traffic controllers so we could improve efficiency and safety.

T28D

11th Jul 2008, 00:46

Interesting thing most of the Airtractors and big Crop Sprayers do:

Have VHF and Transponders fitted.

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 00:50

James, in the interest of fairness and a level playing field I offer to cover all your costs -even if you lose the defamation action! What could be fairer!

Bring it on!

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 00:55

Max1, you state:

there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.

Yes, but what about Ayers Rock and Broome? I say again that the ASTRA case says that air traffic controllers will “essentially provide the same level of ATC service at these airports as is currently provided at major capital city airports.”

james michael

11th Jul 2008, 01:10

Dick Smith

Now I have stopped laughing, I can post.

I have already told you my name. I am glad it continues to push your conspiracy theory button.

What your post tells everyone is that you have no compunction making baseless assertions about fellow posters. Interesting behaviour but as I noted, it takes a big man to apologise.

Your three answers - more waffle. Extra information - share it here.

ICAO Annex 6 - if you cannot comprehend the area to which I pointed you, best stay out of any technical debates like ADS-B. And that part does not apply to 'third world countries' - it applies to Australia more than anywhere else if you think about it.

Not looking for a deal with the union? How long since you last met with them, just for our interest?

Thank you for the offer of financial subsidy. We Michael's are not notorious for coming down in the last shower. Hey, it might just get pulled at the last moment like the one for ADS-B :D

You have not withdrawn the baseless allegation made against me, Dick. Forget defamation suits, I'll allow the court viewing Pprune to make its own judgement of your behaviour, but I do need to seriously consider whether I debate directly with you in future after such behaviour. I chosse my mates, they don't buy me.

T28D

Well said. So much for the Bob Murphie argument about aggies.

Given the aggies get a new ES model free, they should be jumping for joy as it will be newer thus more reliable, more depreciation for their tax, and so on.

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 01:33

James Michael, it was actually Flying Binghi who made the first allegation in relation to your self-interest. This is his statement:

Hmmm...

james michael, sounds to me like you are going to make money from ADS-B - is this the case ?

It is interesting that you have made no comments at all to Flying Binghi, nor threatened any action. I wonder why this would be so?

James, there is nothing wrong with self-interest as long as it is disclosed.

If you are not going to make any money from ADS-B, can you confirm that you earn no income from people who could benefit directly (or indirectly) from the introduction of this system in Australia? I bet that is a harder one.

By the way, they are not baseless assertions. Any intelligent person would wonder why someone like yourself would spend such an enormous amount of time spruiking the benefits of the Airservices low level ADS-B proposal. Yes, it could be just that you want a “free” unit in the panel of your aircraft. There could also be other reasons, and I happen to believe the other reasons are more likely.

Flying Binghi

11th Jul 2008, 01:52

...and here I was going to do some work in the paddock today :)

Bob Murphie

11th Jul 2008, 01:53

T28D:

If you have a look at a modern aerial applicator, like a turbine Airtractor, Thrush etc, you will note that not only do they have txp and radio, but a very sophisticated GPS system that allows them to do away with markers and the like. They apply the chemical with little or no overspray because of the possibility of legal action from neighbours who possibly don't want that chemical drift onto their land. Depending on the system it is quiet feasable, according to some, to run a wire to some box that gives ADSB qualities.

Some are getting up in the weight catagory, so I don't know if they would qualify for the "subsidy" even if they did want it.

james michael

11th Jul 2008, 02:12

Dick Smith

Not only are you going too far, you are reading without comprehending.

Because I know you have aviation at heart, even though I believe your associated guidance system should be noted on the MR as misguided, I am going to give you one last chance to recover some dignity and credibility.

You stated It is interesting that you have made no comments at all to Flying Binghi

10:04 today, myself
Binghi
So much for sensible debate. Early on you brag of leading me on, then you call me a fool, now you sail close with the current 'assumption'.

Your myopia is showing Dick. If you cannot follow that simple statement in the recent short-term, please give up interfering with experts (not me) pursuing ADS-B and safety.

can you confirm that you earn no income from people who could benefit directly (or indirectly) from the introduction of this system in Australia? I bet that is a harder one.

Yes I confirm that absolutely.

And as far as the part I made red, you are repeating your earlier disgraceful behaviour. :=

Any intelligent person would wonder why someone like yourself would spend such an enormous amount of time spruiking the benefits of the Airservices low level ADS-B proposal. Yes, it could be just that you want a “free” unit in the panel of your aircraft. There could also be other reasons, and I happen to believe the other reasons are more likely.

Any intelligent person would wonder why someone like yourself would spend so much time spruiking the dangers of the ADS-B LAP given you don't have the full facts.

Re the red - again you lower yourself by baseless allegation.

NOW, DICK SMITH, LET'S GET REALLY FAIR DINKUM.

YOU started this thread.
The title of the thread relates to ADS-B.
I am a poster to this topic.

A debate is conducted on the positives and negatives based on FACT and EVIDENCE.

Instead, you have run out of puff when the facts are served up to YOU.

Result - you start a diversion to attack the server.

Dick, there are plenty on anon posters on here - their identities are meaningless if they can trot out EVIDENCE and DATA in support of their argument.

But, given the continuation of your reprehensible behaviour in denigrating my persona, DO NOT expect to deal with me except in the third person.

I hope By now all reading this are alert to your strategy - perhaps next you can move to my race and sexuality and any other red herrings to cover your lack of information re ADS-B and your myopia about its future.

STOP YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY, DICK - AND GET BACK TO THE TOPIC, FACTS, AND EVIDENCE.

mjbow2

11th Jul 2008, 02:40

james michael

Mjbow
Good point. One suspects as an example that there is no difficulty (except cost) in getting the Lonnie radar feed to Lonnie Tower?...

Scurvy.D.Dog

Whilst we wait for that, perhaps you MJ might give us your view on the costs to industry (comparision) of what we currently have v's Remote Surveillance Approach services!?

I would have thought that with the expense of installing such a radar on the Launy airfield that the feed would be there already. Scurvy, unless I have misread, I understand that you are a tower controller in LST. Is this the case? Do you have radar information in the tower like they do in many US class D towers?

As far as costs are concerned for allowing the centre controller to give radar separation to low levels (like the do in the US), I cannot answer that Scurvy, I dont have that information.

What does it cost the industry to have expensive enroute radar sitting idle below 8,500ft, despite offering fantastic coverage?

What would it cost the industry to have tower controllers being radar rated and the industry not being able to use it after the tower closes? Again, the radar is sitting idle for the lower levels, where it is most useful.

I don't have the answer to these questions Scurvy, if you have these numbers I am sure everyone would like to see them.

I have had no problems however, while flying in the US with enroute controllers giving radar services down to the IAF at remote class D airfields. It seems to work very well indeed. And as an RPT pilot I would welcome such a move.

Dick Smith says

Scurvy, I’m happy to cover the cost of you going to the tower, to see what they do for a couple of hours, and then for you to advise whether you think it has any advantages over what we do here in Australia.

As I have stated before, I will donate $1100 to a program that sends controllers to the US to learn. If Dick Smith is prepared to cover your costs to visit Hawaii Scurvy, I will happily donate my $1100 for your trip. What an offer Scurvy, a free trip to Hawaii with $1100 spending money.

I have noticed in the past that Dick Smith has offered to talk to people on the phone about various topics, or to accompany him on a flight in one of his aircraft. I have noticed over the last couple of years that no one seems to take up his offer. Why is this? Scurvy, will you take up his offer to go to Hawaii?

james michael I freely admit as a mere airline pilot I know little to nothing about ADS-B and can offer very little on the issue. You on the other hand seem quite knowledgeable and have a great deal to offer the debate. Why not call Dick Smith? Who knows, you may help change his views on ADS-B.

Can anyone explain to me what the reason could be that people would not want to talk to Dick Smith directly? I really don't understand why!

Willoz269

11th Jul 2008, 02:57

Can anyone explain to me what the reason could be that people would not want to talk to Dick Smith directly? I really don't understand why!

Lack of credibility, maybe???? :rolleyes:

As far as costs are concerned for allowing the centre controller to give radar separation to low levels (like the do in the US), I cannot answer that Scurvy, I dont have that information.

What does it cost the industry to have expensive enroute radar sitting idle below 8,500ft, despite offering fantastic coverage?

What would it cost the industry to have tower controllers being radar rated and the industry not being able to use it after the tower closes? Again, the radar is sitting idle for the lower levels, where it is most useful.

Many years ago EVERYTHING used to be positively separated by radar, until some clown came in and changed all that, with introduction of airspace where aircraft could go in and did not need to talk to controllers in radar or even file a flightplan...regional towers like Bowen, etc were closed and the segregation of GA and RPT began

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 03:08

James, I am baiting you and it is obviously working!

How sad that you have to remain anonymous on such an important issue for Aussie aviation. Don't you realise that you will most likely lose the debate because you are so secretive and many may therefore believe there is a hidden agenda?

Can you explain why there is no person with your knowledge openly and publicly selling the benefits of the Airservices proposal on this site or anywhere else?

Do those involved all fear their jobs could be threatened if they stood up and put their real names to their beliefs? If so this is a terrible indictment on the culture of fear that must exist at Airservices.

There is a good reason for allowing anonymity on this site – that is to facilitate the spread of information and rumours that may not be in the commercial interest of those who want to put safety in front of profits.

However in the case of the Airservices ADS-B proposal you would really want to know why the same type of anonymity is necessary unless some type of skulduggery is going on.

