Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco? [Archive] - Page 4

Jabawocky

29th Jul 2008, 11:01

Did you love the section 7 bit, so many responses and so many plagairised copys...... sorry form letters.

Really makes you wonder how the credibility of further inputs from the lighter end of town will be treated.

I think they shot themselves in the foot here!:D

7 Light Sports & Recreational Aviation Views (individuals)
7.1 By far the majority of responses came from this group. While it is not possible to classify all
of the responses, in general, they can be grouped as follows:
• Support the proposal without change 3
• The proposal may be acceptable with changes (various exemptions) 43
• Do not support the proposal 61
• Do not support the proposal (form letter response) 59
7.2 Input included:
• Most objections to the proposal (including from many who rejected the proposal
outright) related only to operations in Class G airspace and at CTAF(R) airports. Many
respondents clearly identified that they were only commenting on the mid-2014
requirements.
• A significant number of respondents stated that they understand the safety and
operational benefits associated with the proposal and the proposal sounds good, but
they would not support it because they believe the exemptions available for their
operation (particularly gliding and hang-gliding) would be eroded over time.
• A number of respondents who suggested that all aircraft – including unpowered
aircraft – should be required to be ADS-B equipped.
• A considerable number of respondents had not read or had misunderstood the JCP,
with objections including:
• Ultralight flyers shouldn’t be expected to fund their own avionics (they would have
been eligible for cross industry funding).
• Recreational aviation has never been consulted on this (a number of groups
representing recreational aviation are active participants of ABIT).
• Hang gliders should be exempt (they would be).

OZBUSDRIVER

29th Jul 2008, 12:17

Flying Binghi- Time for Rebuttal!

This thread was started on 24/06/08 at 10:52
Light Aircraft Could Be Used as Bombs (http://http://www.pprune.org/forums/private-flying/332324-light-aircraft-could-bombs-2.html#post4200771) starts the same day at 05:52

you make your first post on this thread at 21:52 What happens to ADS-B when civvy GPS is turned off?

on the 24th on Bomb Thread GBZ posts-OK, entering into the spirit of fantasy and paranoia; how about, say, a flexwing microlight with a shaped charge IED in the nose? I'm sure any self respecting terr could knock together 100 lb weight of high impulse explosive with some light metal and foam plastic to direct its energy.

On the 25th at 00:52 you post on the bomb thread. You, as a good pilot defend aviation by trying to draw attention to other means of terrorism like Fire Bombing and Anthrax attacks.Why would osama waste his time with light aircraft - Heck, take 20 litres of petrol to the local night club and burn, baby burn andHas every body foregotten the Anthrax scare post 9-elleven ? It was actualy a big concern for most people - far more-so then aircraft
Unforetunatly it doesnt have the same evening TV news effect as aircraft flying into buildings, probably why most have foregotten all about it
WHO needs an aircraft when you can post it
You then get a free primer on what terrorism really means to the people of England who have been directly affected by terrorism.

On the 27/06/08 at 08:34 You post hereTheres still one big problem with ADS-B... What happens when the civy GPS signal is lost ?
It would appear that you haven't quite worked out a good argument for this yet.

At 08:53 on the Bomb thread, Robin posts-GA of my sort is not an effective threat in any conceivable way. Someone wanting to fly out of a farm strip would have to have completed the NPPL at least and then worked on strip flying for a bit - that is not the way that terrorists work.

They use low-tech tecniques and do it in the easiest possible way - forget about low end-GA. It is yet another scare story from a government who needs to keep us worried

08:59You reply-robin, Youve got that right. We are all aware of the governments intelligent and extremely well thought out response to an earlier terrorist event - INVADE IRAQ that helped to calm the fanatics ???

Now this is where things get fuzzy. In reply to SDD at 11:13 you say-Thanks for the links scurvy, You probably havnt read my previous posts on 'why' the GPS signal maybe turned off, I tend to remove the posts fairly quikly. They were about UA-Vehicles and the miss-use off.
Question, Why go from an anti-conspiracy theorist in the Bomb thread to
a believer in the very real threat of terrorism here? And why the need to remove posts expressing your main fear of GPS? Your post-It is unforetunate that as a pilot I have to piont out alternate possibilities (petrol at the night club scenario) to counter these 'seen to be doing something' reports (or is that 'inflating their own self importance' reports) that focus on aviation as THE threat. Is quite revealing!

At 13:38 on the Bomb thread, RatherBeFlying posts-Why bother with a C-172 when you can do up a UAV?

A recent NOTAM hereabouts disclosed that a UAV 17' long with a 22' wingspan was lurking about at heights up to 700' AGL. The computer can take care of the flying and the GPS can pinpoint delivery. Takeoff can be done from a deserted parking lot at night.But that's too much work compared to loading up a car with explosives. And the jihadis are not about to knock off their best recruiters; so, the occupants of 10 Downing St and the WH have no worries

Flying Binghi is never seen on this thread again. Funny thing, from here on Flying Binghi firms up on his scenario for the terrorist UAV. It is too much for just co-incidence. Not very original.

Up to this point Binghi was trying to use SA or Solar Interference for his argument. I put it to him he uses the Bomb thread to formulate his attack on this thread opposing ADS-B use of GPS.

other arguments about reliance on a system with no back-ups by comparison with the fall over of Optus. Falls over by comparison to GPS argument.

I have to ask. Flying Binghi, why do you personally oppose ADS-B? Surely, it isn't your fear of a foreign controlled navigation system. Nor is it a fear of foreign attack. So, why do you oppose on these grounds?

Scurvy.D.Dog

29th Jul 2008, 15:11

:E ..... well well .... the previous two posts :ok: demonstrate with stark clarity the fact that the 'buzz-ing (we'll all be rooned) doomsayers' in this debate have had their hypocritcal fly's well and truly unzipped all along :=
.
:)

Flying Binghi

29th Jul 2008, 20:08

OZBUSDRIVER, for one thing, I think you have missed the piont of my comments about the detectabilitie of an 'in-house' terrorist event ... or is it, yet again, you are attempting to deliberatly miss-represent what I post :hmm: I see some more of the same again. ... oh, and I thought I was on your 'ignore' list, youve written it three times now :rolleyes:

OZBUSDRIVER, I still dont see any rebutle to the GPS guided Buzz Bomb scenario in your post. I do see a lot of distracters though :hmm:

It would appear that you haven't quite worked out a good argument for this yet

I'm a bit mistified what my input into the "Light Aircraft could Be used as Bombs" thread has to do with this thread ? After all, I'm putting the scenario to this thread which is ADS-B and by association GPS.

I have been covering the GPS guided Buzz Bomb scenario pria to this thread under the UAV moniker ... and, I dont recall saying I was the inventer of the idea. ...Soooo, OZBUSDRIVER, I'm wondering what your piont is. As I've written before, several times, I'm an aircraft owner and pilot with some concerns, and concerns that have received many near hysterical responses in this thread :hmm:

And, OZBUSDRIVER, if your going to do quotes, better do it showing just what part of the other persons post I was refering too.

Re. the "Light Aircraft could Be used as Bombs" thread -

The section of the "robin" post I referenced - (notice my mention of the Iraq invasion ... whats that weapon inspector chaps name ... Walter Mitty, was it ?) via my post 119 -
"It is yet another scare story from a government who needs to keep us worried"

My reply, (post 119) -
robin, Youve got that right.

We are all aware of the governments intelligent and extremely well thought out response to an earlier terrorist event - INVADE IRAQ :hmm:
..... that helped to calm the fanatics :rolleyes:

Think I'll sit back again and watch for a while :)

.

OZBUSDRIVER

29th Jul 2008, 21:48

Binghi,say G'Day to Bob for me:E
Oh sorry, I see you have changed your TUNE you have gone from undetectable out of country terrorist attacks to "in-house" terrorist attacks.

Your argument is borrowed and irrelevant. And, what makes it worse, you made me read eight pages of drivel you call posts to compile this mess:yuk:

james michael

29th Jul 2008, 21:52

FB

When I gave you that quote 'outstanding in my field'
I was under the impression you may have been a fair dinkum poster.

I agree with OZBUS. Having read what you have posted long-term on this thread - and I must say your posts remind me of another's style - I'll give you another quote that probably has more relevance to my assessment of the buzz bomb scenario.

FB walks onto the farm and says 'can you use me on the land' and the farmer says 'we have fertiliser for that'. :D

PS Before anyone asks I'm only passing through quickly as I am way way in arrears. But, to answer two questions - one on here, one on another thread:

First, you do NOT need an extra transponder for MODE C when operating ADS-B. The ES unit - being smart (unlike some posts hereon) provides the ADS-B signal, PLUS Mode C under TCAS or MSSR interrogation.

Second, my research has obtained the legal information sought on another thread but, because of the circumstances (to be revealed in about two months) I am not passing on the detail on here.

Bob Murphie

30th Jul 2008, 05:08

jabawocky;

One may ask from the representatives from the "lighter" side if they agree with the enthusiasts shoving this stuff down our neck, or do they just know what's best for their members?

OK then, the subsidy (bribe), if it comes about, they are for it, right? But are they all really agin it, if there is no subsidy? Or does Dick get it anyway?

Edit to add for the cryptic previous post: My own research has obtained legal information but, because of the circumstances I am not passing on the detail on here because it involves a change to my will that involves lost cats and dogs and old Ladies and, I am cutting a few out of my Christmas card list, but I may tell someone, if I feel like it one day.

Check your oil dipstick.:bored:

Flying Binghi

30th Jul 2008, 07:42

I was under the impression you may have been a fair dinkum poster.

Obviously my over 500 posts to PPrune arnt genuine enuf :rolleyes:

Second, my research has obtained the legal information sought on another thread but, because of the circumstances (to be revealed in about two months) I am not passing on the detail on here.

Its like being back at school again :rolleyes: ... keep us posted james michael :)

Flying Binghi

30th Jul 2008, 11:11

Scurvy.D.Dog

30th Jul 2008, 12:01

Running outa puff they are ;)
.
The we'll all be roon'd boy's who cried Play the ball and not the man :rolleyes: .... continue to Play the man and not the ball ... :=
.
Whose boring, repetitive and bereft of a substantiatible opinion eh BF? :hmm:

OZBUSDRIVER

30th Jul 2008, 13:04

Bob, your view is just a matter of your perspective. You just have to realise that it isn't the same as everyone else. Look, come the revolution your back wont be to the wall, you just miss out on some airspace you probably do not use. So, what right do you have to say your way or the highway to the people who actually have to fly in the airspace that will be affected by any change.

What worries me now is how much damage Mr Smith is causing behind the scenes.Is there any way we could set up a campaign to thwart Mr Smith's advances? I believe he is now the biggest threat to ADS-B implimentation.

Flying Binghi

30th Jul 2008, 13:24

Oh, by the way OZBUSDRIVER, thanks for the reference to NORAD - very inforemative ...............:cool:

Drifter Flyer

30th Jul 2008, 21:31

" Really makes you wonder how the credibility of further inputs from the lighter end of town"

How can someone that flies a Jabiru; somehow think they are superior because it has VH numbers on the side..........I'm sure to believe the post from someone like that.

Self Contempt...now there's a good start!

Flying Binghi

30th Jul 2008, 22:21

In the cess pool but superior?

" Really makes you wonder how the credibility of further inputs from the lighter end of town"

How can someone that flies a Jabiru; somehow think they are superior because it has VH numbers on the side..........I'm sure to believe the post from someone like that.

Self Contempt...now there's a good start!

Got youreself a new call sign, eh Jabawocky :hmm:

OZBUSDRIVER

30th Jul 2008, 22:27

Drifter flyer, welcome to the land of PPRuNe. It's got little to do with contempt and more to do with substance. The JCP revue showed a number of people from the recreational end of town didn't actually read the paper. If you do fly a drifter and do not fly out of a CTAF(R) nor ABV5000 then you need neither a transponder nor a radio. You will always be exempt from having to fit an ADS-B transponder to your aircraft. Same for hang gliders.
Misinformation is rife.

If on the other hand you upgrade to an MCR-01 or a Millenium Master then, different kettle of fish. Operationally you would like to fly these little speedsters as high as you can get. It would be very prudent to get a controlled airspace sign off, a radio and a transponder. This type of aircraft would be eligable for the ADS-B subsidy.

Your drifter flying is not affected. However your opposition affects those who actually want to use that airspace. Please take this into consideration. Please check the facts to ensure your position to prove to yourself where and when you need to fit a radio and transponder. RAA will always remain for all its members not just the ones who fly plastic fantastics as a lot of rag and tube people fear. I am pretty sure they will never forget their roots. I am also pretty sure that RAA will fight tooth and nail to protect a blanket application for fitment to all of its aircraft register. Only those aircraft who fly into CTAF(R) and ABV 5000ft need to be included in the rollout.