James, identities are not meaningless – quite the opposite.

You will no doubt get even angrier if my campaign to delay the ADS-B decision is successful, however you do not appear to understand the power of a person having the strength of their convictions and being prepared to put their own name to what they say.

I genuinely feel sorry for you. You are obviously very well educated and you could be right in what you believe, however you will have zero credibility if you are too frightened to put your own name to your convictions.

james michael

11th Jul 2008, 03:20

MJ

I greatly value your good comment. But, as regards Dick Smith I refer you back to the quote I put up early in my appearance on this thread.

I honestly do not believe I will change his mind with facts because the issues he hypothesises are not necessarily within the realities I inhabit.

Further to that, his behaviours on this thread recently - particularly as concerns my good name and his unwarranted hints of pecuniary interest - make me reluctant to stoop so low as to converse.

Let him proceed to place on this thread the facts and evidence necessary to the pursuit of good debate. Telephone calls are undoubtedly theraputic for Dick but I work on the Sam Goldwyn principle that verbal advices are not worth the paper on which they are not written.

As regards Lonnie Tower, let me be upfront that I do not know enough of that aspect of the business to give you any formal advice re the radar.

I also note that during my preparation of this post Mr Smith has shamlessly done it yet again many may therefore believe there is a hidden agenda I refuse to fuel his conspiracy fire and again note that he is so obsessed with identities and allegations - that he fails to proceed the basis of this thread.

I have read better in late night Hansard than what Dick is placing on here.

Deity help aviation if the Minister accepts the offer. :mad:

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 03:39

Willoz269, you state:

Many years ago EVERYTHING used to be positively separated by radar

Actually, you mean everything in controlled airspace. In fact, huge amounts of radar covered airspace between Melbourne and Cairns, which were considered to be uncontrolled, had no radar service at all. Even if you wanted to get your transponder checked you had to talk to a Flight Service Officer who had a microphone and no radar. The FSO would call the radar controller on his tie line, and then report if the transponder was working. Yes, it was that ridiculous.

Can you advise if you are happy that I was involved in giving that uncontrolled airspace to radar controllers, so now we can get a radar service?

As you would probably know, I would like to upgrade a lot of this uncontrolled airspace (at places like Bowen) to Class E controlled airspace, so IFR will get a separation service, and also a service to help prevent controlled flight into terrain. VFR aircraft will also have a mandatory transponder requirement so TCAS is there for a safety back up.

As you can understand, in Class G airspace at the moment there is no requirement for transponders – so often there is not the TCAS safety back up.

Do you support these changes? I look forward to your comments.

Willoz269

11th Jul 2008, 05:01

Dick:

No, I don't mean everything in controlled airspace...I have no problem passing the FSO function to a radar controller to provide RAS, the problem I have is converting busy airspace into a hybrid GA capable airspace in the name of "modernisation" or just because "that's the way they do it in the US"...whoopee....there's a lot of stuff that is done in the US or other "leading countries" that I don't wish repeated here.

I know you want to convert airspace to Class E, just like it happened at Avalon and other places...the problem I have is....as soon as it is done, and an incident occurs, you are the first person to stand up and throw stones at the establishment for following your original ideas.

I haven't followed the TCAS story for a few years, but from memory your "idols" in the US did not have a requirement for a transpoder-equipped aircraft unless it was over a certain weight or capacity. Correct if this has changed, but in Australia I cannot see many people being able to afford a TCAS-C or S capable transponder without a significant subsidy.

Was it not you who was complaining of having ADS-B in your cockpit which would detract you from keeping a sharp lookout for traffic? If you follow the existing rules in GA, why would you require TCAS as back up? It will hardly allow you to keep a look out the way you are proposing to use it, plsu who is going to train the pilots on it??? And keep them current? Would that be policed by CASA?? HOW??? With the old affordable safety policy that says they have an obligation to do the right thing and if they don't and fall over, THEN the authority comes in and looks at it?

As it has been stated here before, TCAS is NOT a traffic management solution, it is an information tool which gives a warning based on calculations made computing a closest point of approach. Hardly the tool to use in GA!!!

GA industry is a hard slog in this country, there are a LOT of really good air men and women out there who simply cannot afford extra equipment in their aircraft for a marginal return in safety and no returns in any foreseeable profit.

Not everyone likes to have gadgets!

max1

11th Jul 2008, 05:07

Dick,
"there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.

Yes, but what about Ayers Rock and Broome? I say again that the ASTRA case says that air traffic controllers will “essentially provide the same level of ATC service at these airports as is currently provided at major capital city airports.”

Dick,
They are talking about a tower service like Coffs , Launy, Hobart etc, someone was stretching the truth. I don't envisage them having a dedicated Terminal Control Unit (TCU)with a flow capability, because they won't need it.

Now before you jump up and down and start asking what else is rubbish in it. To me, someone decided to over sell this, and decided to cover themselves with the line, "essentially provide the same level of service".

It could be argued that Coffs, Launy, and Hobart are provided with "essentially the same service" (a positive separation service) as Sydney and other major capital city services.I would never say that is the case. I agree, its not a good look to imply they will have a 24/7 TCU and they would be better off stating the exact truth, as no doubt people will pick up on these things and uncover them, and this detracts from the main issues.

My point is we do not want to be running a separation service into the circuit area in Kununnara, Gove, Boulia, Lord Howe etc.

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 05:35

I think this thread has just about run its course. I’m sure others would agree.

Here is an interesting point. The thread heading was intentionally provocative – i.e.

Airservices Australia ADS-B program – another Super Seasprite fiasco?

Since that announcement was made 2½ weeks ago, there have been 421 posts, and nearly 7,000 hits. On top of that, there must be thousands who saw the heading and didn’t actually look at the thread.

Imagine working for Airservices. If someone made an announcement like that in relation to my business, I would come out fighting if I thought they were wrong. I would issue a press release and make myself available to the media and the industry to explain why the ADS-B program was not going to be another Super Seasprite fiasco.

So what has happened? Well, as we know, there has not been a peep from the Airservices management – or possibly they have said something anonymously on this thread.

Remember, it is not as if the 6,900+ hits have come from ineffectual people. We all know that this site is read by politicians (on both sides of Parliament), the bureaucracy, influential people in the airlines, influential journalists, as well as many airline and GA pilots. People in the Department of Transport – or whatever it is called today – earnestly follow this site.

So could it be that the Airservices management believes that if they ignore the claim, it will simply go away? That is not a good way to manage your business and keep the reasonable staff morale.

I’m very happy to talk to anyone at Airservices (off the record if need be) and if I have made errors on this site I will correct them. The invitation is there.

james michael

11th Jul 2008, 06:14

if I have made errors on this site I will correct them

Wonder if that includes apologies for improper comment about fellow posters - oh, is that Hell I see freezing over :)

James, I am baiting you and it is obviously working!
In response:

QUICK WEEKEND RECIPE NOW DICK IS THROWING IN THE TOWEL AS THE HARSH SPOTLIGHT OF TRUTH DAWNS

DICKMITE - ALMOST AS AUSSIE AS VEGEMITE

Well, it's as Aussie as NASi Goreng and coming soon to an ADS-B Store near you.

INGREDIENTS

Set thermostat to 1090.
Bring pprune pot to boil, then throw in two ears (unused).
Add a large scoop of rhetoric.
Dice several unreceived phone calls.
Try and cut an anon into agenda pieces (these must be well hidden in the mix for Dickmite to brown properly).
Sprinkle large shakes of conspiracy theory.
Shake in some conflict of interest or a dram of pecuniary interest for good measure.
Slice in one reverse gear (unused).
Keep adding innuendo if the mix is not to your liking.
Remove any subsidy before it can settle.
If the mix gets too hot, call for more fans and more air services.
Stir the lot, and if you don't like the result, suggest it has soured and become runitscourse instead of dickmite, and take your bat and ball and go home, singing 'the heat's too hot, I'm out of this kitchen'.

The ripper thing with this recipe is you don't really need an actual documented fact based recipe, you can make it up as you go each time and blame the manufacturer's for your lack of knowledge.

SERVING SUGGESTIONS

Success to date has been limited with only one person finding the result palatable.

Our suggestion is that the culinary result is best used as a suppository - a real 'in u end oh' - as our most recent reviews have certainly had that effect on us.

External reviewers of knowledge and renown have rejected the recipe as a waste of time as it has no value adding to consumption.

POETS DAY - BEER CALLS.

Flying Binghi

11th Jul 2008, 06:23

james michael, you spend all day posting on pprune, and now its your nock-off time - not a bureaucrat are you ? :hmm:

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Jul 2008, 06:33

Could it be that no one in AirServices wants to even be seen with you, Mr Smith?

If there is one thing that history shows about you Mr Smith, it is that you do nothing that doesn't benefit you directly. Come clean, why the plan to get into favour with the Minister?

Why create this argument in the first place. Do you think Minister Albanese and his minders are impressed with the controversy you have concocted? Is this all part of the plan? Like showing how FS wasn't able to facilitate a transponder check in OCTA where there was no requirment nor facilities. FS would have happily helped you on that day without question. I wonder if those same people would have offered if they knew why you did it and what you had in plan for them.

Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I cannot but connect the dots between your actions whilst at AOPA, the scene at BN over having to walk over to FS to submit a plan. Your continuous complaints about defence airspace. Your complaints about ATC clearences in various places around the country. Your love affair with everything US. (TAAATS just didn't fit with you did it?) And there heaps more like RFF and Pubs and navcharges and BASI...

I have no intention of defamation. I just would realy like to know why you spend so much time with trying to change aviation? It is almost like a twenty five year game of chess. Why do it, what do you expect to get out of all this?

max1

11th Jul 2008, 06:34

FB,
Any chance of a reply to this

FB ,
I trust I'm not being thin-skinned, maybe I am, however you asked for a reference. What are you implying from your post of July 8th.

"I see you make mention that the system would revert to an inefficient, and non-dangerous state... a system, aparently, that has less ATC and nav-aids then we currently have... Hmmm..."

Apologies in advance if I have the wrong end of the stick

Flying Binghi

11th Jul 2008, 07:16

FB,
Any chance of a reply to this

Sorry I missed it max1, can you give me a post number please :)

CaptainMidnight

11th Jul 2008, 07:30

james michael

My compliments to you for persevering with the debate here.

Many of us who did the same for many years with the same handful of parties have now given up.

Sooner or later (hopefully much later) you may come to the same conclusion we did: it’s just not worth the trouble trying to reason with some individuals.

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 08:33

To everyone,I apologise if I have made improper comments about fellow posters-even those who post anonymously.

James, I loved the recipe -maybe we could try it when we go flying together.

OZ, the argument was created so we could get some healthy discussion and hopefully make the best decision on ADSB

I spend a lot of time on Aviation matters because it would give me great satisfaction if the industry became viable and Australia became a leader in flight training and General Aviation with lots more people employed.

And I don't have admiration for everything US. I just like copying the best from anywhere.

ferris

11th Jul 2008, 08:36

I'd have to agree with Captainmidnight. Most posters just give up. For example: Dick wrote a lengthy post about why towers not owning airpsace was better, and why the way they do it in the States is better. It sounds perfectly reasonable (to a non-ATC). No-one challenged him. The reason- asked and answered, over and over, many times.
It is a different system to the one that has operated here for the last 50 years – since before radar. However to me it seems to be far safer and more “professional.”
It has been explained to Dick that whilst our system is 'different', it evolved that way out of efficiency. We just dont have the bodies that they do in the states. Their towers have their hands full just running those little bits of airspace and their multiple runways, even splitting down to individual controllers running 1 runway each. We just dont have the traffic levels to warrant the level of manning that allows the US system. Their tracon guys "own" tiny (by Australian standards) bits of airspace, and can run approaches into towers etc. The guy in oz in the same position is looking at a 400nm screen with 12 such airports in it, and doesnt have the resolution or capacity to do what Dick wants. I can see how these concepts are hard to appreciate if you are not a trained controller, but that is where Dick diverges from his own advice. He doesnt accept the advice of experts (the many who post here, either anonymously or using their own name!!), and he doesnt allow the best "bang for safety buck" (the way the oz system evolved is efficient for oz!).

Finally, another thread has shown Dick up with facts, and he descends into witch hunt and attacking motivations. Then he wonders why people wont call him!!!

Edited to say: I've just read Dick's apology above, so credit where it is due. It is certainly true that threads like this are highly educational- even if they dont turn out as certain people want! (this post was written at the same time as the one above).

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 08:43

Ferris, so that means we can't use the advantage of Radar at a place like Launceston even though it is located at the airport?

I why would our system be efficient when traffic densities are low and it has always been run by a monopoly?

ferris

11th Jul 2008, 08:51

Launceston is a special case, as you would be aware.

The radar was quickly shipped down there as a temporary measure for political reasons, as a mitigator against dangers revealed when amateurs started playing with the tried and true.

I have no problem with tower controllers using radar, ADS-B or any other tool that would make the job easier*. In the case of LT tower though, you might want to get enough controllers there so that the place isnt closed half the time before you worry about what ratings they have.

*Note use of the word easier. In the same way you used the words "advantage of radar".

The oz system is efficient for oz airpsace. That has been shown to you on pprune before. Why you think you can continually ignore inconvenient truths is puzzling. Can it be done better? For sure. But the US way is not better (transplanting that system into oz), given oz conditions/traffic levels/surveillance capabilities/manning levels etc.

AsA is a monopoly in as much as the FAA is. It depends on how you look at these things. Is Sydney Airport a monopoly? Is Maq a monopoly after they tendered and won SY? IS SY 'efficient'. Lets not confuse "Ownership" with "Operator". Otherwise we might have to talk about the charging regime.

To me, this line says it all why would our system be efficient when traffic densities are low What possible difference could traffic levels have on efficiency? AsA cant change the traffic levels in order to produce more 'efficiency'. You are efficient or not based on what you have- surely you can see that? You have a traffic level. You work that traffic efficiently or not.

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 09:10

Ferris, I am not so much into making it easier for controllers- I want to make it safer for Airline passengers as well as myself.

I believe it's nothing short of criminal the way we do not use the radar to reduce risk at Launy and other places like Hamilton Island.

The USA and Canada has plenty of large sectors where en-route controllers provide a very effective radar approach service to airports many hundreds of miles away.

Have you ever travelled to the USA and Canada to research this or are you accepting what you have been told?

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 09:23

Ferris, you ask what possible effect traffic levels could have on efficiency.

The effect is collossal- just compare the way aircraft are handled at some of our low traffic density class D airports compared to one of our GAAP airports or say the way traffic is handled at Darwin compared to Sydney or LAX.

I have been fortunate to fly as pilot in command in many countries around the world and I have found that the holding, diversions and delays nearly always come from the low traffic density airports.

This is often because they have not introduced modern and efficient procedures

ferris

11th Jul 2008, 09:25

Dick, if you want to change the way the rules that govern how ATC is done (whether tower controllers use radar, for example), then lobby for that. But you dont seem to. You seem to expend enormous amounts of time and energy trying to change the airspace system, so one has to wonder (if you think "its criminal") why you are trying to change the whole airspace system and not the minor/simple/easy things that might deliver a tangible benefit (such as the tower at LT using the available radar)? It doesnt require a whole new system- just some rule changes and a bit of training. Of course, you would need to actually have staff to train.

There is the biggie, of course, which you consistenlty decline to even mention, let alone attempt change on-the charging regime.

After reading your last post- lets not get confused between "efficient handling of traffic" and "efficient use of resources". It might produce an excellent experience if Coffs had a dedicated flow, final radar directors etc etc. But wouldnt be tolerated in the waste of resources dept (and the cost to the users).

Scurvy.D.Dog

11th Jul 2008, 09:52

.. more of the same!
.
RHS
.
Funnily enough, I have been working at said location today, and thus unable to reply fully just yet ... but never fear I shall :E
.
But I must say your post preceding 'the recipe' cracked me up :D ... you wish no one read the detail .... you can bet with that many hits most did/have ;) thus no media have picked up your garbage headline!
.
But just to even the playing field lets start another thread with a summary of salient points from this one shall we ... perhaps it should be called
.
ADS-B, Sea Sprites - the empty rhetoric look at me thread - Another episode in the continuing saga of The Emperor Strikes Out

james michael

11th Jul 2008, 10:25

Binghi

Because I am committed to telling the truth on here - I admit I have been called a bureaucrat many, many times. And with good cause. Bureaucrats are the reason you taxpayers may feel safe 'outstanding in your field'. I compliment you that for a simple farmer you have your aircraft so well equipped even to TCAS :)

Dick Smith

Yes, I am motivated to go flying together - someday - as you suggest. We have many things in common which is why I turned to humour instead of abuse, but it was a line ball.

CM

Agreed. The reason I took the line I did on this thread was that sooner or later the 'common man' must fight back against the 'droit de seigneur' and all posters here must realise that they are fully entitled to share their opinions constructively and not be subject to personal abuse or threat. (my new friend Peuce, where are you?)

The suggestion that becaus a poster is anon he may be maligned is akin to suggesting one can urinate on the 'man in the street' because he is unknown to one. I hope that phase is now behind us.

ALL

The debate can perhaps return to ADS-B (I think with WAAS thrown in).

STOP PRESS I believe from other advice that the JCP Phase 1 is about to move forward.

Dick (again)

Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. Your recent post indicates you have reflected accordingly and I thank you for that.

Now, what about you upending the glass?

Let me restate my own position. I am James Michael, I have no pecuniary gain in ADS-B, I intend to remain private (anon) and my own man beholden to no-one for my decisons. Take me as you find that and be very certain that I will not vary from the truth in what I state on here. If you malign me once more, we are divorced.

How about turning your undoubted talents to reflecting on the fact that ADS-B is potentially able to put Australia at the forefront of the world in safety, technology, and airspace - and looking for ways to move forward in a situation of trust for the benefit of GA, PTO, aircraft owners, and pilots. Instead of being a knocker - with a fair chance of history proving you a classic Aussie knocker who was wrong - how about bulldozing your way through the minor roadblocks and being seen as a crusader extraordinaire who was onboard the change?

Whichever, I'll be wandering along this thread providing what information I can.

If you really want to continue the existing position, how about a table on here with whom you are saving from what, and accepting the feedback it generates.

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 10:30

Ferris, the resistance to change is so entrenched that it's basically impossible to change anything-even the most minor procedure that would improve efficiency.

For example the AIP states that joining directly on base at a non-twr aerodrome can be allowed with special CASA approval. I applied for approval to do this when it was safer to do so. If you check my DICKSMITHFLYER site you will see that even after 6 months of letter writing and even threatened legal action I could not get this approval. I point out that joining directly on base is allowed in every other country that I can get information on.

I have not just worked on changing our Airspace- most of my time has been spent on attempting to introduce simple proven procedures - all to no avail

The problem is the total lack of competent leadership in CASA and Airservices - surely you can see this .