Flying Binghi

30th Jul 2008, 22:33

Jabawocky

30th Jul 2008, 23:00

FB
Got youreself a new call sign, eh Jabawocky :hmm:

Nahhhhh mate, no new call signs here. But I think this new recruit will find the waters a bit deeper here and the sharks far less tolerating of childish posts.

Drifter driver....... You need some chill pills mate. You most likely have no idea what various a/c I fly, because if you did you would not make that one idiotic post.

SDD what did you say about playing the ball v the man? Some people do not get it hey!

And back to FB who asked a serious question albeit off track.

we can see you hold the Ultralighters in high regard ... or is that contempt ? :hmm:

FB let me make this quite clear..... I DO NOT! The fact is the many submissions received were basically "No under any circumstances votes" and were exposed as being under researched due to the kinds of questions asked, (read the report) and to make matters worse an equal number were just "form letters".

It stands out like blood on snow, that the vast majority of the "Light end of Flying" objected with very little sensible arguement, otherwise it would have been printed, rather than the few statements many of which were not that strong. When the report goes to the length of making this comment.....A considerable number of respondents had not read or had misunderstood the JCP,
with objections including:

....... one has to ask, what were they thinking?:hmm:

Now the fact is you can not tell on the face of the report exactly who wrote what and from which groups, and thats fine, the lighter end being gliders HGFA, RAA, it does not matter as such, however it would appear that many of the "Donkey votes' may have come from RAA ranks who were campaigned quite heavily by the RAA in magazine articles and other forums to object.

Now...........THE MAIN POINT, regardless whether it was RAA, HGFA GFA or all three or just a random selection of all three groups, when you get a result like that and the comment made that a considerable number had not read the JCP or understood it.......it smells fishy and does not paint a good picture for those groups in the eyes of those processing and evaluating the report. Any sensible objective reader would have to think...... can't take these submissions all that seriously, they never read the JCP and just wrote form letters objecting for the sake of objecting.

Just in case you are wondering..... I do have and have had for many years RAA membership, I have many friends with various a/c types in RAA categories and I keep my lic. for the purpose of flying some fun machines from time to time or when need be for whatever reason. I do believe they are a fantastic group and provide for many people a great opportunity. I do just believe that in this case they and the others involved in those submissions shot themselves and all their members in the foot. This as a member displeases me greatly.

The fact I am pro ADSB has nothing at all to do with my opinions above.

J:ok:

Flying Binghi

30th Jul 2008, 23:16

Nahhhhh mate, no new call signs here. But I think this new recruit will find the waters a bit deeper here and the sharks far less tolerating of childish posts.

Drifter driver....... You need some chill pills mate. You most likely have no idea what various a/c I fly, because if you did you would not make that one idiotic post.

SDD what did you say about playing the ball v the man? Some people do not get it hey!

....yep, ring-in :hmm:

re. playing the "ball and not the man" ... good idea, apart from much silly abuse I am yet to see any real challange to the GPS Guided Buzz Bomb scenario .................. care to play the ball Jabawocky :hmm:

Looks like I will have to post the entire scenario again, for the umpteenth time, and see if somebody can provide a direct rebutale with-out going postle on me :)

I see OZBUSDRIVER had an attempt at a rebutale in a previous post then, probably after somebody pionted out the major flaws in the aurgument, the post was edited. Be interesting to see OZBUSDRIVER put those edited comments back up ... somehow I dont think that will happen :hmm:

OZBUSDRIVER

30th Jul 2008, 23:20

Not a Middle o f the road type of opinion from the RAA, do you think, Jaba?:E

Scurvy.D.Dog

30th Jul 2008, 23:50

FB said.. ....yep, ring-in
.. mirror mirror on the wall....re. playing the "ball and not the man" ... good idea, apart from much silly abuse I am yet to see any real challange to the GPS Guided Buzz Bomb scenario
It has been answered in every aspect by many people many times .... you just choose not to acknowledge it! ... therefore:-

.. whose the greatest hypocrite of them all? :hmm: :=
.
.
Give it up Bingo, you sound like an excessive compulsive member of the sceptics society :8 .... give him my worst regards would you :} :E

Bob Murphie

31st Jul 2008, 00:38

OZBUSDRIVER;

This has just about been done to death. You and I both believe each is out of step with the rest of the World and nothing is going to change our respective minds.

Regards perspective, I can understand Airservices position and accept Regionals wanting "sterile" airspace, but you and I are both private pilots (read that as amateur), with no real impact being brought to bear on either of us whichever way things turn out.

What fuels your passion?

Jabawocky

31st Jul 2008, 01:27

Bob, Great question!:D I mean that in all sincerity.

What fuels your passion?

I can not speak for OZBUS, but for myself its not when I am bugsmashing around myself............. my passion is for all the small RPT and bigger who really could do with the surveillence.

Its when my bum, your bum, and all our fellow Australians bums, and out beloved tourists bums are in those RPT seats, be they Metro's or A320's.

Too many of the folk here are two self centred in their thoughts about this topic and need to look outside the box they fly in.

The problem is we need to carry a small box, paid for by the big end of town.............and we might gain some small benefit also......so whats the problem!!!!

I think we have would have to all agree here....... I hope!

J

Jabawocky

31st Jul 2008, 01:30

FB

re. playing the "ball and not the man" ... good idea, apart from much silly abuse I am yet to see any real challange to the GPS Guided Buzz Bomb scenario .................. care to play the ball Jabawocky :hmm:

Play the ball..............love too, but my score card is ever increasing and you must be getting very tired from the number of WIDES you keep bowling!

J:E

OZBUSDRIVER

31st Jul 2008, 02:43

Bob, ask yourself why you allowed transponders to be fitted to VFR GA all those years ago? That is answer enough.

ADS-B is just another type of SSR. What AirServices need is to fit out as many aircraft as possible that already use the airspace with a new transponder. The ADS-B SSR system is a lot cheaper to deploy, doesn't take as much real estate and is more robust than SSR for reliability in service.

The nay sayers have tried to wieve a story of the "Boogy Man Is ADS-B" to try and scare all the VFR kiddies into sleepless nights. Frankly, its getting quite weak. It is just another SSR.

I just wonder. Bob, Did you lose the transponder battle last time?

For me as an "amateur" bug smasher driver. I still see transponders as necessary equipment to access controlled airspace. As MicroAir advertises, A transponder "Unlocks Airspace" Nothing sinister about that!

Agree with Jaba. It's all there in SDDs post with the MATS.

Flying Binghi

31st Jul 2008, 02:44

OZBUSDRIVER cut and run.............:hmm:

Play the ball..............love too.........

Well looks like Jabawocky is running away as well :hmm:

It has been answered in every aspect by many people many times

Scurvy.D.Dog, as it seems I've missed the rebutale to the GPS guided Buzz Bomb scenario :rolleyes: ... perhaps you care to recover a few of the key rebutle details then.........:hmm:

........................:)

Jabawocky

31st Jul 2008, 02:57

Just to add something OZ, transponders are also pretty darn good targets for TCAS.......... and I think many of the ilinformed are those who do not believe in them in the present system.

As an example, a couple of weeks ago, 6 light aircraft + 1 Q400, all converging on YHID, all estimating arrival over a span of 4 minutes, from varying different heights and directions.

I could hear the concern in the voice of the Q400 driver, and his requests for all a/c to ensure they had Mode C turned on.

All bar one had a transponder in this case. And just to be cheeky, the rego did not contain any VH's........:E.

For those who do not want to pay for even a mode C...... here is a chance to get both for free..........:ugh::ugh::ugh:

J

Flying Binghi

31st Jul 2008, 03:07

max1

31st Jul 2008, 03:37

FB,
Your buzzbomb scenario is possible, but extremely unlikely. I can't say never, no-one can.
As you cannot say it will definitely happen, and that in the unlikely event of it occurring, that the Yanks will definitely switch GPS off.
So what chance of your scenario happening and GPS being switched off? This is called risk

What are the worldwide pluses of GPS?

This is called benefit.

What can we do if this risk comes to pass and how can we mitigate it.

In relation to ADS-B in Australia, and worldwide because the other developed nations are going down this path, we have Primary and Secondary radars in the high traffic areas and we can go to procedural control.

I assume you are a VFR pilot, so it probably means you've done time in single-engined aircraft. When you fly are you looking out the window just keeping a check on what might be a suitable landing area if the engine chooses that moment to die on you.
Before flying did you decide that there is a chance the engine might die on me today, I'd better not go flying, or did you assess the risk, work out how to mitigate it and decided to go flying anyway?

You seem to want someone on here to give you an ironclad guarantee that buzzbombs won't happen. Sorry can't be done. What people have been trying to explain to you, is that we can't see your scenario being a worthwhile reason to stop the implementation of ADS-B.

Lets move on, your argument can't be rebutted.
By its very nature GPS is a tool to move things very accurately from Point A to point B. But that is all it is , a tool. As is a hammer, a car, a plane or a gun.

Flying Binghi

31st Jul 2008, 04:15

Max1, I'm wondering if its worth replying to you after your post pp36/720 ...I'm persistant though, so will have another go :)

We've already covered a lot in posts 35/689 thru 36/720 so I will only deal with your latest post -

I assume you are a VFR pilot

max1,I've covered the avionics in my aircraft before (post 37/737), though not my own lic. details - Command S/E NDB, VOR, ILS, LLZ, RNAV, DGA. And, as I've said, I'm nothing special, just an aircraft owner and pilot with some concerns.

Before flying did you decide that there is a chance the engine might die on me today, I'd better not go flying, or did you assess the risk, work out how to mitigate it and decided to go flying anyway?

The decision to fly single engine is up to me alone - maybe I fly today, maybe I dont. I dont see how that relates to the terrorist miss-use of GPS which can affect all pilots. And how will that affect all pilots ... well look at some of the results of the 9II event - ASICs and fenceing of bush airstrips... all that just to attempt to stop a 'one off' event, e.g. a suicide attacker. What happens when those GPS guided Buzz Bombs start wandering in over the coastline at a lazy 60 -70 knots ? ...Lets hope our ATC system has'nt got too GPS reliant, or it will be chaos.

Your buzzbomb scenario is possible, but extremely unlikely.

max1, I dont know the probabilitys, though I do note that OZBUSDRIVER has helpfully pionted out to me that another pprune poster had already covered a simular concept - I wonder who else has thought of it ?

.

Bob Murphie

31st Jul 2008, 04:23

Actually I do remember when transponders became mandatory all those years ago. They were mandated "to fly into a radar control zone". Bloke, namebilong Cox had a DH86 in Camden and he and I flew what could well be about the last non transponder equiped aircraft into Mascot. This was primary radar, report over Canterbury Racecourse just in case though.

But I was still flying non transponder equiped aircraft many many years after that date because I had no reason to fly into Major Capital City airports.

TCAS, not the mandating of the transponder had me accept it.

Things evolve, things change, sometimes for the good and sometimes not.

Right now, I just don't see how it improves on what I've already got. I would, as previously stated, welcome a phased in approach without the spears jabbing my bum to accept a subsidy which I don't think will materialise. The silence of the lambs doesn't mean they support the concept, just that they are apathetic.

But who cares.

Call me a sceptic also, but I don't believe in the tooth fairy.

Liars can't be trusted, yet we vote them in at every election.

Edit for reporting point.

Jabawocky

31st Jul 2008, 05:08

FB

Not running away...... just can not hit the ball when its a wide, and going past second slip..........:ugh:

hopeing to aviod a particular subject are we :E

Actually I was hoping to understand your next question :confused::confused:

Mr Murphie,

While we are coming from opposing camps, at least there is some rational content in your post, while I am struggling to get a grip on others. You said just now........
Right now, I just don't see how it improves on what I've already got.

That is very true....... FOR YOU. And for most GA PVT and AG or similar small commercial ops. ME INCLUDED.

I do not need TCAS now...... but I have a transponder now because the bigger flying machines with fare paying passengers do have the TCAS and really do need it.

Next step along in the process of development is ADSB.........great improvements for surveillence, safety and efficiency for the medium to larger operators......and ATC, who even when you are VFR in the greater Class G, still offer you a service if you need it. So where is the benifit to the small guy....... not getting run over by a 737 in a CTAF R for a start! You can work the rest out or read the hundreds of posts here and elsewhere or go to the appropriate websites. Its all there.

As for being a bit skeptical.....understood, and yes the liars that get voted in and all that........ but ADSB was not born of Government......it was from Industry for Industry!

J

Bob Murphie

31st Jul 2008, 06:57

My having a transponder is so those with TCAS can see me.

I fly VFR. My eyesight is enough to fly in this enviromnent.