Look at the present staffing problems- there is obviously no proper planning. I once expanded a business from nothing to $50 million turnover in 12 years by planning properly and involving my staff in every step of the way with the exciting adventure.

There are many simple procedures that could be introduced to save time and money- for example modern proven Class E climb procedures for IFR planned aircraft when in VMC.

You just need competent leadership!

Dick Smith

11th Jul 2008, 10:39

James, the problem I have is that all of my successful decisions in life have come after asking advice and debating the issues with real people. I am just no good at making decisions after debating anonymous people on a website.

Flying Binghi

11th Jul 2008, 11:25

max1

11th Jul 2008, 12:03

FB
My post 369, at the end I enquired about why people seem to imply that controllers would have a vested interest in having ADS-B implemented and references were made to it increasing controller numbers.

You asked for a reference where I thought the implications were. Please read and reply. P.S. Can you think of a reason why we would benefit materially? Its got me stuffed.

Flying Binghi

11th Jul 2008, 12:31

Apoligies if theres any miss-understanding max1. I'm on record in this thread as saying ATC are understaffed and overworked.

Please also note, I'm nothing special, just an aircraft owner and pilot with some concerns :)

max1

11th Jul 2008, 12:38

Dick,
YOU started this thread, it is about a CHANGE, it is a discussion about whether we move to ADS-B surveillance. ATCs who have worked with it and others who have researched it , have come on here and stated with facts and evidence why we should embrace this change and the safety and cost benefits it would bring, and you come up with the line,

"Ferris, the resistance to change is so entrenched that it's basically impossible to change anything-even the most minor procedure that would improve efficiency."

You further state

"James, the problem I have is that all of my successful decisions in life have come after asking advice and debating the issues with real people. I am just no good at making decisions after debating anonymous people on a website."

Well Dick, I don't care if its the piano player from the whorehouse,I keep an open mind and if the logic of their position is reasonably presented I am amenable to changing my point of view.

Like this afternoon, you showed that someone implied that Broome and Ayers Rock would get the same service as Sydney, if one wanted to be a close- minded idealogue then, one may have tried to argue with you that this is an incontrevertible truth and defend this argument. They may have deferred to trying to belittle and slander you, and call your motivations into account.

What someone with an open mind would do, is look at the statement, take it on its merits and then give it the weight it deserves.

I think that this CHANGE to ADS-B surveillance 'deal' is good for the passengers (payers) on airlines, good for GA, good for ATC and good for Australia. I would not like to see it get knocked on the head because you are not comfortable and not-up-to-speed with it.

I am no huge fan of ASA, look at my other postings, but we are all (especially GA) on a winner here.

max1

11th Jul 2008, 12:40

FB,
Thats a bugger, I was hoping someone could find me a dollar out of all this.
Looks like I'll have to go OS after all.

werbil

11th Jul 2008, 14:05

Dick - re TCAS

It is my understanding that the reason TCAS does not command a turn is because it azimuth information is too inaccurate - distance accuracy is excellent, whilst the relative altitude accuracy is dependant on the accuracy of the altitude encoders.

I have never flown an aircraft fitted with TCAS, however I have spoken with other pilots that have been in a following aircraft that the display has shown me swapping from side to side in front of them, even though I maintained the same relative position.

It is for this reason that I believe that TCAS is a 'last resort' collision avoidance device and not for providing traffic information.

Some TCAS units (Honeywell) already use a hybrid system where ADS-B ES data is used to more accurately display interrogated aircraft and to extend the range that aircraft are detected. I do not know whether it is used for RA logic yet, however I have no doubt it will be in the future.

I am guessing that Annex 6 suggests that in the future it is likely that ADS-B will be used by TCAS to allow a turn to be commanded as well. James Michael am I close?

james michael

11th Jul 2008, 21:44

Binghi

I am never certain if your replies to me are country humour or country member :) I shall take your last as the former.

Dick Smith

James, the problem I have is that all of my successful decisions in life have come after asking advice and debating the issues with real people. I am just no good at making decisions after debating anonymous people on a website.

Let me suggest that either of your options is not the sum of the parts, but both together is more valuable. As earlier stated - examine what is said, not he who speaks. And, if you are not going to build in the facts from such debates, you are spending a lot of your valuable time here at a loss when you should be making money - why?

If I can wax a little futuristic, at the risk of perhaps offending my colleague Bing, and first declaring (again) no pecuniary interest in the outcome.

Dick, the visionary does not head for the cellar to view the heirlooms of the past - he is found more at the attic window staring into space and the future. Lately you seem to be more bound by the past.

Australia may as well start learning Chinese for when the holes in the ground run out - unless we leverage our knowledge base - because that's about all else we have left to sell. Therefore it is desirable we be a world leader in technology development and sale - if the Government does not further stuff the CSIRO, TRL, DSTO, and a few other alphabet groups.

If we could marry a little of Binghi, Bob Murphie, and T28D - what is emerging is the UAV, perhaps even one day for ag work. We should be at the forefront of development. Even if we are not, the UAV will emerge with exponential growth as a platform for existing tasks performed by aircraft and new tasks not yet considered. Twenty five years ago the mobile telephone handset did not exist - yesterday the apple iphone launched in Australia with capability unheard of - nay, unthought of - back then.

There is already a group using small 'UAV' to provide aerial farm photos for estate agents - buyers nowadays expect to research purchase from home via internet and the aerial shots are marketing tools at a fraction of the cost of using GA aircraft. The possibilities are endless - the morning traffic rush reports on radio as another (Bing, we don't have a rush in the seat of power - no-one rushes early to work :D)

For UAV to operate safely with other aircraft - we need ADS-B. If Binghi can have a TCAS for $10,000 today, one believes he will have an ADS-B TCAS for the same figure within three years of Australia going ADS-B. There have already been several serious aircraft/UAV incidents in the war zone. Not enemy Binger UAV - rather, the UAV equivalent of 'friendly fire' in busy military airport environments.

Fanciful? Perhaps. Have a look at the Microair site (I think there is some limitation on us putting links up on this forum?) and you will find - "The T2000UAV-S is a special version of the T2000 Transponder, designed for operation in unmanned aircraft." One Australian manufacturer already believes in the market, and the same manufacturer is ready to roll re ADS-B.

Dick, an old saying - "ride the change wave or be dumped" - you have an opportunity to turn your undoubted talents to taking Australia forward. The ADS-B debate on this thread may not have realised your desires, but the wise general knows when to revise the plan. A weekend of quiet reflection on your part could revitalise your enthusiasm and energies.

(Steps down off long-winded bureaucratic soapbox).

Flying Binghi

11th Jul 2008, 22:02

........................:hmm:

james michael

11th Jul 2008, 22:07

Werbil

I feel you are close, in that you intuitively go beyond the today paperwork to the likely end state.

ADS-B IN and TCAS. Computer based systems. Input data altered by software to provide information. The capability exists - it is usually the TSO and the need for extensive testing (and rightfully so where safety is concerned) that delays the final equipment. And, even then, the equipment will be in accelerated change state due to technology push.

ICAO Annex 6 - the part we need to consider - relates to airspace and access. The 2003 revision is worthy of our consideration for what it MIGHT likely do to GA and airspace sharing - if we don't do it better first.

Think through the note to 6.13.2 (Recommendations):
The intent is also for aircraft not equipped with pressure-altitude reporting transponders to be operated so as not to share airspace used by aircraft equipped with airborne collision avoidance systems.

Might be better to work out a technological way to share than find ourselves with exclusionary airspace. Initially, only demands Mode C transponders. What is likely when the world moves into ADS-B mode?

The Australian opportunity for FREE ADS-B fitment shifts later this year to 2028. If it is not pursued, one suggests ADS-B will be ICAO mandated a long time before 2028 - at OUR cost.

So, returning to your question, Annex 6 itself does not suggest your concept - but the logical flow on of ADS-B adoption and the EXTRA information provided to TCAS by ADS-B data - suggests the very end state you describe. But, the long road does not begin until the first step forward is taken.

Bob Murphie

11th Jul 2008, 23:48

james michael;

Your previous post, UAV's, relate to PILOTS or lack thein.

Most people who fly VFR recreationally are AVIATORS, some even OWNERS.

Kaptain_Kaos

12th Jul 2008, 00:01

Well Dick, thanks so much for involving all of us in your wonderful little game.

So nice of you to use the earnest endeavours of many genuine hearted people to your own political and personal agenda.

I hope that everyone else who reads your posts realise their little part they play in your game.

You may stop and reflect one day as to why the professionals in this industry think as they do of you.

james michael

12th Jul 2008, 01:32

Bob Murphie

A very good point.

Bit like the bus lanes and taxi / hire car lanes on the freeways perhaps - it seems that the commercial operators get priority. Perhaps that will somehow change in airspace sharing (in our lifetime?)

Do you feel those GA aviators and owners, ADS-B IN equipped, should be allowed to share airspace with UAV or excluded from it?

Dick Smith

12th Jul 2008, 02:29

James, I will say it again-I do support ADSB - I am just not keen on the rush to make an early decision- because of the risks involved.

I also believe that a large amount of valuable safety money will be misallocated if the $100 m low level subsidy goes ahead.

You claim that if we do not make a decision this year that we will then have to wait 20 years,until 2028. I don't believe this is so even though I will accept that you believe what you have been told.

If Airservices enters into a contract to refurbish the existing SSR's we will be able to make a ADSB decision any time in the next 10 years.

Even if you and a number of other anonymous posters are correct on the urgency issue I believe you will lose. This is because there is not one person out their in the public arena communicating your points and debunking mine.

Don't you understand this? For all anyone knows you and your supporters could be con-men with criminal histories who have hidden agendas. Now I don't believe this however I have no evidence that I am correct.

I do know however that their are people in influential positions in Government who are mighty suspicious that not one executive from Airservices or CASA gives any public support for the low level $100m subsidy proposal. If the proposal is so good why isn't there at least one executive the public "face" of the proposal and out there selling the benefits?

I believe the answer is obvious- anyone really in the know accepts that there is no real safety issue being addressed,that the cost/benefit study is flawed and as it is most likely the subsidy will not go ahead they don't want to be personally identified with the failure.

What is your explanation for the fact that Airservices management show no public support in any way for a subsidy proposal that you want so much to go ahead?

james michael

12th Jul 2008, 03:22

Dick

I am disappointed to note your post.

I do not claim we need to wait 20 years for a decision; I believe we will have to wait 20 years for a subsidy once the radar money is spent. Makes logical sense to me.

there is not one person out their in the public arena communicating your points and debunking mine.

Dick, the current proposal is to return to the JCP, commence with phase 1, discuss the problems submitted re phase 2. Both in terms of the subsidy and the communication of the points - note the signatories to the JCP - surely you do not suggest they are con-men with criminal histories who have hidden agendas

In terms of that last, you sail again close to offending me.

I suspect you may find your other quote becomes a boomerang to haunt you anyone really in the know accepts that there is no real safety issue being addressed,that the cost/benefit study is flawed and as it is most likely the subsidy will not go ahead they don't want to be personally identified with the failure

But, I don't have a crystal ball so I accept that your opinion is your belief.

Why no public support - I don't believe Airservices Australia would be game to speak for the other parties as it was a JOINT CP. One is always wary when Defence is involved - they might slip a "Binghi Bunger" UAV into the Airservices building if offended :)

I am extremely disappointed to find you still looking for the holes in the cheese rather than the substance. On your reasoning, NASA would never have put a man on the moon.

Dick Smith

12th Jul 2008, 03:59

James, the signatories to the JCP are known people- they are not hiding their identity as you do.

Do you deny that dishonest people could post on this site with the sole intention to mislead?

Now we know that you are not one of these because you have told us so! But what if someone lied?

And by the way, I formed and am Patron of The Australian Skeptics - Thats why I critically examine every claim.

Bob Murphie

12th Jul 2008, 04:47

james michael;

Where I live there are no freeways, tunnels, bus lanes, only patched up bitumin roads and my particular road is gravel. I'm lucky, some are dirt and impassable in the wet. (which we have not had the luxury of for some time).

For me to see a Specialist I have to drive a minimum 3 hours each way on roads that claim lives each year, but I pay the same if not more for fuel as you do. There is no public transport that require bus lanes.

I still pay the same tax on the family income as as those who benefit from City comforts and I am getting sick to death of people ramming more "stuff" down my throat that I don't need, will probably never use and has no benefit to me.

Why don't you buy a database and do a mail out. Sorry I forgot, this is not a commercial thing is it. Perhaps the people who will benefit most from your arguements should offer you a job or a promotion or something.

james michael

12th Jul 2008, 05:19

Bob Murphie

I admit to some difficulty to date absorbing the thrust of your posts but this latest sets new standards.

Let me make two genuine offers that may assist:

1. If you can point me to the person/s who forced you to establish your domicile where you are, I shall beat them to death with my keyboard, thus preventing me from offending you by posting hereon.

2. Since 1. is unlikely as you undoubtedly elected to live there, my next offer is simple - I will continue the debate on here and take no action against you should you elect your right not to read it.

The debate is about ADS-B, you seem to have taken it personally.

Dick Smith

That explains a lot. I deduced that your life was shattered by being told too soon as a child that Santa Claus did not exist.

I lived with the new found knowledge. Probably because I'd already got the presents. And, by moving through life believing in people and probability, I found many more gifts and bonuses (Binghi, I guarantee you no bribes as a good bureaucrat lives by a code of conduct).

Now I find a new bonus and (bit of farm stuff here for Bing) you, Dick Smith, wish to abort the gift horse before it is allowed to leave the womb.

Dick, I'm starting to realise why CM, KK, and others feel about you as they do. You have again cast innuendo on my honesty, again prodded me for my anon right that I told you would remain unchanged, and you may therefore take our proposed aviation sojourn and place it where I believe your ideas are germinating.

It is not difficult to see why you are denied knowledge by the powers that be. Blessed are you for running around in your self created circles, for that may make you a big wheel :) But, ferris wheels and carnival roundabouts don't actually go anywhere except round in circles - and that's your problem with ADS-B.

bushy

12th Jul 2008, 05:31

James
Do you get paid for posting this stuff?

james michael

12th Jul 2008, 06:53

Bushy

No pay, no sling, no vested pecuniary interest.

I'm interested in the survival of GA and ensuring it is not pushed aside by PTO. Like the proposed little QF airspace grab I heard about at AS (near you from memory?) to allow QF to make more money by economy descents.

GA is under pressure as fuel prices and greenhouse emissions become topical and airlines put forward cases that confuse safety with economy.

There are enough obstacles out there without Dick making up ones in his mind.

I hope yours was a genuine question and not a dig. Do you get paid for posting or are you here with genuine interest?

ferris

12th Jul 2008, 08:07

What's wrong with my wheels? I like them. After all, the purpose of wheels is to go around in circles. Like radar heads.

Bob Murphie

12th Jul 2008, 09:44

james michael;

My reasons for my domicile are to provide people starved of brain food for the nourishment to continue to garner support for their own agenda.

You seem to be a selfish recipient.

You probably believe you will be rewarded for your efforts.

I believe you to be a silly little man whom I sincerely hope will fail.

Time and probably Qantas will tell.

But as you are prone to do, have the last say.

james michael

12th Jul 2008, 09:53

Whoops, sorry Ferris, didn't realise I had impugned your good name, at least I did not get 'around' to suggesting you should be retyred or deflated :)

Bob Murphie

I find myself at a complete loss with your last post. I do not have any yearning to be a recipient of your gratuities; use them to fix your road or to travel as needed as you indicate.

Nor am I 'prone' as you suggest; that comes after I open and imbibe the bottle of red. Your post is a complete mystery to me and I again offer you the second option of my earlier response.

There must be something I am missing about the sceptics club on here :confused:

Quokka

12th Jul 2008, 10:03

For all anyone knows you and your supporters could be con-men with criminal histories who have hidden agendas.

Thanks Dick, really appreciated that slander. Weak.

Do you deny that dishonest people could post on this site with the sole intention to mislead?

...and that one as well.

Play the ball and not the man Dick.

I know you find that difficult but the rest of us are trying to turn your malicious and deceptively titled thread into a legitimate academic discussion of the facts, ideas and motives behind the implementation of ADS-B.

Bob, Binghi and bushy... you are Aviation in our eyes. Aviation is everyone from the Student Pilot in the Grob to the crew of the A380 and everyone else in between.

We are merely a facilitator in the industry, a protector who sits back and quietly (sometimes :E) watches over everyone. We have dedicated our whole working lives to ensuring that you have as much freedom as we can logically provide, but an outcome that ensures that you all go home to your families at the end of the day. It's not emotive, it's human.

I've lost count of the number of times I've pulled two VFR's, or a VFR and an IFR, or two IFR's apart who, by their radio transmissions or actions, had "got it wrong" and were about to end up in a nasty situation. Most of those occasions, the VFR aircraft was totally oblivious to the fact that an IFR had failed to get visual with the VFR and had been turned hard at the last minute. But the crew of the IFR and myself had separately either gone for a long walk on the beach after work that day, hugged their partner just a little bit longer when they got home, or headed straight to the nearest bar and ordered a "double"... or several.

...because each one of those events was a "collision"... not a Close Proximity... not a "Near-Miss"... but a "collision" that could have happened if I hadn't seen it or hadn't intervened... because all but one hole in the Swiss Cheese lined up... too many holes.

ADS-B closes a very big hole in the Swiss Cheese... and... gives VFR a lot more freedom.

What price is that worth?

Bob Murphie

12th Jul 2008, 10:57

james michael;

I am at a loss to comprehend your last post.

You appear deprived of nourishment of some sort that cannot recollect your previous post to me. Perhaps a hemlock red may do the trick.

My sentiments remain.

james michael

12th Jul 2008, 21:58

Quokka

Well put, perhaps Dick can now specify the facts that support his arguments.

I believe his summary of objection is a good starting point:

I believe the answer is obvious- anyone really in the know accepts that there is no real safety issue being addressed,that the cost/benefit study is flawed and as it is most likely the subsidy will not go ahead they don't want to be personally identified with the failure.

1. anyone really in the know
2. no real safety issue being addressed
3. cost/benefit study is flawed
4. most likely the subsidy will not go ahead

Dick has already admitted he does not have the full information, so we can delete 1.

Re 2, even the removal of much DTI to actual TAAATS plots is a giant leap ahead. Add coverage where no current radar exists. Add ADS-B IN.
No real safety issue?

Re 3, Dick is correct and many who responded to the JCP made that very point. That's a case of reworking the CB study to get new numbers.

Dick - to whom did you supply your advice of the flaws and corrections in the CBS, and when?

Re 4 - everyone except Dick seems to have come to terms with the reality that no subsidy equals no JCP result.