If RPT want to fly VFR and they have the benefit of TCAS, they should at least look out the window as well.

ATC offer me no service now when I fly outside of the "system" ie. without flight details lodged. Indeed they ignore me. Once I took off and forgot to set local QNH and as it was quiet I asked Centre for Area QHN. I have heard more civil responses from Magistrates sentencing drug dealers.

I'm happy to see what happens in the future, but I'm not going to rush out to access the first "free" aluminium cladding for my home until the termites are got rid of.

james michael

31st Jul 2008, 08:34

If RPT want to fly VFR

Seems those price cutting wars have really had an effect when RPT cannot afford IFR. If only we had stayed with the airline duopoly we'd all be better orf :)

I guess ADS-B IN or the ADSBI-TCAS patch will allow such savings to continue ;)

Jabawocky

31st Jul 2008, 09:38

ATC offer me no service now when I fly outside of the "system" ie. without flight details lodged. Indeed they ignore me. Once I took off and forgot to set local QNH and as it was quiet I asked Centre for Area QHN. I have heard more civil responses from Magistrates sentencing drug dealers.

At last we agree on something Bob, Magistrates are too soft on drug dealers!;)

J:ok:

Bob Murphie

31st Jul 2008, 10:24

For the the life of brian and as an amateur aviator, when IFR Regionals enter a CTAF they become VFR otherwise if doing a non precision approach the VFR traffic is on the ground because it is IFR. Does that sound right?

I think it's called something like decision height where they eventually have to look out the window.

Jabawocky

31st Jul 2008, 11:19

Bob,

I am not really sure of your real world flying experience, however I think its far greater than mine and your last post would have me believe. I have no axe to grind with you and I know others bag you regarding AOPA or some other group in the distant past, so I am not posting this as anti Bob Murphie at all, but seriously you do not really believe that is how things really are...... I hope:ooh:.

IFR into say Bundy or Horn Island or worse......Jets into Hervey Bay, on a NPA, break free off IMC not much above the circuit height, were anything from Dick in his Citation to old mate the drifter Driver and the Trike Flyer (could be Dick in that too) are buzzing around obliviously under a cool overcast.

Sure at many of the hundreds of ALA's in the bush, this is not a problem, but at many other places it is and there have been some pretty close calls in a few ports that I know off, and I think some do not get reported either!:=

So if that is really all there is against a full and complete ADSB rollout...... I guess we should see it in the very near future!

J:ok:

Flying Binghi

31st Jul 2008, 11:32

max1, I have updated post 789.

.

Biggles_in_Oz

31st Jul 2008, 11:33

Bob.
I have a hard time visually spotting traffic.
It may well be that your eyes and pattern-recognition are better than mine, but I want artificial aids (eg ATC, ADSB-IN, radio calls), to help me know where everyone is., especially near or in a busy CTAF.

Flying Binghi

31st Jul 2008, 11:35

I have a hard time visually spotting traffic if I have no hint as to where to look for it.
It may well be that your eyes and pattern-recognition are better than mine, but I want artificial aids (eg ATC, ADSB-IN, radio calls), to help me know where everyone is., especially near or in a busy CTAF.

Biggles_in_Oz, obviously every thing you fly has some sort of TAS ?

Biggles_in_Oz

31st Jul 2008, 11:49

No, Mr Binghi, no.
The only traffic avoidance system that I have is (a) radio, and (b) ATC if I'm on an IFR plan and within radar coverage.
'See and Avoid' simply doesn't work very well for me. I require more warning of impending badness.

I really really really don't like the idea of descending or climbing though unknown traffic at choke points such as a CTAF, anywhere.

Bob Murphie

31st Jul 2008, 12:17

Jabawocky and Biggles in Oz;

As one can't be half pregnant, nor should there be any doubt about what is IFR and what is VFR. Much has been written about this.

If RPT or somebody TCAS equiped or not,descends into a CTAF they are either visual or doing a non precision IFR approach at minimums. In either case somebody should be looking out the window in addition to ATC or TCAS information. If it is IFR to minimums, VFR traffic "should" be on the ground, BUT in case of some Croppie or Drifter beetling around the CTAF, they "should" alert all via wireless communication.

You can't legislate against stupidity, so it beholds all to look out the window in addition to radio, ATC information and TCAS information.

I think it's called the triple condom thingy.

BTW and not wanting to draw bow strings further, has it occurred to the VFR pilots out there that IFR traffic need an alternate and if some outage occurs with new fangled technology, the alternate has to be one of the aids that the salesmen are talking about decomissioning.

No, sorry, lets not go there.

Jabawocky

31st Jul 2008, 12:31

Bob, have you not seen a METAR with the Overcast at 2000 AGL .....still VMC underneath mate!

So far not a valid arguement. Go talk to some RFDS, REX QFLink, VB or JQ drivers going into regionals.

Wont cost ya remember...... and if someone came along in the middle of the night and removed 2KG of old crap from your plane, replaced it with the ADSB box, never told you......... you would be just as happy! So whats the big deal.

J:ok:

Flying Binghi

31st Jul 2008, 17:42

max1

31st Jul 2008, 20:33

james michael

31st Jul 2008, 21:53

when IFR Regionals enter a CTAF they become VFR Yes, I regularly hear them advising Centre they are changing from IFR to VFR ....... don't I :hmm: And outbound RPT taxi and depart VFR then change to IFR don't they?

The original quote was If RPT want to fly VFR Can someone point me to this in the AIP to assist my research please?

Is this debate confusing flight rules with flight operations under those rules?

But, I agree you cannot be half-pregnant and I await the Ambidji report so the CTAF R machine will move forward again.

I suspect at the end of this we will find exclusions imposed on CTAF where RPT operate. Initially they will probably change to transponder airspace - no worries to us - then ADS-B mandatory or excluded. You cannot be "half excluded" - as that would need half an ADS-B unit - therefore you will either have to get one free, or pay for one.

FB, I did note your earlier comment (when I stated I had doubts your campaign was fair dinkum) that you had 500 posts on Pprune. It reminded me of candidates who told me they had ten years experience - probing often confirmed it was actually only one weeks experience 520 times over without learning anything beyond that first week. I agree with other posters who have decided your scenario is possible but statistically improbable.

that ADS-B 'box' will be one of those combined units, with a transponder as well ? GPS data + ES transponder = ADS-B OUT was part of week one.

TID EDIT

Jabawocky

31st Jul 2008, 21:58

max1 :D
Thats one of the best plain english posts in a while!:ok:

FBJabawocky, that ADS-B 'box' will be one of those combined units, with a transponder as well ?

If you have honestly read my previous posts and many others here....... you would not ask the question.

The scope of supply from at least one and probably more manufacturers is to have a combined ADSB + Mode C Transponder, to which you connect the TSO 146 GPS device (hidden away like your current encoder) and voila! You have both!

Whats more the local unit fits in a standard hole in ya panel so you could remove an old ADF & indicator or something and save some weight :).

The objective objections are running out of puff, but at least the balls are back on the pitch now.:ok:
J

Bob Murphie

1st Aug 2008, 01:16

Jabawocky;

Yes I have, and acknowledge there is a thing called 3000ft clear of cloud that would also add points to your arguement. The cash isn't in the bank yet, but I'll wait and see as I have said before.

james michael;

Your original question (post #20) was "Am I muddled".

If you want to claim for points on grammar when the meaning is obvious you are muddled.

It's good to see you are still doing research, but one wonders why? You had a predetermined conclusion and yet still persist in sharing it with us.

james michael

1st Aug 2008, 01:59

Bob Murphie

I'm not claiming points for grammmmmmmar (there's the proof) :)

Just not sure that RPT operates non-IFR with any regularity.

And, that's not because you or I might be muddled - it's because it is quite fundamental to what is likely to happen at CTAF R. Protection of IFR to and from the ground.

You might also care to know my research indicates beside Ambidji there has been a move afoot at CASA to push CAR 166 changes through the SCC. These bring all en route CTAF under the radio umbrella - wonder why? Fortunately several of the alphabet organisations put up some genuine concerns that are being investigated.

You had a predetermined conclusion and yet still persist in sharing it with us.

Ever heard of the wisdom of not throwing bricks at foam rubber walls, Bob? Is that a boomerang (hey, there's an idea for bunger - GPS guided boomerangs - the perfect weapon for circular arguments) I see wrapped around your neck? := I'll keep researching - I already have one major research project on ADS-B going in Airservices and they are glad I raised it now rather than later.

ADS-B is coming. It's called technology push. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way, to quote an old business adage.

Jabawocky

1st Aug 2008, 02:01

Yes I have, and acknowledge there is a thing called 3000ft clear of cloud

Not sure that is what the regs say at all.......... but I am glad you see the point.

Cheers!

J:ok:

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 02:02

FB,
Your actions to fly, after doing your own risk/benefit analysis do affect others, what about those on the ground that you may have to put down around.
The ATC system is not becoming too reliant on GPS, the GPS tells YOU where YOU are and advises ATC through ADS-B the same information. You are always going to be where you are, and now we will know also, when in coverage through ADS-B.
With radar, we know where you are, but do you?

max1, I gave no outline of what my personal go/no-go parameters are - I'm wondering whats that got to do with your attempt at rebutting the GPS guided Buzz Bomb scenario - or was that just a distracter question ? :hmm:

Now, re ATC 'knowing' where I am, I thought I had covered that.. but perhaps you would care to comment on the post from LeadSled pp37/734.

I'm still waiting for that Terrorist GPS guided Buzz Bomb scenario rebutale :hmm:

.

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 02:08

But, I agree you cannot be half-pregnant and I await the Ambidji report so the CTAF R machine will move forward again.

I suspect at the end of this we will find exclusions imposed on CTAF where RPT operate. Initially they will probably change to transponder airspace - no worries to us - then ADS-B mandatory or excluded. You cannot be "half excluded" - as that would need half an ADS-B unit - therefore you will either have to get one free, or pay for one.

Fizzing Bunger, I did note your earlier comment (when I stated I had doubts your campaign was fair dinkum) that you had 500 posts on Pprune. It reminded me of candidates who told me they had ten years experience - probing often confirmed it was actually only one weeks experience 520 times over without learning anything beyond that first week. I agree with other posters who have decided your scenario is possible but statistically improbable.

Quote:
that ADS-B 'box' will be one of those combined units, with a transponder as well ?
GPS data + ES transponder = ADS-B OUT was part of week one.

james michael, It is good to see that you hold all posters to being aware of the contents of all posts in this thread. I take it you will hold your-self to the same high standards :hmm:

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 02:20

max1 :D
Thats one of the best plain english posts in a while!:ok:

FB
Quote:
Jabawocky, that ADS-B 'box' will be one of those combined units, with a transponder as well ?
If you have honestly read my previous posts and many others here....... you would not ask the question.

The scope of supply from at least one and probably more manufacturers is to have a combined ADSB + Mode C Transponder, to which you connect the TSO 146 GPS device (hidden away like your current encoder) and voila! You have both!

Whats more the local unit fits in a standard hole in ya panel so you could remove an old ADF & indicator or something and save some weight :).

The objective objections are running out of puff, but at least the balls are back on the pitch now.

Jabawocky, I'm learning that when dealing with certain posters on this thread that one needs to get things crystal clear, so as to remove any wriggle room :E
.... Oh, and I've read your posts.

Now, Jabawocky, what you want is a "combined ADSB and Mode C Transponder" ...correct... That indicates to me that there will now be TWO different systems to maintain in an aircraft ......correct ? :hmm:

................:)

james michael

1st Aug 2008, 02:33

FB

I don't believe anyone can operate the aircraft you purport to own and be as obtuse as you try to make out on here, quite apart from your rudeness.

james michael, It is good to see that you hold all posters to being aware of the contents of all posts in this thread. I take it you will hold your-self to the same high standards :hmm:Simple answer is - I do not have that standard for all posters here. But, if by now you have not been able to comprehend that ADS-B OUT = GPS DATA PLUS ES TXPDR then you have not read or comprehended ANY of the sensible posts on here that people committed to sharing knowledge have put up for the public benefit.

It seems your reading is confined to John Le Carre and terrorist scenarios. For a change, please try reading the basics of ADS-B. As one link: ADSB (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com.au/pilotcentre/projects/adsb/default.asp)

Then, to top it off, you post Now, Jabawocky, what you want is a "combined ADSB and Mode C Transponder" ...correct... That indicates to me that there will now be TWO different systems to maintain in an aircraft ......correct ? :hmm: Has it not been only a day since I posted that a MODE ES TXPDR not only squits ADS-B data but also provides MODE C under MSSR / TCAS interrogation. One transponder and one transponder only. A nice new one paid for by the subsidy - or, if the subsidy does not get up thanks to their efforts, perhaps I'll give you the addresses of Bob Murphie and Dick Smith so you can petition them for the $$$ :rolleyes:

I think you are a lost cause.

TID EDIT

Jabawocky

1st Aug 2008, 02:39

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 03:07

Flopping Banana

I don't believe anyone can operate the aircraft you purport to own and be as obtuse as you try to make out on here, quite apart from your rudeness.

Quote:
james michael, It is good to see that you hold all posters to being aware of the contents of all posts in this thread. I take it you will hold your-self to the same high standards :hmm:
Simple answer is - I do not have that standard for all posters here. But, if by now you have not been able to comprehend that ADS-B OUT = GPS DATA PLUS ES TXPDR then you have not read or comprehended ANY of the sensible posts on here that people committed to sharing knowledge have put up for the public benefit.

It seems your reading is confined to John Le Carre and terrorist scenarios. For a change, please try reading the basics of ADS-B. As one link: ADSB (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com.au/pilotcentre/projects/adsb/default.asp)

Then, to top it off, you post Quote:
Now, Jabawocky, what you want is a "combined ADSB and Mode C Transponder" ...correct... That indicates to me that there will now be TWO different systems to maintain in an aircraft ......correct ? :hmm:
Has it not been only a day since I posted that a MODE ES TXPDR not only squits ADS-B data but also provides MODE C under MSSR / TCAS interrogation. One transponder and one transponder only. A nice new one paid for by the subsidy - or, if the subsidy does not get up thanks to their efforts, perhaps I'll give you the addresses of Bob Murphie and Dick Smith so you can petition them for the $$$ :rolleyes:

I think you are a lost cause.

james michael, Looks like you have no way to rebut the GPS guided Terrorist Buzz Bomb scenario... :hmm:

.

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 03:17

Now, Jabawocky, what you want is a "combined ADSB and Mode C Transponder" ...correct... That indicates to me that there will now be TWO different systems to maintain in an aircraft ......correct ? :hmm: INCORRECT

This tells me you have NOT read all my posts, nor the links provided by SDD to supplier websites. For example Microair.

I am starting to see why the ABIT report writers was clearly frustrated with the number of submissions from folk who did not read or understand the material before they set forth with pen and paper.

Maybe you were one of those in the group 7 (refer my post a day or so ago).

J:ugh:.........ahhhhhhhh thats feeling better!

So, with ADS-B, there will be no transponder service required ... Hmmm, looks like I stand corrected there :) ... and I thought I made a comment re Microair in the first few pages of this thread ? :hmm:

Jabawocky, I think I better piont out that that I have made no submissions to anything - Have you read any submissions refering to GPS guided Buzz Bombs ? :hmm:

... and still no rebutale to the GPS guided Terrorist Buzz Bomb scenario :hmm:

.

Scurvy.D.Dog

1st Aug 2008, 03:18

:hmm: ... cuckoo cuckoo :suspect:

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 03:23

... cuckoo cuckoo :suspect:

LOL, Scurvy.D.Dog, squarks ..........:)

.............:cool:

.

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 03:49

Hmmm... considering the shear volume of posts attempting to rebut the GPS guided Terrorist Buzz Bomb scenario, you gotta wonder :hmm:

I think somebody foregot to facter in all possibilities of the effects of terrorism into the ADS-B project :hmm:

.

max1

1st Aug 2008, 04:00

Jabawocky

1st Aug 2008, 04:03

No, somehow I do not think anyone has forgotten anything about it, just realised that it aint a show stopper!:ok:

Have you read any submissions refering to GPS guided Buzz Bombs ? :hmm:

I am starting to think they have all come from the same author....... or a close relative :}

J:E

Bob Murphie

1st Aug 2008, 04:50

james michael;

It is my opinion that you are a confidence trickster with access to personal and confidential information. You push the envelope when you offer to give others my private contact details to further your agenda.

If anyone wishes to correspond with me feel free to PM me. I'll clear my inbox in anticipation.

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 05:00

No, somehow I do not think anyone has forgotten anything about it, just realised that it aint a show stopper!:ok:

Quote:
Have you read any submissions refering to GPS guided Buzz Bombs ? :hmm:
I am starting to think they have all come from the same author....... or a close relative

Jabawocky, you may wish to have a look at this thread -

http://www.pprune.org/forums/tech-log/336795-gps-based-navigation-accuracy-question.html

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 05:22

FB,
I have just told you that your buzzbomb can't be rebutted, what more do you want? It is a possibility.
This is where in frustration people start to play the man , not the ball.
It cannot be rebutted, can you now move on, please.

Hmmm, methinks this play the ball part is a bit of a distracter :hmm:

max1, ... IMHO, I think the GPS Buzz Bomb scenario presents a major risk to an ever more fragile GPS reliant ATC system. (I have covered this before)

Its seems imprudent to even spend further money on any ATC system infrastructure that requires GPS to function. I think we need to beef up our current robust NON-GPS ATC facilitys ... AND, have our ATC'ers properly paid, and ATC properly staffed

Flying Binghi

1st Aug 2008, 06:01

Whatever happened to OZBUSDRIVER ? I thought we might explore better boundary fenceing for OZ :) ... something to do with a sparrow would'nt get past NORAD, was it ?

... more military expediture :eek:

OZBUSDRIVER

1st Aug 2008, 06:25

Great, things settle down to arguing the facts and now we go and do a u-turn.

Bob, curious you bring up RPT entering a CTAF in such a manor. I will leave that to the exponents of the realm to furnish evidence of same. AIP tells me something different too.

In your scenario, an ADS-B transponder would be no different as far as TCAS goes. However, the difference in ATC could be considerable. The difference in the RPT could be quite considerable too.

Bob Murphie

1st Aug 2008, 07:35

OZBUSDRIVER;

As one private pilot to another, exactly how do RPT IFR traffic become VFR as they must, to land eventually, at their destination security controlled restricted to non ASIC holder aerodrome. You have the AIP at hand I note.

If Binghi's theory that things could go tits up, what do we do for an alternate if the navaids are decommissioned. I have a NVFR and endorsed on ADF and VOR so I understand the basic principles.

OK so you say they are not going to be decommissioned/ so again where is the savings to justify the costs?

TCAS information would only be the same if the Regional had ADSB IN and I had ADSB OUT and the court is still out on that.

I am constantly amazed at the level of safety some believe is possible without looking out the window. You will never get obsolute safety unless you ground all aeroplanes, and then why would we need CASA, Airservices or ATSB?

Sometimes I think you would all be lost without a radio.

My Auster had no electrics, no radio, hand started and flown B050 I could go anywhere, even into controlled airspace on a SARTIME flightplan cancelled by telephone with an AIRMOVE PRIORITY call. My worst fear was pigbite if I had to force land without a rifle.

You mob aren't aviators, you are bloody aeroplane drivers. Probably can't land a conventional gear aeroplane.

TID EDIT

Biggles_in_Oz

1st Aug 2008, 08:30

Bob.OK so you say they are not going to be decommissioned/ so again where is the savings to justify the costs?The cost saving is in not having to replace as many radar heads., it's spelt out in the JCP, please spend an hour to read it.
TCAS information would only be the same if the Regional had ADSB IN and I had ADSB OUT and the court is still out on that.eh ? The ADSB transponder is still a transponder, so TCAS will still work.
The idea is that most of the GA fleet would be subsidied to have ADSB-OUT as a minimum. Again, please read the JCP.
I am constantly amazed at the level of safety some believe is possible without looking out the window. ....
Sometimes I think you would all be lost without a radio.The 'big sky' theory only works with sparse traffic densities and that may well be the case where you usually fly. As for me., I'm perfectly comfortable using any aids such as radio and ATC, to help me to 'see and avoid'.

Bob Murphie

1st Aug 2008, 10:20

Forget the radar heads, I'm talking about the NDB's and VOR's and alternates.

The mode S transponder isn't ADSB OUT is it? and it's dependant upon a bit of wire and a box and someone else having ADSB IN plus the now touted mantra that things won't happen on THE day but be phased in. So we need TCAS and Mode C as well as the ADSB OUT but that could go astray if The Regionals don't have ADSB IN. Forget about Qantas landing at Bourke. They probably can't afford the fuel.

Or are you talking about ATC watching me land at Goodooga?

Australia has a sparse traffic density.

Sydney and Melbourne have a medium traffic density. Perhaps THEY should have ADSB IN and OUT mandated.

I don't believe anyone gets anything for nothing and if it doesn't come out as you have been promised by the spindoctors and their pissants, don't bother holding me responsible for your own gullibility.

I'll watch and see what happens.

max1

1st Aug 2008, 10:34

Bob,
Sydney and Melbourne have medium traffic density?

Where do you think the ML-SY and SY-BN city pairs come worldwide in traffic?

Bob, where do you get these statements from?

Arrange to visit an ATC centre and be prepared to have your eyes opened?

We cover 11% of the worlds surface (and yes alot of it is nothing) with 750 controllers, but the J curve from Cairns to Adelaide has its moments.

Bob Murphie

1st Aug 2008, 11:28

max1;

Fair enough, I would like to arrange to see first hand. I don't have an ASIC but do have an AVID. If you can help organise it, I'll try to make myself available. Bn probably my best bet geographically.

I can't help think that this whole ADSB concept is to fix a problem OUTSIDE of the J curve that doesn't exist. But I will listen to anybody except snake oil salesmen.

Jabawocky

1st Aug 2008, 11:31

MAX1:ok:

Agreed, and I can confirm that a certain Class D Tower with a very high profile around here has got to be as busy as some C towers, or more.

I was stunned and all single man ops........:D.

If that tower is anything to go by your working lives should not exceed 8 years:eek:.

Somehow I do not think most folk actually get the picture....... the real picture, not those on TV. (probably includes your mis-Management).

J

OZBUSDRIVER

1st Aug 2008, 11:39

Bob, go back to my post #652 and have a look at the links in that post.

Mode S is picked up by TCAS the same as ModeC Just go and Google Mode S transponder TCAS and read the posts.

READ WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN HERE!

You do not need two transponders! ModeACS 1090ES ADS-B does the same job as a MODE A C transponder. What the 1090ES transponder doesn't need is the SSR head spinning around interogating it. TCAS II interogates and ModeACS 1090ES transponder responds! It still has the same functionality as the basic transponder. Fly into a primary airport and primary radar MSSR interogates and the transponder responds in the same way as now.

If Goodooga gets a RPT service bigger than a Dash, do not be surprised if ATC will eventually be able to see you, It will not cost them much to do it!

OZBUSDRIVER

1st Aug 2008, 11:49

As one private pilot to another, exactly how do RPT IFR traffic become VFR as they must, to land eventually, at their destination security controlled restricted to non ASIC holder aerodrome. You have the AIP at hand I note.

Bob, I forgot about this one. Better not leave you in the dark. Didn't you know a "Visual" approach is a legitimate IFR approach? Just becasue the RPT gets to the CTAF does all the riggamarol with the different frequency bit THEY NEVER CHANGE TO VFR! Even in 8 8ths blue.

Dick's version of NAS gave the option of being able to take off and get an IFR Pickup....wonder if that lasted too long. SO if you didn't get a clearance straight away you could takeoff and get an IFR clearance down the track. THat played Larry Dooly with SAR requirments for departure. Exponents of the realm could give you a better precise on that than this meer mortal VFR pilot. You can request a VFR descent which places responsibility for traffic separation back to the pilot. Still IFR! You can request VFR on top where the pilot takes responsibility for maintaining VMC yet still IFR. VFR climb same thing yet still IFR. No changes in rules, Bob.

Bob Murphie

2nd Aug 2008, 04:11

I have nothing further to add to this discussion. I remain unconvinced as to the benefits for low level VFR traffic and I am of the opinion that the subsidy will come to nothing that will enhance GA in this Country.

Jabawocky

2nd Aug 2008, 04:48

I remain unconvinced as to the benefits for low level VFR traffic and I am of the opinion that the subsidy will come to nothing that will enhance GA in this Country.

Bob,

Thats fine, you do not need to see any value in it, just fit the box (free of charge) and trundle around happily ever after.

It won't hurt you. But it will enhance the operational lives of others around you...... maybe not every day, but some days.

A bit like an Airbag in your car, no benefit to you at all if you dont crash! But you cart it around anyway.

J

OZBUSDRIVER

2nd Aug 2008, 05:03

Looks like Bendix/King are going to fit their new KSN770 for 1090ES ADS-B "IN" as soon as they see the detail of the spec.