The question I have remaining is the subsidy amount versus the reality of fitment. I am reminded of what happened to autogas kit prices when John announced the subsidy. It would be good to see a small sample of GA aircraft fitted 'publicly' with the costs and any hiccups put on display.

Bob Murphie

Quokka's sentence in bold is preferable to suggesting another poster imbibes hemlock.

Dick Smith

13th Jul 2008, 00:01

Quokka, look at the warning on every page,which says in effect "contributions may be the opposite to what may be apparent - or the unscrupulous may use it to elicit certain reactions"

Why would Danny put that warning there unless he wanted us to be very careful about what we accept?
Where is the evidence that this warning does not apply to James Michael? Or even yourself?

And because you are not game to put your own name to the post it cannot be slander.

If there is anyone in Airservices or CASA management who really sees the effective safety advantage of bringing 7000 small aircraft, primarily in very low traffic density airspace, on to ATC screens then let them say so publically under their own name!

James, it's good to see that you recognise that the ADSB cost benefit study is flawed. Remember it provides the only objective evidence that the $100m subsidy is cost effective and not just an emotive sop to those who desperately want to get VFR aircraft "back in the ATC system" as they were before Feb. 1991

It is a waste of time trying to correct this intentionally misleading document- as I am sure you know- the ethics at Airservices and the other organisations involved is similar to that uncovered at the Wheat Board.

Dick Smith

13th Jul 2008, 00:17

And Quokka you say "Play the ball not the man"

For that to work I have to know who "the man" is!

Thats just one of the reasons you and your colleagues will fail even if you are right.

If you are genuine and are not set to gain financially from this huge $100m bribe come out in your own name and say so!

Prune anonyminity was clearly never intended for the purpose it is now being put to!

james michael

13th Jul 2008, 00:46

Dick

If you are trying to needle Quokka or me, forget it as far as I'm concerned. It just further lowers my opinion of your ethos.

We are here to debate ADS-B and judge and be judged by facts and substance presented, not rhetoric.

As far as your needling goes, it's more than needling - it's deliberate antagonism to divert attention from the lack of substance in your argument.

You adroitely avoided answering my question. As a reminder it was
Dick - to whom did you supply your advice of the flaws and corrections in the CBS, and when?

I think I read into you ducking and weaving that It is a waste of time trying to correct this intentionally misleading document

Put more precisely, you could not bother putting effort into submitting - bit like another who could not bother submitting to the Senate Enquiry. Easier to talk than assemble and analyse information - no?

Let's have a few FACTS to promote the debate, Dick.

Approximately 250 submissions were received to the JCP - gee, Dick, 250 geese wasted their time?

Airline stakeholder viewpoints expressed were by the following organisations:
regional, domestic and international airlines; local and international airline representative bodies; and professional pilots’ associations.

Without exception, these respondents supported the proposal, including the proposed timing and cross-industry funding, as well as acknowledging the safety and operational benefits that will be provided by satellite-based navigation and surveillance.

Well, Dick, thank deity you came along to single handedly refute their thinking ...... you have refuted it have you not ........

Responses were received from individual airports and a representative body. The airport respondents supported the proposal and recognise safety and operational benefits resulting from ADS-B and GNSS implementation.

22 submissions were received from general aviation pilots and aircraft owners.
11 supported the proposal, particularly the cross-industry funding
11 rejected the proposal
Only one respondent in this group stated that the proposal would be unacceptable under any circumstances.

If there is anyone in Airservices or CASA management who really sees the effective safety advantage of bringing 7000 small aircraft, primarily in very low traffic density airspace, on to ATC screens then let them say so publically under their own name!

Responses were received from a number of current Australian air traffic controllers and an air traffic controllers’ association. All ATC respondents supported the proposal, including the timing.

Dick, I think they had to put their names on the responses to have them accepted. That they did not share their knowledge and name with you - might be a message you should consider for the future.

I could go on Dick but I know this information is wasted on a closed mind - i.e. yours. It is put up here as some information from those genuinely interested in proceeding this debate.

And, no, you don't 'have to know who the man is' - you just need to consider the wise old saying - "treat others as you would be treated yourself" and stop trying to play 'Dick tracy' over fellow posters rights to their privacy :=

Dick Smith

13th Jul 2008, 01:11

James, its pretty clear that these people believed the information that was provided in the JCP document. Why wouldn't they- after all most Australians believe that government Authorities are basically ethical in their dealings.

And don't under- estimate greed. Generally when people hear they are going to be given $100m for no work or effort they accept the offer- just look at what happens at election time!

I bet if the JCP cost /benefit study was corrected that the vote would be very different. Why havn't you been able to get them to correct this intentionally misleading study?

I have failed in getting the study looked at because those involved know that the whole subsidy proposal will fall over if the study is corrected.

James, its so sad that you you have such an in depth knowledge and so many facts at your fingertips but you cannot mention your real name. Surely this must show readers ot this thread that there are serious problems in our industry.

Flying Binghi

13th Jul 2008, 01:16

..............and then, along came a few hundred GPS guided terror weapons :hmm:

james michael, I will persue this issue further tommorrow.

james michael

13th Jul 2008, 01:29

Dick

Why do you keep demeaning yourself with your specious arguments.

You "failed in getting the study looked at" - was that not because you did NOT submit? CORRECT?

its pretty clear that these people believed the information that was provided in the JCP document

Unbelievable arrogance Dick. 250 submitters talking of $100M - and none of them have your astuteness? When was the last time you ran a successful airline?

Here is one extract of one of the "gullible responses" :D to the JCP:

In examining the JCP/CBA we found areas of concern that will be canvassed hereunder. Two of particular note were the mixing of the benefits of the GNSS navigators with those of ADS-B, and also the benefit claims of ADS-B IN - which the JCP does not fund.

GNSS TSO C145/146 and ADS-B are not interdependent both ways: ADS-B proponents claim TSO C145/146 is needed (FDE) but the reverse is not true - yet this is clouded in the JCP/CBA where the individual benefits are mixed to make the case.

The needs of IFR versus VFR are not well canvassed in the JCP.

And here's the absolute rollicking clincher Dick.
It was recently suggested that had the CBA been a company or share prospectus, ASIC would be sharpening its pencils as the CBA does not apply the rigorous testing and substantiation expected in a companies document. We refer the reader to the ASIC site and “Guide to Reading a Prospectus” as a benchmark for examining a financial inducement as is the JCP/CBA.

What was that you said again, Dick - "these people believed the information that was provided in the JCP document".

Dick you are spouting meaningless rhetoric without substantiation in the belief that you have some deity given right to be the only one right and astute enough to comprehend what the rest of the industry cannot. A dangerous mindset Dick.

But, the above as just one example proves that industry is not as stupid as you think.

I think there's a religion somewhere waiting for a new deity figure - jump in the Citation (without me) and head there - safer than digging the hole any deeper here :ugh::ugh:

james michael

13th Jul 2008, 01:35

Bing

and then, along came a few hundred GPS guided terror weapons

:confused:

Bob Murphie

13th Jul 2008, 02:02

james michael;

I suspect I know who you are so I am not concerned with your being exposed or not. If you are indeed who I suspect, the moderators will ban you as they did your real identity if you step out of line. There is more value in, as you say, in having the debate. This I note you to be as an avid supporter of the concept (and the subsidy whether it comes to being or not).

If indeed you are whom I suspect, you are a private VFR pilot with limited flying experience and your knowledge of the subject was not gleaned from April here on Pprune, when you arrived here, but quiet some time prior as an active participant in an implementation team as an industry representative.

If indeed you are whom I suspect, you hold a position of trust in a GA organization who’s members look toward you to save them money and act in their best interests.

If indeed you are whom I suspect, I am certain there is no pecuniary gain in this debate for you, however your motives, if you are whom I suspect, would certainly fit your previously demonstrated ability to ingratiate yourself into positions of importance.

If indeed you are whom I suspect, I am about to get a kicking from OZBUSDRIVER and the other pro ADSB / anti Dick Smith brigade to take the heat off you, and as per your habit, if you are the person whom I suspect you are, you must always have the last say.

In concluasion, something that has bothered me for some time now, and Dick has mentioned it in passing, that nobody from Airservices has come forth to identify themselves and sell the concept. It almost seems that they know the whole show could fall over and they could be held responsible in some way.

A “patsy” would be a very handy thing to have on side to sell ADSB and still have clean hands if things went sour. If indeed you are whom I think you are, I hope your peers will accept your actions.

Dick Smith

13th Jul 2008, 02:07

James, thanks for giving us some details from astute industry people who also saw major flaws with the JCP Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Why were these people taken no notice off?

I am sure readers of this thread will be disturbed to find that industry people had similar concerns with the CBA as I had and they were also ignored as the project was buldozed ahead.

James,I am sure you will agree that the "areas of concern" that you quote have never been addressed by Airservices or any one else pushing the project. Does this worry you? I bet it worries lots of others reading this thread.

Thanks for making it clear to everyone who reads this thread that I am not the sole individual urging caution and wanting major CBA flaws to be corrected before a final decision is made on the $100m subsidy proposal.

Or do you think we should go ahead anyway because "it won't cost GA anything".

Dick Smith

13th Jul 2008, 02:18

Bob, I reckon you are right! And whats the chance he will be offered some "important" position on an Airservices "consultative' panel or something similar as a "reward" fo his support?