That's another one:ok:

OZTECH

2nd Aug 2008, 07:29

Well this might be a technical, but in relation to KT73 and aus ADSB , which DL and UL formats does the australian ADSB system require ?
:ok:

T28D

2nd Aug 2008, 09:30

Subsidised airbags, thats novel

Torres

2nd Aug 2008, 11:07

838 replies - and no one has yet convinced me the Australian Government are going to subsidise anything - including ADSB installation in Australia's private and GA aircraft fleet.

I would be amazed, astounded, even flabergasted if the Australian Government were to subsidise anything - and if they did I think their major clients, the airlines, together with the Australian tax payer, may have some objections?

Van X DME was never free, nor was there any subsidy when it was phased out.

The more likely scenario will be increased air navigation charges to fund Australian's installation of ADSB equipment.

Just my 2 cents worth!

Jabawocky

2nd Aug 2008, 12:05

OS

Good post:ok:

And they are the ones you know about:eek: ever been tempted to make an educated guess at the number you can not see!

J

Torres

2nd Aug 2008, 12:07

Owen.

Didn't say I opposed ADSB. Indeed, my guess in time, like DME, ADF, VOR etc, all aircraft will end up with ADSB.

Just voicing my opinion that it will not be free. Others may have a different opinion.

Scurvy.D.Dog

2nd Aug 2008, 12:51

Bob (the gun toting great) :p
I have nothing further to add to this discussion.
...praise be the (insert deity of choice) :hmm:
.
Owen said... I reckon subsidised fitment if it avoided one OCTA midair (and don't kid yourselves, it's a real possibility) would save on the investigation of one event alone.

ASA or Govt subsidies, even though it saves them potentially $hitloads? :ok: .. thats the bottom line dudes (and dudette's) :ooh:
.
Lives NOT lost ... unnecessarily! !;)

werbil

2nd Aug 2008, 23:33

Bob,

You have already acknowledged that the limitations of see and avoid where an IFR aircraft is operating in the vicinity of a VFR aircraft that is operating clear of cloud below 3000AMSL / 1000AGL.

However, bear in mind that an aircraft traveling at 200 knots covers 6,173m in one minute, or 1,500m (the required horizontal clearance from cloud below 10,000 AMSL) in under 15 seconds. Picture the scenario where an RPT aircraft pops out the side of a cloud on a "collision course" with a VFR aircraft flying at 90 degrees to the IFR aircraft's track that will be 1,500m away from the point where the IFR aircraft became visual. In the less than 15 seconds that is available at least one pilot has to visually acquire the other aircraft, identify that the two aircraft are on a collision course, choose appropriate avoidance action, and implement that action.

This scenario can occur at any location where RPT aircraft operate in class G airspace - including Hamilton Island and Proserpine where A320s and 737s operate. Yes, I know carriage and use of radio is mandatory in these locations (CTAF R), however pilots do :mad: up the calls occasionally - some more occasionally that others. :ugh:

When I'm sitting down the back in one of those aircraft in marginal VMC I'd be a lot happier knowing that ALL aircraft flying in that area had either a mode C or ADS B - ES transponder.:ok:

max1

3rd Aug 2008, 01:02

Torres,

A government owned corporation, ASA, is subsidising the fitment through its income, basically from the airlines. The airlines are onboard to 'pay' for it. They can see the the benefits. The government is NOT diverting funds away from health, schooling etc to pay for this fitment. ASA run their business, and return a dividend to their sole shareholder, the Federal government, who then put it into General Revenue.

I can hardly see the government or public having a leg to stand if they complain that money raised from the Aviation community is put towards upgrading safety in that community. Until that money is paid as a dividend it is not the governments money anyway.

The clincher for the deal, with the airlines, is that longer term the ADS-B project will reduce ASAs overheads with relation to the expensive replacement and upkeep of Secondary Surveillance Radars, thereby allowing a reduction in navcharges. There has been a reduction in real terms over the years in airline navcharges. The airlines know this, and are looking at further reductions with ADS-B.This is why THEY are willing to pay for GA ADS-B fitment.

The government i.e. Joe Public, does not pay for GA fitment so therefore has no say in the money being spent.

Torres , do some reading on earlier posts, and the JCP. Work out how ASA, the airlines and the government are set up in relation to ADS-B fitment. The money goes airlines to ASA to government, not airlines to government to ASA.
When in doubt about conflicts of interest it is usually a safe bet to follow the money trail. Why would the airlines not be screaming blue murder if they are paying way above what is fair for the service they get.

Last year, from the ASA annual report, total revenue was $728.7 million of which $676.7 million was from ATS and RFF charges. This delivered an operating profit of $106.7 million, of which 60% was returned to the government as a dividend returned to General Revenue. This year rumour has it has @ $140 million. Over 4 years this will be @ %60 of $396 million profit returned to government without the government having to do anything except leave ASA alone to run their government owned corporarion. Can you see the government having a case to complain about a subsidised GA fitment?

Get away from the mindset, that somehow the government has to come up with $100 million plus dollars to pay for this. They don't.

werbil

3rd Aug 2008, 01:07

Dick Smith,

The more I follow this thread, the more I find that I agree with your 'upside down' airspace model.

Transponders are mandatory for VFR aircraft in E (with limited exemptions) - however I would anticipate that the density of conflicts between VFR and IFR aircraft in E as implemented in Australia would be very low.

At places like YBPN and YBHM when the tower is closed I would expect that the density of conflicts between IFR and VFR would be orders of magnitude higher. There is no requirement to have a transponder in a CTAF (R) (yes there is the requirement to carry and use radio in this environment), yet in E both a transponder and radio is required - it really doesn't make sense given the required fitment of TCAS to larger airline aircraft, does it?

Radio requires the correct frequency to be selected for a start. This is a problem especially at YBHM where one frequency is used when the tower is open and a different frequency is used for the CTAF when the tower is shut. There is no YBHM ATIS available on VHF frequencies (it is only available on the VOR), and on rare occasions the tower has remained open during the published lunch period with minimal notice (minutes). Even professional VFR pilots that are based in the Whitsundays occasionally get caught operating on the CTAF frequency incorrectly believing the tower to be closed.

Radio also requires the correct information to be broadcast (I've heard more than once someone broadcasting inbound from the north when they're inbound from the south), the information to be heard, the pilot to evaluate whether a conflict will occur, and appropriate action to be taken.

The information provided by transponders to TCAS is IMHO far less likely to be affected by pilot error (yes, the transponder can be left off), however I understand the RA instructions are very unambiguous.

My first question to you Dick is do you personally believe that either a mode C or mode S transponder (I understand that the mode S ES reply carrying ADS-B data is compatible with TCAS) should be mandated in areas where aircraft that are required to carry TCAS fly? (I certainly do now).

(SDD I know that ICAO does not allow TCAS be used as a mitigator for designing airspace however from a risk perspective it has to make it safer).

My second question is do you believe that mandatory TCAS carriage should be extended to for example all charter and RPT aircraft above 5,700kg?

My third question to you believe it is appropriate for the ASA (ie the airlines ie the airline passengers) to pay for equipment that increases the level of safety for the traveling public even if that equipment is fitted in someone else's property (ie aircraft) given that the travelling public are the ultimate beneficiaries? (I do not have a problem with that concept).

My fourth question is do you believe that ADS-B OUT is an enabling technology (potentially allow TCAS to take into account azimuth as well as altitude when providing RA's, potentially allow traffic to be displayed in light aircraft), potentially increase areas where surveillance is provided [ground and airborne], potentially allow automated systems to provide alerting of collision / CFIT risk)?

My fifth question regards you're stated conservatism in business. You established a very successful electronics empire, which I would have though would have required a certain amount of innovation. Can you categorically state that you did not benefit from emerging technologies?

werbil

Bob Murphie

3rd Aug 2008, 01:29

Owen Stanley;

Please tell me how do loads of VFR pilots using GPS put themselves in direct conflict with other VFR and worse still IFR acft?

Werbil;

Most flying 3000 clear of cloud are scud runners. God help all involved if IFR traffic is anywhere in this part of the sky. Also are you telling me it’s normal to do non precision approaches and procedure turns at 200 Kts (the maximum below 10,000ft), in a CTAF?

This bullsh!t makes a mockery of the debate and I have nothing to add that would alter this type of thinking. I will say once and for all, ADSB doesn’t do anything for GA that it hasn’t already got now. As a natural evolution I accept it will come to be, but I don’t want it shoved down my throat by a mob of scaremongering snake oil salesmen telling me they are giving me something for nothing. The safety case is flawed and some of you shouldn’t be flying at all if you believe in the tooth fairy, but not visual separation in VFR conditions.

Bloody aeroplane drivers.

the wizard of auz

3rd Aug 2008, 02:49

Please tell me how do loads of VFR pilots using GPS put themselves in direct conflict with other VFR and worse still IFR acft?

Bob, I would assume the statement was made in the context that by using GPS, VFR pilots would be flying direct tracks from point A to B with a much higher tolerance than if flying DR with a map, therefor being at a higher risk to being conflicting traffic with reciprocal tracks, and converging traffic at landing points. Most IFR traffic these days use GPS, so they would also be using the same tracking information as the GPS equipped VFR traffic, and so would also be at higher risk.
Just how I read it anyway.

james michael

3rd Aug 2008, 02:56

VFR RULES

Below 3000' - clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water.

That's scud running???? :ugh:

GPS TRACKS

Use the 1 Nm offset. :ok:

Werbil - magnificent :ok::ok:

werbil

3rd Aug 2008, 03:45

Bob,

Firstly, in AUS the speed limit below 10,000AMSL is 250 knots (does not apply to IFR in C).

By AIP ENR 1.15.1 the Range of Speeds for Initial and Intermediate Approach for a Cat C aircraft (guessing that A320s and 737s fall into this category) is between 160 and 240 KIAS. I don't know what speeds they do the procedure turns at - I only fly VFR charter - and horror horror I get paid for it.

An aircraft can cover 1,500m at 160 knots in just over 18 seconds - granted it gives a pilot nearly another 4 seconds to visually acquire the other aircraft, identify that the two aircraft are on a collision course, choose appropriate avoidance action, and implement that action
than at 200 knots.

See and avoid has limitations. It works reasonably well at slower speeds and in fine weather. You may may be able to choose whether to fly or not when the weather is not perfect, but providing it is safe and legal some of us don't have that luxury.

Keeping eyes outside looking for traffic is critical, and I've spotted many aircraft that I haven't heard on the radio, and have had to take decisive avoiding action. However I'm not prepared to gamble either my life nor my passengers by believing that I will always see a conflicting aircraft in time to avoid catastrophe by relying solely on the Mk 1 eyeball. Believing that you will is tooth fairy stuff - especially in a high traffic density environment.:ugh:

Bob Murphie

3rd Aug 2008, 05:09

STATEMENT;

Australia has a LOW density traffic propblem.

The J curve airports have a medium traffic density problem.

The following have high density traffic problems.

World's busiest airports by traffic movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_traffic_movements)

werbil;

Check your facts.

My prior posts were in relation to CTAF RPT airports that share with GA. If you think doing 200Kts in a manouvering environment is safe, I need an Air Traffic Controller to safeguard me from you, and you certainly need controlling so ADSB is certainly a must have for you, and also me by your definition. You fly VFR charter, so you MUST choose your weather. Look out the window, I may be there. Of interest and BTW I was flying into Hamilton Is in 210's when they were still ripping half the mountain out.

Below 3000' clear of cloud and in sight of land or water can mean 500' AGL. That IS scud running. If I see a SAAB doing 200 Kts near me at this altitude I have cause for concern as should the passengers. I believe they use the 10 nm mile either side lowest safe rule enroute? No? you would know I suppose, you know everything else.

If everyone used the 1 nm offset everyone would still prang. Thanks for letting me know where you are which is somewhere else than where others think you are. Perhaps I'll use the same offset rule if you only let me know what side you will be offsetting, and maybe we all should add or subtract 500' just to be on the safe side. I'll wear my crash hat in case.

Wiz;

When NDB's were built across the country, the same scaremongers predicted everyone would home in on them and the place would be littered with twisted aluminium. It didn't happen. When we went from the quadrantal rule to the hemispherical they said the same, didn't happen.

Statistically the quadrantal rule guaranteed a mid air would be at an angle of less than 89 degrees and hemispherically less than 179 degrees, how often has this happened outside of airport manouvering areas? Most mid air's I recall happened at control zones and glider bases.

TID EDIT

KittyKatKaper

3rd Aug 2008, 05:39

but I don’t want it shoved down my throat by a mob of scaremongering snake oil salesmen telling me they are giving me something for nothing.I'd classify the proposed subsidy of $10k for VFR and $15k for IFR as pretty close to getting something for nothing.

When NDB's were built across the country, the same scaremongers predicted everyone would home in on them and the place would be littered with twisted aluminium. It didn't happen.Wasn't there a 'full reporting' requirement for VFR in those days when those NDBs were being installed ?, therefore ATC would have had a good idea of what traffic was being 'attracted' to a beacon.

If everyone used the 1 nm offset everyone would still prang you clown. Thanks for letting me know where you are which is somewhere else than where others think you are. If you don't know where I'm tracking to, then it doesn't matter what offset I use.

werbil

3rd Aug 2008, 06:16

My prior posts were in relation to CTAF RPT airports that share with GA. If you think doing 200Kts in a manouvering environment is safe, I need an Air Traffic Controller to safeguard me from you, and you certainly need controlling so ADSB is certainly a must have for you, and also me by your definition. You fly VFR charter, so you MUST choose your weather. Look out the window, I may be there.

WTF? I can't follow your logic.

If I am at over 1,500m horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically from cloud am I scud running? This is the minimum separation from cloud below 10,000 AMSL. It is this scenario where there can be as little as 15 - 18 seconds between a pilot first being able to visually acquire an aircraft and possibly colliding with another aircraft. When "scud running" (where radio carriage and use is mandatory) this time could be less than 1 second. Still happy to believe that the tooth fairy will save you? Or do you want the VMC criteria to be increased?

I could edit my post to "medium and high traffic density", but I think most people can work out that high is compared to some of the aerodromes and airstrips in the GAFA.

Bob Murphie

3rd Aug 2008, 07:26

We have another one, KittyKatKaper;

Yes we did have full reporting / 2 min either side of ETA, but we also had a SARTIME which could be cancelled by radio, telephone, or smoke signal and we didn't have ATC, we had Flight Service outside of the Capital Cities.

Thing was that we had no VHF radio over most of Aust and HF only worked if the prior pilot wound in the HF aerial. Choice was the Pilot's and environment. If nobody knows now where you are tracking to these days, you are obviously not in "the system".

I note you call it "A PROPOSED SUBSIDY" another fairy believer. I hope I am wrong and you are right, I really do.

werbil;

You drifted off the topic posted. I don't want to get into a discussion with someone who can't fly an aeroplane without "being in touch or being controlled", but I will say again, my post centered around manouvering in a CTAF and non precision approaches IFR and into VFR without looking out the window. Doing 200 Kts in this situation is plain dumb.

TCAS and a mode C transponder do what you believe ADSB will also do. Where is the advantage from a safety perspective, it's just the same.

Read the post on below 3000' clear of cloud and vis land or water. It's a real nightmare created by CASA obviously to upset people like you. Look at Vis Flight Guide.

See and avoid does have it's limitations, that's why we have medicals to sort the blind from the 20/20.

TID EDIT

T28D

3rd Aug 2008, 08:37

This thread likened the Seasprite Fiasco to the emergent probable new fiasco in the making , ADSB low level.

Other threads point adequately to the fact that Air Services is in management crisis just trying to maintain its core responsibility to manage movement through the Australian FIR.

The thing that characterised the Seasprite misadventure was chronic mismanagement of the Technology platform destined for the aircraft, the Helicopter was itself, a capable and proven machine.

So do we really believe Air Services can manage to implement low level ADSB over continental Australia and at the same time manage a subsidy scheme to fit all the General Aviation registered aircraft with suitable Avionics consistent with a yet to be defined specification.

My bet is they can't manage their core responsibility, to think that the introduction of ADSB low level will be seamless using the current management will succeed is a jump into the unknown and a step too far for mine.

If they try it on the Auditor Generals report in subsequent years will make entertaining reading.

james michael

3rd Aug 2008, 10:29

Bob Murphie

Obviously you do not read, or do not comprehend, aviation literature.

This from the regulator in their GPS guidance material:

"Pilots flying VFR using GPS as the navigation source should use a RIGHT offset track of 1 Nm"

That means OPPOSING traffic is 2 Nm apart, Bob - pretty hard to have a head on, no?

And IFR - same instruction:

"The requirement for IFR aircraft to remain on track remains in place".

Pretty hard for aircraft on that 1Nm each side offset to hit other IFR or VFR aircraft Bob - no?

And you might care to explain how you get from (was it Werbil's) the 3000' clear of cloud scenario to scud running at 500'. Why are you flying in or around cloud at 500' when the low base is 3000', and where are you dredging up this low level cloud? All I'm finding in that post is a low level clod :)

Can I add your posts are becoming more and more agro - no value to the debate, go and kick the cat :=

T28D

How true - except Airservices are not involved in managing a subsidy - its a joint issue and I suspect the subsidy would be managed by DOTARS (too hard to go their new name).

TID EDIT

the wizard of auz

3rd Aug 2008, 11:00

Gosh Bob, no need to thank me. :rolleyes:
You obviously have a mindset that your right and anyone that may oppose your opinion is both wrong and an idiot. I'm sorry I said anything now, as I have obviously been branded among the "others".
Seems you haven't changed much from the other forum I once attended for a short period, but left due to it being a couple of dozen sour and venomous people slinging insults at each other and very little constructive discussion going on.
enjoy your views....... your certainly entitled too, but maybe ease up on the name calling, lest you sour your surrounds like you have in other places. :ugh:
Over to you Bob. :8

werbil

3rd Aug 2008, 11:56

Bob,

You drifted off the topic posted. I don't want to get into a discussion with someone who can't fly an aeroplane without "being in touch or being controlled", but I will say again, my post centered around manouvering in a CTAF and non precision approaches IFR and into VFR without looking out the window. Doing 200 Kts in this situation is plain dumb.

My responses are based purely on IFR vs VFR in the area of the instrument approach in class G. Is the 40 knots less / the extra 3.5 seconds at 160 knots safe IYHO? - I doubt a 737 / A320 would be able to fly the initial / intermediate parts of the approach much slower that that.

TCAS and a mode C transponder do what you believe ADSB will also do. Where is the advantage from a safety perspective, it's just the same.

Slight problem - there is no mandatory transponder coverage in CTAFs or CTAF(R)s at the moment. The only current proposal that I am aware of to mandate transponder carriage and use in CTAF(R)s is the mode S transponder required to transmit the ADSB data, and guess what - under the JCP proposal someone else will even pay for it:ok:. Without a mode C or mode S transponder on conflicting aircraft the TCAS in an airliner is just extra weight and a distraction.:ugh::ugh:

Bob Murphie

3rd Aug 2008, 12:13

Everyone has the right to an opinion. I don't apologise for ruffling feathers. I AM endorsed on the ADF and VOR. I know what the NVFR rules are.

I have some considerable time under the hood and I know what is expected of an instrument pilot both vertically and horizontally.

james michael is, (if he is who I believe him to be), a VFR day pilot with no instrument experience nor endorsement on any Aid.
OS;

We will meet one day, aviation in Aust isn't that big. At least I post under my real name which can be found in the phone book. Beer maybe in lieu of a kiss.

Quick edit for werbil;

Are you in favour of mandating mode C transponders in a CTAF?

If so you really should stay in bed.

TID EDIT: How about we focus on the subject, rather than the personal insults?

Jabawocky

3rd Aug 2008, 12:45

Are you in favour of mandating mode C transponders in a CTAF?

Tack an R on the end and I think YES!:ok:

But when the subsidy comes through it will be all good!;)

J

Tidbinbilla

5th Aug 2008, 00:24

This thread has been returned for the time being. Should it degenerate to its previous level, it will be pulled permanently.

TID

james michael

5th Aug 2008, 01:49

Tid

I apologise to the mods for the work involved in cleaning the thread, not helped by my calling another an idiot, albeit a quid pro quo. It is a pity some of the valuable wheat was lost when the chaff was blown away.

GPS OFFSETS

To clarify the quote from another, in the interests of all readers understanding the GPS offset:

If everyone used the 1 nm offset everyone would still prang. Thanks for letting me know where you are which is somewhere else than where others think you are. Perhaps I'll use the same offset rule if you only let me know what side you will be offsetting, and maybe we all should add or subtract 500' just to be on the safe side.

The GPS offset recommends that VFR aircraft remain one mile RIGHT of the GPS direct track, and IFR remain ON track.

Above 5000' VFR will certainly add/subtract 500' depending on their half circle track bearing. IFR will certainly be at a different height.

So, if all follow the recommendation, there will be 500 or 1000' separation vertically and a minimum of 1 Nm separation laterally between aircraft in opposing directions. Link to the recommendation is available if anyone needs to brush up on their reading.

Bob Murphie

5th Aug 2008, 02:12

Please give us the link to this "recommendation".

james michael

5th Aug 2008, 03:12

Mods - I'm uncertain if there are restrictions on posting links - if so, please guide my footsteps (although it is to a safe site) :)

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/specialpilotops/gps.pdf

TID EDIT: James, that's fine.

Bob Murphie

5th Aug 2008, 05:00

This recommendation is directed at VFR "Pilots who use GPS for navigation", not Pilots who use GPS as an "aid" to navigation. The difference is the qualification to use the particular navaid be it ADF, VOR or GPS.

Yes I know, thread drift, but it needed tidying up.

OZBUSDRIVER

5th Aug 2008, 05:18

Name change too. Thanks Tidds:ok:

james michael

5th Aug 2008, 05:33

Bob

The recommendation provides guidance to - exact words - 'pilots who operate using GPS for navigation' and 'GPS for VFR navigation.'

It does not state they need to be GPS qualified, nor does it indicate whether primary means navigation or just mother's little helper.

Both CASA and Airservices recognise that many many pilots are using handhelds with high accuracy, terrain alert, etc and that they need not necessarily be certified GPS operators.

The instruction is a safety message to any pilot - even those not using GPS - to avoid flying straight down the dotted line.

I think you are splitting hairs.

Bob Murphie

6th Aug 2008, 00:03

I guess this bloke and CASA are splitting hairs also. The Airservices "recommendation" makes a mockery of people who pay good money to be endorsed on the Navaids and to keep current and the need for flight tests. Remember CASA are The Regulator, and these over-ride some "recommendations by Airservices.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/d-g-general-aviation-questions/337958-nvfr-removing-restrictions-adding-endorsements-cir-me.html

james michael

6th Aug 2008, 00:53

I pointed out that the advice is an excellent safety item for VFR pilots. You have gone looking for a rebuttal and, sadly, picked the wrong topic.

If you need a second, CASA, reference - try http://casa.gov.au/fsa/2005/aug/34-36.pdf

You will find there that Mike Smith - good guy - provides a CASA flying ops perspective that ACKNOWLEDGES exactly what I stated about many people using GPS for navigating WITHOUT THE NEED TO BE GPS ENDORSED for appch or NVFR. (Edited to add - re-reading this, it is a bit ambiguous, what it is meant to state is that one can fly VFR using GPS without the need to obtain an endorsement as for appch or NVFR)

You may then care to read the CAAP mentioned in Mike's article - try
http://casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/179a_1.pdf

You will note the applicability to day VFR therein (page 21), and also check the table on page 27. Particularly note 'pilot qualifications' on page 28.

I certainly accept CASA is the regulator - so do they and their instruction on VFR navigation acknowledges exactly what is in the earlier information I posted, which from memory began life as an AIP SUP or similar, therefore having been through CASA first.

If you are interested in getting the facts, rather than following me around trying to discredit my posts and/or provoke me, you will find the links above worth a read to increase your knowledge.

Bob Murphie

6th Aug 2008, 01:39

This post was noted after your link and my response. It is relevant. You are a sad person to think I use it to provoke or discredit you.

Your links prove nothing that would absolve the pilot from the legal requiurements, but feel free to have the last say.

james michael

6th Aug 2008, 02:00

You didn't read it, did you :ugh:

Go to the CAAP, have a read of page 28, and you will find not only the pilot qual for day VFR (NIL GPS) but the VFR OFFSET advice spelled out by CASA - you know, the one you claimed to be The Airservices "recommendation"

A pilot abiding by the rules AND the CAAP is not quite in the position you claim of Your links prove nothing that would absolve the pilot from the legal requiurments In fact, the pilot is most law and safety abiding. :D

You are a sad person to think I use it to provoke or discredit you
followed by
but feel free to have the last say :=

Hopefully the effort wasted on placing the facts before you is not lost, as it may be of assistance to readers genuinely interested in safe piloting under GPS navigation assistance.

Bob Murphie

6th Aug 2008, 04:10

CAR 174D para 19.2 of AIP ENR 1.1 (flight under VFR) and CAO 20.18 appendix !V

VFR pilots must either obtain a visual fix at least every 30 minutes, which makes VFR flight above 3/8 to 4/8 cloud impractical, or obtain a positive fix every 2 hours from navaids if operating above more than SCT cloud. To do this your aircraft must be approved for NVFR/ IFR operations and the pilot must be qualified to use the appropriate navaids.