T28D

13th Jul 2008, 02:36

AH, funny how the facts might just upset the james michael applecart, Consultative Position for Airservices, god save us !!!!!!

james michael

13th Jul 2008, 02:43

Bob Murphie

You are entitled to your opinions be they right or wrong although I fail to find where your last post offers any comment on the FACTS re ADS-B.

Instead it perpetuates the Dick innuendo and man-play that is increasing on this thread since Dick's fanciful fairytales were exposed to the light of FACT.

Dick

whats the chance he will be offered some "important" position on an Airservices "consultative' panel or something similar as a "reward" fo his support?

You have lost me, Dick. What gutter was that penned from?

That statement from you who wrote on bended knees to the Minister on 3 July and stated In the past I have been involved in the decision making for complex air traffic equipment where risks were high. I offer my services to the Government in an advisory capacity to help ensure the correct decision is made.

I hope it is becoming increasingly obvious to all who read this thread - hopefully many of influence - that your house of cards has crumbled under the weight of evidence, Dick, and your petulant response is to go the players - trying to mow the opposition down with a single dummy spit.

I came on this thread to canvass information and debate ADS-B issues with people of intelligence and some fact or reasonable knowledge. You have been a total disappointment to me.

thanks for giving us some details from astute industry people who also saw major flaws with the JCP Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Those same astute people, Dick, have recently agreed to NOT oppose the proposal moving forward.

Next pilot medical, Dick, tell the DAME how you are absolutely correct and the majority of intelligent focussed people in the industry are wrong. I'll be interested in the outcome :)

Dick Smith

13th Jul 2008, 03:06

James, what you are saying is that even though the industry saw flaws in the Cost/Benefit case- that was the whole basis for the deal- that they still decided that the $100m "subsidy" from the airlines was to good to be true and should be grabbed regardless.

I bet there was not one astute businessman at the meeting - no Geoff Dixon, no Brett Godfrey and no Alan Joyce. I certainly was not allowed near the place.

Once these people hear the true story the decision will be very different - wait and see!

james michael

13th Jul 2008, 03:43

Smith

I certainly was not allowed near the place
Proves there a lot more astute people in the industry than even I thought.

I'll correspond with you again when you reach what I consider an acceptable public level of common courtesy and ability to maintain a sensible debate based on fact. I won't hold my breath.

peuce

13th Jul 2008, 03:47

... Hi folks, just popping my head in, on my way back from the Isle of Elba ...
... have I missed anything?:)

... Geez ... JM is still here ... how'd he manage that??:ok:

... Geez ... Dick is still whinging about anonomous posts ... have the PPRUNE rules only just changed? I though it was alway anonoymous! Why would you come here knowing that Dick ... if you are the real Dick ???:hmm:

... Ah, I see ... Dick wants to know why Airservices won't come out and play??? Dick, do you really think that Airservices makes its decisions based on the debate of a bunch of old angry aviators in a public chat room ???:D

Any decision on this, or other Industry matters will be made within the confines of the appropriate Consultative Groups...:oh:

Stuff said here ... is just white noise ...:8

Bob Murphie

13th Jul 2008, 04:19

peuce;

Pprune is a great advertising medium. This thread to date has had, as I write,7708 hits. Great way to sell a product. james michael could probably only garner a few thousand from preaching to his own flock.

Is it all white noise?

OZBUSDRIVER

13th Jul 2008, 05:38

I cannot let this one go to the keeper-

Dick said-I formed and am Patron of The Australian Skeptics - Thats why I critically examine every claim.

Dick I have this problem with your claim to be able to "spoof" ADS-B signals. And, seeing as you are the president of your self styled society, how about putting your money where your mouth is!

Bob, your arguments are the exact same ones that allowed the Hawke government to ignore their "Social Responsibilty" by tugging the forlock to the new Tsars of the treasury, The dry economic rationalists! This is a whole different argument, that I wish PPRUNE and the net were available back then, to try and fight the biggest injustice every hoisted on any community in Australia. Why should us country people have to pay for services in the cities...and then you promptly found out who was subsidising who....enjoy your dirt road! By the way, I am bush bred and I am terribly disappointed in my "Elders" for rolling over on something so essential.

Well, well, well. I am only one of 22 GA respondants to the JCP. I too voted for acceptance with modification. And today, I have been compared to a Spiv. Nice one, Dick:ok:

The device is a change mitigator. With introduction, the device will allow a scaleable, cost effective rollout of surveillance capability, unprecidented in this country since the invention of FLIGHT SERVICES!

Once again, this argument is fast approaching the end. not one shred of evidence has been presented that would uphold the argument against roll-out. The purile attempts to compare AirServices with the AWB fiasco in Iraq, by comparison, is suggesting that GA is the equivalent of the evil dictator's regime forcing a bribe on AirServices to get ADS-B over the line. If GA isn't the comparison, who is, and why? The comparison with the SeaSprite? I would say that TAAATS was a closer comparison with the helicopter purchase. Those in charge kept adding more and more capability until EUROCAT became EUROCAT(X). I say, in the end, the endevour was worthwhile because it would appear we have arrived at a better version than even ThomsonCSF or Hughes had originally tendered for. My history is not very clear on the intricasies of the tendering but a court case suggests that at least one of the parties was not happy with the process. ADS-B, by comparison, is the bare, no bones roll-out of the basic 1090ES system. As per the Europeans and US upper airspace and ICAO and IATA positions for the 2015 world deadline.

May I suggest to the tribunal that Mr Smith is sin binned for three weeks for harsh body contact on his opponents on numerous occasions. He has no eye for the ball and clearly targets his opposite number in the ruck.

Bob Murphie

13th Jul 2008, 06:25

Do you honestly think that the new Minister for things flying gives a rat's about GA. How far into these arguements do you think he has read with purposeful mind? Hawke is history as will your ADSB project if you think the subsidy is a done deal.

I do enjoy my gravel road by the way and my nearest neighbour is half a Km away. We like it like that. I go to the local once a week to keep up with gossip and I must admit it is far better to get the fifth hand version with amendments than the immediate electronic reply of forums.

Quokka

13th Jul 2008, 08:24

May I suggest to the tribunal that Mr Smith is sin binned for three weeks for harsh body contact on his opponents on numerous occasions. He has no eye for the ball and clearly targets his opposite number in the ruck.

I second that motion... Ref!!!... send the bounder off!!!

CaptainMidnight

13th Jul 2008, 09:04

You seem to be a selfish recipient.

You probably believe you will be rewarded for your efforts.

I believe you to be a silly little man whom I sincerely hope will fail.
For all anyone knows you and your supporters could be con-men with criminal histories who have hidden agendas.
Bob, I reckon you are right! And whats the chance he will be offered some "important" position on an Airservices "consultative' panel or something similar as a "reward" fo his support?

Yep - I see nothing has changed here.

Why anyone bothers to contribute escapes me.

Scurvy.D.Dog

13th Jul 2008, 13:57

RHS …. So as to stop the thread drift dilution you seek, I have responded to your ATC spin on a new thread :ok:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/d-g-reporting-points/334932-airspace-merry-go-round-especially-you-sir-murray-rivers.html

On those subjects, knock yourself out over there ….. leave this thread for ADS-B ONLY thanks!

Before we move on though, a couple of points worthy of comment :suspect:

Dick Smith 13th July 2008 11:17

And Quokka you say "Play the ball not the man"

For that to work I have to know who "the man" is!
…. No, you only want to 'know the man' so the replys are sanitised due the spectre of certain peoples penchant to threaten …. a song comes to mind! Oh sweet C@#$%*&e :=

Thats just one of the reasons you and your colleagues will fail even if you are right.
….. about says it all, you are clearly not interested in what is right or wrong or evidence based, just motherhood statements!

If you are genuine and are not set to gain financially from this huge $100m bribe
You are calling the ASTRA, ABIT, GIT industry consults and signatories criminals? … even though the revised JCP and the consultative meetings say different!? ..are you satisfied that this is the case, as you seem unwilling or unable to bring any facts to support your hideous slurs to the table! …. is that all that is left for you?

come out in your own name and say so!
.. you know me, have done for years …. Do you seriously think the decent hard working folks working on this from many agencies, companies and representative bodies are going to have anything to do with you, when you rant and rave and call them criminals!! ….. you must be completely delusional if you think they will!

Prune anonyminity was clearly never intended for the purpose it is now being put to!
… that would be along the lines of enabling considered, evidence based free speech, and providing protection from those that would seek to sensor it (and them) with threats and intimidation!

Yes quite!

Captain Midnight 13th July 2008 20:04

Why anyone bothers to contribute escapes me.
Tis easy Capt’n … why should we not be able to discuss and debate just because a mouth piece doesn’t like the truth of what is being divulged!

Now back to the discussion

Avionics and Fitment costs

Has anyone got any numbers or experiences to bring to the table of Avionics (new and second-hand conversion) and the sorts of cost involved with 146 GNSS and or TXPDR fit/replace etc

From my feedback, this is the issue most are interested in!

Also mentioned earlier is augmentation .... anyone know the state of play i.e.

WAAS, SBAS, GBAS - compatibility, when, how, which is most likely?

james michael

13th Jul 2008, 21:41

Mr Dog

You will not be popular!

Everyone by now realises Dick's hyperbole was no match for logical factual argument so the weekend decision was that he and his sycophants (Dick-ophants?) would go the man to try force thread deterioration and closure.

One issue re fitment is our friends at CASA and the paper war that adds no value but often unreasonable cost.