The fact is, anyone flying any aircraft that is not qualified to use the navaids installed, except to supplement visual navigation is breaking the law. This in particular applies to persons flying VFR on top. So in this case tell me how can you fly 1 nm to the right of track if you are not qualified to use the navaids,

Nothing you have posted absolves the pilot from the legal requirements.

james michael

6th Aug 2008, 06:53

Thank you for the wrong answer to the right question. There was never any suggestion that pilots should fly ignoring any legal requirements.

The VFR offset, unsurprisingly, is designed for pilots flying under the VFR. That means they have to abide by the VFR, or get qualified on navaids/GPS, or a PIFR, or an IFR.

The CAAP I quoted is a CASA publication giving good advice to pilots operating under VFR. It will become more important if the ADS-B mandate and subsidy proceeds and more aircraft are GPS equipped.

In the most recent definitive survey 89% of respondents indicated they use GPS for navigation, with a quarter of the group using hand held GPS. Therefore, the VFR track offset advice is a fundamental safety item.

ICAO-Delta

6th Aug 2008, 09:29

Down to Earth again - pleeeeease

Perhaps if some of those posting regarded their posts and those of others as an attempt to chat over a beer, then the ball rather than the person would remain the main focus. I don't recall chats at the aeroclub or similar ever degenerating like those in this thread.

Legal Perspectives

I wonder if any of the legal egals out there could clarify something for me...

It is my understanding that there is a definite heirarchy of various forms of legislation - in our case the heirarchy would look something like...

The Act
The Regulations
The Manual of Standards (if there is one)
Legislative Instruments??The AIP is not a specific piece of legislation per se, but its contents are (I believe now, finally!) all dealt with by way of some sort of Legislative Instrument or many such Legislative Instruments if not already in a MoS. Incidentally, where do these LIs fit into the heirarchy?

My point is... Even though a recommendation (from the regulator) exists and it appears to contradict legilstaion higher up the heirarchical tree, a person following the former in contravention of the latter risks successful prosecution. The existence of the recommendation (eg a CAAP) may mitigate the sentence and/or penalty.

I am guessing that the reason CAAPs and other forms of 'recommendations' are published is because the regulator is still playing the 'parental' role rather than letting industry participants develop their own methods of compliance and having ti face the consequences of inadequate compliance or misinterpretation of the law. Intresting that in most other areas of law, method of compliance is not 'provided' but may well be tested in court.

If CASA is keen to see certain behaviour for safety reasons, then it should simply enshrine that behaviour in legislation and stay away from potentially misleading guidelines and recommendations.

ID

Flying Binghi

6th Aug 2008, 11:07

Tis good to see CASA gets a mention in the ADS-B debate :ok:

... a casual observer might think that Airservices control Oz aviation :hmm:

james michael

6th Aug 2008, 22:10

ICAO D

Your point is well made, so why beat around the bush - unfortunately, my research shows that when you have someone who seemingly left an organisation under a cloud and now wishes to denigrate or payback anything related to what that organisation does or supports (ADS-B in this case) - logic and even a chat over a beer will not work.

You are a low time poster but if you follow the threads here and were to review other forums you would find the one, sometimes two, posters as common causes of the angst. The post 3 Aug 22:13 will give you the clue.

Most of us prefer to follow the thread line - it is unfortunate the agro of the one or two detractors sometimes engenders a response, as occurred to Bob from at least three (unrelated) posters on the weekend. I have already apologised that I finally took the bait and was one of that three.

Back on track - as regards the CAAP, an expert legal opinion would certainly be well received.

In that regard, do not allow Bob's confusion and drift to mislead. That's why I said right answer to wrong question.

The CAAP is a CASA publication, well vetted before issue. I do not find anything in it that suggests one should breach any higher order rule or regulation. The CAAP gives instructions on GPS use under the VFR - the emphasis being that GPS use is an operational consideration but the onus rests with the PIC to ensure compliance with the flight rules - in this case VFR. No different to the PIC having to also aviate and communicate, and ensure fuel sufficient, etc, this CAAP merely advises on one small operational consideration of the flight but a most significant one as regards avoiding a possible head to head (more so below 5000').

My argument would be that anyone following the AIP or CAAP - after all, operational documents issued by the regulator - would not be in the hypothetical concern you raise of "The existence of the recommendation (eg a CAAP) may mitigate the sentence and/or penalty" - rather, the average person would anticipate that the beak would accept compliance with operational material issued by the safety regulator as exemption from sentence or penalty under a reasonable man hypothesis. In logic (perhaps questionable re legal decisions) the regulator should not issue any instruction in contravention of its own regulation (not that I think it has with this CAAP).

My reason for raising the GPS offset, and CAAP, is that an ADS-B mandate and subsidy opens the way to far more GPS navigation and risk of head on. It may even be wise to issue a reminder re the CAAP should the 'Son of JCP' be born.

Flying Binghi

6th Aug 2008, 23:24

...my research shows that when you have someone who seemingly left an organisation under a cloud and now wishes to denigrate or payback anything related to what that organisation does or supports (ADS-B in this case)...

What is the organisation that you are refering to james michael ?

Scurvy.D.Dog

6th Aug 2008, 23:35

Smith
.
Changed the thread name today back to your hollow conspiracy inference question - eh? :D
.
Nothing quite like a headline (even if it is a crock), is there :=

Flying Binghi

6th Aug 2008, 23:44

Hmmm... I wonder who really stands to benefit from ADS-B ? :hmm:

Are we pilots/aircraft owners going to be expected to buy/maintain those ADS-B boxs to suport another 'industry' ??? :*

Thanks to gpn01 for this article -

Unmanned spy planes to police Britain - Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unmanned-spy-planes-to-police-britain-886083.html)

gpn01's thread -

http://www.pprune.org/forums/private-flying/338202-importance-looking-out.html

Bob Murphie

7th Aug 2008, 00:04

ICAO D;

Now you have a heresay allegation. Unfounded because nobody by the name of james michael was ever involved in any organisation that I was. Make your own mind up who is causing trouble here.

james michael

7th Aug 2008, 00:04

Bing

Bob knows which organisation he departed - I don't think that knowledge is critical to this debate. What is critical is an end to his ceaseless pricking as otherwise this thread which has required 'moderator repair' twice already might vanish, taking with it the wealth of positive on topic information it contains. (As an aside, I note his running mate at it again on another forum in the last 24 hours - same problem).

Your second post - UAV. They are becoming a fact of life - another technology leap.

You ask Are we pilots/aircraft owners going to be expected to buy/maintain those ADS-B boxs to suport another 'industry' ???

Answer - just my opinion - YES.

Which industry? - not UAV but the carriage of fare paying passengers. I anticipate the CTAF R will ultimately become the CTAF T and then the CTAF ADS-B as a consequence.

If I were you I'd worry more about the regulatory moves to protection of RPT than those UAV!

And, I'm absolutely uncertain how you draw the conclusion on the other thread I guess to fit in with all that 'unmanned' traffic, the only way to fly in the UK will be under IFR .

It's the UAV that carry the avoidance responsibility, not the VFR pilot. Google up earlier minutes of Vic RAPAC re trials at St Leonards and West Sale, and I think NQ or SQ RAPAC re trials in Qld (Kingaroy being one).

Bob Murphie

7th Aug 2008, 00:41

I know what organisations I belong to and those I have left, but which one are you rabbitting on about "leaving under a cloud" and hoiw would you know.

james michael

7th Aug 2008, 01:23

Bob Murphie

1. I told you all earlier I research across a wide number of venues. The matter has been far too well canvassed on another forum I read - for what it is worth. If you wish to debate it, you could head back over there and leave others on here in peace to debate ADS-B, etc.

2. Alternatively, I am certain you would be given the liberty of posting a link here to any document from the organisation concerned that you did NOT leave under a cloud. It's that simple, no? Post a link to your Certificate of Appreciation when you departed, and prove me wrong :)

2. This thread has been twice pulled for clean-up and I consider you the catalyst.

3. It is about ADS-B and related matters. If we can stay within those confines - more than happy to so do - I am certain there will be no angst whatever on the thread as even Fizzing Bungers UAV flights of fancy have not created problems, rather some light humour.

Dick Smith

7th Aug 2008, 01:46

I understand yesterday the Aviation Policy Group (which consisted of the CEO of CASA, Bruce Byron, the head of the Department, Mike Taylor, the head of the Air Force, Air Marshal Mark Binskin, and the head of Airservices, Greg Russell) were given all the information to make a decision on the ADS-B project.

What was the decision? Does anyone know? Or have they yet again delayed any decision so they can’t be held accountable in any way?

Don’t hold your breath for an answer on this.

Scurvy.D.Dog

7th Aug 2008, 01:59

A Decision at last
... no wonder you changed the thread title today!
What was the decision? Does anyone know?
... so you say "a decision at last" ... confess to have knowledge that the APG were given all the information to make a decision on the ADS-B project
... then laughably ask Or have they yet again delayed any decision so they can’t be held accountable in any way?

Don’t hold your breath for an answer on this.
..clearly you think you know the outcome ... how about putting it on the PPRuNe table .. here and now :hmm:

james michael

7th Aug 2008, 01:59

Dick Smith

I apologise for continually being at odds with you, so perhaps we can make this one a humour item.

Or have they yet again delayed any decision so they can’t be held accountable in any way?

So, yesterday the APG were given "were given all the information to make a decision."

And they should make a "$100M plus" decision on the spot?

I'd suggest doing such in haste would make them very, very accountable given the variables, number of players, precedent, and long-term consequences.

I agree, Dick, they have no right to keep us waiting - do they - fancy 'delaying' such a simple decision :rolleyes::rolleyes::ugh::ugh::D:D

Dick Smith

7th Aug 2008, 02:53

Yes,they must make a decision because it is already many months overdue. They have all the facts-now they need some balls!

tail wheel

7th Aug 2008, 03:27

Scurvy. Mr Smith has no more capacity to change anything in this thread (other than editing his own posts), than you have. Don't make misleading statements! :mad:

You seriously damage your PPRuNe credibility by continually and repetitiously attacking others who post. We know who you dislike - we don't need to be reminded in every post! :ugh:

This thread, which should be important to all involved in professional and recreational aviation, has become nothing more than a p!ssing contest by the usual suspects!!!

Tidbinbilla gave a warning a page or so back, which many of you obviously failed to heed.

No more warnings to anyone, here or by PM.

If you find you can no longer access this thread in the future assume you have been permanently thread banned!

:mad: :mad:

Tail Wheel

james michael

7th Aug 2008, 03:37

Dick

On the BLA thread, continuing the humour, you stated about me it is simply not possible that you could be that thick

I give you, sir, the same compliment.

Months and months of posts on this thread by those studying fine detail - and open-minded goes without saying - have not reached consensus yet you suggest information provided yesterday to the APG should result in a decision now by heads of branch who are not deeply immersed in ADS-B matters?

The decision is NOT many months overdue - that was JCP Mark 1, this is "Son of JCP" and not the same proposal. Decision by end-August is still in the safe timeframe.

I would go as far as to suggest if they do, as you say,
need some balls
they would be 'nuts' and more likely to lose their proverbials by a hasty decision.

Give them some breathing space. Their decision is fundamental to massive change to aviation in Australia and I'm happy to wait for a well considered result.

Scurvy.D.Dog

7th Aug 2008, 04:45

No misleading statements Tail Wheel .... go and read the edit time on his opening post (page 1, post #1) on this thread .. an opening post I might add that can be edited including thread title !
.
If he did not edit the title - who did? ... and if he did ... retract your statement!
.
You seriously damage your PPRuNe credibility by continually and repetitiously attacking others who post. We know who you dislike - we don't need to be reminded in every post!
I only attack arguments, my posts stand to that ... the only time I focus on individuals is following in-kind attacks!
.
or are you suggesting 'the other bloke' is not the initiator of such slur's and attacks?

LeadSled

7th Aug 2008, 04:47

Folks,
I have been away for a while, interesting to catch up.

Creamie, old mate,(posts #628/642) I must be getting soft in my old age. I find myself in almost entire agreement with the questions you raise/points you make.

My dear and long departed father was a lawyer of some note, as he always drummed into me: "Get your facts straight, son!". Facts, as oppose to passionately held opinions, are in scarce supply amongst the uncritical advocates of mandatory ADS-B, and to hell with the cost. Old Blackjack McKeown , long time head of the Agrarian Socialist (sorry, Country) Party, would be proud of them.

Airspace management resources determined by “random happenstance and political pressure/scaremongering”, I wonder how your guest speaker last Wednesday justified what he is doing.