This example from a friend of his estimate to fit a fixed 496 beacon:

In Australia, stupidity prevails, and so changing the ELT will require:

* A CAR 35 aeronautical engineering assessment for the mounting - including drawings - even to mount the ELT and antenna in the same screw holes, in the existing bracket, using supplied hardware and for any changes to the antenna mount or the panel cutout for the remote switch;

* A CAR 35 aeronautical engineering assessment for any required wiring modification - even if the supplier provides a complete kit including remote switch and cabling;

* An airframe LAME to remove/reinstall the interior trim and make any necessary adjustments to the hole in the instrument panel;

* An approved person to update the aircraft's weight and balance unless the weight change is negligible; and

* An avionics LAME to connect the wiring, install the battery and test the device; it might also need an E&I LAME if the remote switch requires power.

This forthcoming ELT requirement has been been known for years, yet CASA has done nothing to regulate to support it or provide relief to GA for timely installation and compliance. Instead of being a simple exchange of one unit (probably made by the same manufacturer) for another, this will become a significant project.

I hope the industry can pursue a more logical approach re ADS-B.

As an aside, I believe spy-cam managed a picture of one known to us preparing for ADS-B learning on the weekend. If I can work out how to get a pic up here, I will try and share later.

Kaptain_Kaos

13th Jul 2008, 22:35

Just thought I might wander back and see how the fairy story thread was going.

Seems we have gone from Chicken Little to the Emperors New Clothes in fast forward.

JM, SDD and CM and the other unbelievers, my congratulations.:D:D:D

Dick (if in fact that is who you are), next time you might declare your hand early so that the other honest well intentioned people on this forum might not waste precious personal time on your mischief. Maybe a heading like " I'm bored and I need people to remember who I am" might work. Just a suggestion.

Thanks Dick, (if in fact that is who you are), but a complete waste of time.:eek::zzz:

Scurvy.D.Dog

13th Jul 2008, 23:18

Mr Dog

You will not be popular!
That is the glaring difference between me and him .... I don't seek to be populist ... I couldn't give a rats!

Dick Smith

13th Jul 2008, 23:26

James Michael, I agree with you in relation to the prescriptive requirements to fit a fixed 406 beacon. These come about because there is no real understanding in CASA that cost is important. It is almost as if there is a “fundamentalism” there which says that CASA has nothing to do with cost.

Most importantly, lots of people have criticised AOPA at the time of Boyd Munro, but he was the person who won the battle so that Australian pilots could have portable ELTs – not fixed, which CASA at the time was requiring. Boyd actually used the political process to win that one and it has saved the general aviation industry an extraordinary amount of money.

Remember, a fixed ELT sinks with the plane, whereas a portable one can be held by the pilot if he or she gets out during a ditching – which is normally possible.

More importantly, does anyone know who attended the 19 June ASTRA joint ABIT and GIT meeting (whatever that means)? It appears this was the group that made the unanimous decision to support the low level $100 million subsidy – even though many agreed that the cost benefit study (which was the basis for the subsidy) was flawed.

Does anyone know who was representing Qantas, Virgin and Jetstar at this meeting? I ask this because I understand that the senior management at these three organisations do not support their organisations being part of this subsidy.

james michael

14th Jul 2008, 00:17

KK

I like your style.

I think the problem is solved - it is attention span and conceptual stasis.

Less than a day ago I posted as regards analysis of the JCP responses:
Airline stakeholder viewpoints expressed were by the following organisations: regional, domestic and international airlines; local and international airline representative bodies; and professional pilots’ associations.

Without exception, these respondents supported the proposal, including the proposed timing and cross-industry funding, as well as acknowledging the safety and operational benefits that will be provided by satellite-based navigation and surveillance.

Today we find:
Does anyone know who was representing Qantas, Virgin and Jetstar at this meeting? I ask this because I understand that the senior management at these three organisations do not support their organisations being part of this subsidy.

Are there any psychologists studying this thread who can suggest means to overcome selective attention, answering only one question in ten, and baseless assertions?

Is it me - should I need to feel like an armless man trying to communicate in Auslan with a deaf/blind person?

Dick Smith

14th Jul 2008, 02:28

James Michael,

What happens if this scenario is correct? That is Airservices has already got the GA industry to acknowledge “the safety and operational benefits” of the low level ADSB proposal for GA aircraft and when the mandate comes in, the Government makes an announcement that unfortunately the subsidy cannot go ahead (for legal or constitutional reasons), however if people can afford their own aircraft they should at least be able to afford a mere $10,000 for “the safety and operational benefits”.

I believe this is a very likely scenario. Of course everyone from Airservices, CASA and the airline industry would be extremely apologetic about this terrible change of direction "that was forced on them". Only time will tell if I am correct.

Scurvy.D.Dog

14th Jul 2008, 02:47

Of course everyone from Airservices, CASA and the airline industry would be extremely apologetic about this terrible change of direction "that was forced on them". Only time will tell if I am correct.
... what strings have you been hanging off to attept to have the subsidy dropped?? := ... if you are correct (which you are not), we will know who was responsible! :suspect:

Dick Smith

14th Jul 2008, 03:19

Scurvy, I do not believe the subsidy will go ahead and even though I will not be involved in this decision I will be a convenient scapegoat!

I will say again that I support ADSB ,especially the high level system as it is going in in parallel with the existing radar and multilateration system.

Why don't you comment about the multimillion dollar multilateration system which is nearly fully installed in Tasmania? It will work with standard mode C transponders and without the GPS system so it could be quite a fantastic system.

If I owned Airservices I would keep rolling out the high level ADSB system including the east coast and Tassie- I would then roll out more of the multilateration system from Tassie to Cairns and then remove the SSR's- result - a fully backed up system without expensive to maintain mechanical en -route radar heads.

Then again I have always been conservative in my business decisions.

Scurvy, How about another cup of coffee!

james michael

14th Jul 2008, 03:23

Mr Dog

Very well said. Having made up his mind that our only attack is "Into the Valley of Death" General Murray Rivers (I like your style) will send in the GA cannon fodder - having done all possible to ensure the enemy are forewarned and forearmed.

A legacy of successful campaigns - Airspace 2000 = another unique Australian mandate, transponders in Class E; User Pays = but not for the USA; 25 Years of holding at Williamtown = ?; Free transit through Avalon = Class C; Shorter straight in approaches for NAS2C = actually for me at Bowylie (wiley being the appropriate term); now ADS-B as the next campaign.

Based on outstanding past campaigns, let us march forward to his cry "I am their leader, I must follow them - oh, darn, I don't have any facts or a map to find my way".

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Jul 2008, 03:36

Gee Dick, you catch on quick. And what do think happens then? The CASA mandates and all your struggling GA mates have to fork out for fitment or get locked out of all airspace down to CTAF(R)

I bet your advisor(s) will thank you from the bottom of his/their heart(s) that you saved him/them from subsidised fitment.

Scurvy, I do not believe the subsidy will go ahead and even though I will not be involved in this decision I will be a convenient scapegoat! Well, how about putting your name on the other side of the ledger so we can see you are serious about ADS-B and we will think you are an alright sort of guy.

Multilateration, as proposed by the Canadian government, is a stopgap measure until ADS-B is fully implimented. Why would it be any different here. Look at the number of stations to be installed in the small area of Tassie and then multiply that by at least 200 and you may come close to getting the same coverage from AD to CS. While you are at it, why not push for UAT and make it free for GA like the yanks. 1700 sites across the lower 48 to get the coverage so GA can get their free UAT with TIS and Garmin gear at ten times the cost compared to the Europeans. What a wonderful dream you have!

antzx6r

14th Jul 2008, 03:38

This is hilarious. Its like a Skulls scene with masked private school F:mad:s standing around the ostrasized one, laughing, saying "Look at him, he's out of his mind!!!" while he's giving reasonable forcasts on how this is going to play out.
Unlike a movie however, it is very likely that this will go through, we will pay for it and it will be a mess. CASA will release a glowing report on its success however and Airservices will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Rugby euphemisms? Come on...:cool:

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Jul 2008, 03:50

Ant, it depends on who you think the bully is.

PS the reference was the AFL Tribunal. Rara doesn't have that rule.

antzx6r

14th Jul 2008, 04:03

Usually its the cowards with the pack mentality.
I didn't think AFL had a ruck?

james michael

14th Jul 2008, 04:04

Antz

You got it all right except for two things.

First, there is at present a semi-contractual arrangement that gets the subsidy for GA. A contract is based on offer, acceptance, consideration.

Should there be an attempt to pull the subsidy, there is a distinct argument that the contract is frustrated.

BUT, big BUT, if Dick "WINS" this for us then in the technological evolution of time we are GUARANTEED to have to pay for it because ADS-B WILL come about and WILL be mandated by CASA.

So do we follow Dick into guaranteed expense or take the punt on the subsidy, for which the next subsidy option (2028) is too late to save our wallets.

Second, if this was a reasoned debate, Dick would not be the ostracised one. Unfortunately, Dick has no credibility in this matter - his behaviour is such that the authorities refuse to give him the box of matches in the ADS-B gunpowder factory. Have you seen his reply yet from the Minister promoting him to ADS-B consultant?

Someone, not me, recently said this about someone else (not saying who, you play fill in the dots) - He did not seem to know too much about the ADS-B proposal, the technicalities or the equipment, nor did he want to listen to any explanation of what was proposed

In similar vein, if a little knowledge is dangerous, Dick's ministerial appointment to ADS-B consultant will be cancelled to make him head of our Military SAS :)

Turning to ADS-B fitment, I had two discussions this morning that question whether the fitment itself and associated paperwork may take the total past the subsidy. I'll continue to dig.