You asked why "UAT" in the US, a two part answer:

Firstly, UAT and VDL-4 were the outcomes of a more than usually long range view (then proposal/competition) from ICAO, that narrow bandwidth data links (such as Mode S transponder – 60’s technology) would need to be superseded by a much more modern data link, high bandwidth, for ATC and any other data (maintenance monitoring thro' to a pax ordering flowers for a girlfriend).

The very retrograde emergence of 1090ES ADS-B as a very limited data package tacked on to an available slot(s) in the current Mode S is really a measure of seriously short term thinking by cash strapped airlines, beguiled by the promise of a "cheap" solutions.

As is almost always the case, ill thought out short term "cheap" solutions turn out to be very expensive in the long run.

This is best illustrated by the recent directives from Eurocontrol and FAA re. fitting of broadband datalinks for routine ATC communications, due to the saturation of available voice channels, despite 8.33kc spacing in Europe, and FAA announcing sticking to 25 kc spacing.

So, a large number of airlines are now faced with some very expensive modifications to produce a 1090ES ADS-B (the FAA NPRM has cost estimates far more realistic than the JCP , Qantaslink actual costs have been in line with the FAA estimates, and far, far more than $25,000 Regional subsidy, indeed probably beyond the financial capability of may regional carriers) and airline operation in EU/US/CA airspace will still have to have a broadband datalink, as I recall VDL-2 (VDL-4 is VDL-2 plus the ADS-B information). ARINC/SITA are moving to VDL-2, as ACARS is honourably interred.

ICAO intended the winner of its competition to do all of the above.

There is another reason for UAT in the US, the potential number of returns would (according to Mitre Corp) too easily swamp the available 1090 channels.

Re. the "cost" of the FAA "dual" system, Thales is the contractor for the ground stations for ASA and FAA. The difference in a single mode ground station and a 1090ES/UAT (or VDL-4) dual mode ground station is an extra card in a slot on the base (mother) board. From a ground station to and from an ATC Center, the signal is common, there is not a 1090ES and separate UAT data stream to the Centre.

This has all been written about before, and entirely ignored by the "faith based" approach of the disciples of 1090ES ADS-B. As has the complete lack of manpower to install equipment to meet the timetable, see the local avionics associations submission to the JCP.

Don't feel too hard done by --- no avionics LAME in Canberra, last time I noticed there was just one in WA, over age 70, with a "fly-in, fly-out” program from the eastern states, and a desperate search for potential 457 Visa imports.

And now to the "subsidy", Max 1, would you be so kind as to detail the announcements by the CEO and/or Chairman of any major Australian carrier, or the BAR, as to their agreement to the proposed subsidy, in lieu of their existing contracts re. price of service from ASA.

Perhaps also the details of the decision of ASA Board re. a subsidy. Given the present expenditure reviews being conducted by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, I can really see them readily agreeing to the elimination or greatly reduced dividends from ASA.

Scurvey, thanks for you dissection, I am pleased that you agree with me that there will be little if any "low level" ADS-B coverage over much of the area where the Regional pilots think they will have coverage "in the circuit, any time in our lifetimes. I await ,with considerable interest, the ASA announcement of a big recruiting drive to hire enough controllers to handle, say, just a 30% increase in workload due Class E/G new services, over and above the present airway system

You are quite right, with sparse traffic, who needs it, therefore why should it be mandatory over such a wide area and for all aircraft, including gliders and ultralights. Particularly given that "ADS-B IN" for TCAS 11 equipped aircraft is some time away (see JCP papers, Boeing/Airbus comments), and when it appears, it will have the same functionality as transponder based TCAS 11. Sorry, I forgot, AWA have to have a “critical mass” of equipped aircraft to provide no services to, ASA are not planning a big increase in services that will yield sod all revenue.

As Creamie says, where is the SAFETY data to support the wide spread fitment.

Owen Stanley, re post #841.

In the interests of air safety and the travelling public, it is imperative that you advise ICAO of the proven validity of your condemnation of risk management based airspace management, that is at the heart of the A through G airspace classification, all based on maintaining the same level of separation assurance in all classes of airspace, the same “safety” level, at various demonstrated traffic levels.

Believe me, you have a serious moral obligation to put ICAO right - if you are right, which you are not.

Tootle pip !!

Scurvy.D.Dog

7th Aug 2008, 05:31

Scurvey, thanks for you dissection, I am pleased that you agree with me that there will be little if any "low level" ADS-B coverage over much of the area where the Regional pilots think they will have coverage "in the circuit, any time in our lifetimes.
I am not agreeing with you Leadhead .. what I said (in http://www.pprune.org/forums/4277170-post620.html ) was not as you suggest above!
.
I note also you obviously ignored http://www.pprune.org/forums/4291524-post738.html .. no surprise there!
.
Re: your second para (addressed to me) ... sorry, its drivel, I have no idea what you are asking or suggesting!
.
Nice to read you again though on what is becoming a regular and usual ‘quick – run him a diversion’ day!

OZBUSDRIVER

7th Aug 2008, 08:19

Bit of ancient history. AOPA backs fitment of transponders during Airspace2000. As a means of avoiding any charges by not having to interact with ATC. Everything looking rosey until Dick threatens court action if this outcome is enacted. Airspace2000 is eventualy scutled. Link with transponders and AVOIDING nav charges.(Odd, wasn't Dick Pres of that group when this was negotiated?)

NAS 1 transponders above 5000ft. NAS modified but transponders stick, this time because of TCAS. Dick, why was your advice changed from Airspace2000 to NAS. And, are these guys the same ones feeding you information about ADS-B?

Leadsled, can you give a link to that ICAO page? like to add it to the list. Only thing I ever read about frequency saturation was ModeC. Eventually, 1090ES would need another system but a lot of years down the track. Removal of DME from the frequency helped matters a lot. I'll dig my link up.

UAT was around before ADS-B. AOPA US and Mitre got together to create a system CHEAPER than "Airline Only" ModeS. And voila UAT was created. A system without a cause. Enter Capstone and UAT is legitimised. Much like legitimising a "wildcat" round.

Leadsled, surely you are picking up in different news items that the data transmitting part of UAT is being fast overtaken by Satellite Weather services.

Now a couple of years ago, you guys had me on wood when the ONLY TSO145a card was pulled from production. Sorry to say, that isn't the case anymore as is ADS-B OUT compliant transponders. A lot happens in technology in a very short time.

You sayThales is the contractor for the ground stations for ASA and FAA. The difference in a single mode ground station and a 1090ES/UAT (or VDL-4) dual mode ground station is an extra card in a slot on the base (mother) board. From a ground station to and from an ATC Center, the signal is common, there is not a 1090ES and separate UAT data stream to the Centre.

What happens in the air is different. UAT doesn't see 1090ES without the datalink. UAT needs a transmitter. Outside range of receivers UAT does NOT see 1090ES. ATC is no different but the system from that card back up is a lot different between the two systems. Still arguing about who is going to pay for it too. The FAA wants user pays AOPA says NO! Expensive system.

Now, as you have said, Airlines want the cheap way out(:rolleyes:) Here you have the FAA wanting to roll out UAT and 1090ES. Airlines do not need UAT to operate. Do you see where this heading?
If ever there is a change in funding regimes in the US, do you think someone will be just a little worried about pushing for their own system all those years ago? The premise of the argument for UAT was the expense of ModeS, funny that!

tail wheel

7th Aug 2008, 09:20

Scurvy.

I edited the title - in an attempt to return this thread to the topic as expressed in the thread title.

:mad:

I am locking this thread for a couple of hours whilst I determine what is wheat and what is chaff - or even if the thread has any future. It seems to me most intelligent debate ended a few pages ago!

Tail Wheel

Dick Smith

7th Aug 2008, 23:40

There are rumours going around, which I’ve heard through several sources, that the whole ADS-B low level project has been scuttled. Does anyone have any information on this?

Is it because the airlines, including Virgin and Qantas, in a time of such economic gloom refused to pay tens of millions of dollars of money which they consider to be theirs to GA flyers?

I look forward to some information on this. Someone must know something.

OZBUSDRIVER

8th Aug 2008, 02:53

Is it because the airlines, including Virgin and Qantas, in a time of such economic gloom refused to pay tens of millions of dollars of money which they consider to be theirs to GA flyers?

Dick, what money? If you have your way, the airlines will have to keep paying at the current rate until 2027 when the radars come up for replacement.

If ADS-B low level goes ahead then after equiping of aircraft and after SSR approved for shutdown. The airlines then get a DISCOUNT in the current charges. If the airlines resist then SRR remains and maintained and NO DISCOUNT.

Dick Smith

8th Aug 2008, 04:18

Ozbusdriver, the problem is that if what you are saying was factual, there would be officers from Airservices and other organisations putting their name to the message. I don’t know if you have noticed, but no one does.

All of the spruiking for the ADS-B subsidy comes from anonymous people on PPRuNe. If anyone actually believed that it was going to be a genuine subsidy at no cost (because of savings) they would obviously put their name to the belief.

I’m happy to accept that you believe what you are saying, however you probably don’t have the full information. Surely if you did you would post under your own name and welcome people contacting you to discuss the issue – so that something you felt so strongly about could go ahead.

How do we know that you are not the owner of a company which is going to benefit financially from this ADS-B subsidy? Surely there would be nothing wrong with someone who operates a company which will benefit from the ADS-B subsidy running a strong campaign on PPRuNe to try to ensure that the subsidy goes ahead.

After all, $100 million is a lot of gravy!

OZBUSDRIVER

8th Aug 2008, 07:16

Talk to Greg Dunstone. I have listened to his lectures on this. The JCP says this. How many people is it going to take. The only benefit I get out of this is a safer surveillance environment when I take my family flying. Is that too much to ask?

I do not see your name as a regular or even a guest at the regular ASTRA meetings. The people who are stearing this for the government are all there.

Believe what you want, Mr Smith.

PM me, I'm not up for a phone conversation at the moment. This flu is killing me.

Shame, your in town for the Coroner too.

Capcom

8th Aug 2008, 07:34

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

tail wheel

8th Aug 2008, 08:16

OZBUSDRIVER.

It is time to put up or shut up! :ugh:

If you have conclusive proof the Australian Government, major airlines, AirServices Australia or anyone else is going to subsidise the cost of ADSB in Australia's private and GA aircraft fleet, kindly post the details here.

That appears to be the crux of this issue!! Otherwise, any further debate appears pointless?? This is not supporting Mr Smith's views - it is simply stating fact!

If there are no facts to support subsidies for ADSB, surely this debate is totally premature? :confused:

Government did not subsidised the mandatory fitment of "wireless" in aircraft in the early 1950; Van X DME in the 1960s; the transition from AM to SSB HF in the 1970s or mandatory installation of transponders.

It will be interesting to see if Government sets a precedent with ADSB by taking from the rich (airlines) and giving to the poor (aircraft owners). From my long personal experience I've only seen Governments taking from the poor (tax payers) and giving as little as possible back!

As my dearly departed Dad used to say: "Don't lie, cheat or steal Son - the Government hates competition!"

I don't imagine the Australian tax payers will be very excited and enthusiastic about subsidising navigation equipment in private aircraft.

I'm not entering the debate - merely trying to establish the facts as a basis for debate.

Tail Wheel

james michael

8th Aug 2008, 09:39

Perhaps I can assist.

If you have conclusive proof the Australian Government, major airlines, AirServices Australia or anyone else is going to subsidise the cost of ADSB in Australia's private and GA aircraft fleet, kindly post the details here.

From the JCP.

"The heads of the four aviation agencies are committed to working cooperatively with the aviation community to maintain and enhance aviation safety. Meeting together as the Aviation Policy Group (APG)1, they have considered the ASTRA proposal and directed their staff to develop the proposal for wider consultation. This JCP has been developed by the four government agencies as the prime consultation document.

9.7
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."

Authorised DOTARS, Defence, CASA, Airservices."

My suggestion is that the 'put up or shut up' rests with the person claiming the heads of departments have committed to a falsehood in the JCP. No?

Howabout

8th Aug 2008, 09:48

OK, I don't know much about this and I am definitely not a technophobe, but in trying to learn something, I lifted the following from the US NPRM on ADS-B:

Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is the only navigation position service that
provides the level of accuracy and integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS–B Out to be used for NAS based surveillance operations with sufficient availability

Now, I may have taken that out of context; I genuinely don't know, but it seems that there is a reliance on WAAS in the US for 'accuracy and integrity', which we don't have.

Can someone please explain how we propose introducing ADS-B without augmentation when the FAA appears to regard it as mandatory.

tail wheel

8th Aug 2008, 09:58

Hallelujah! There is a light at the end of the tunnel!!! :ok:
This would not involve any additional charges to customers, and will be ‘revenue-neutral’ to Airservices.So the airlines are not paying, AirServices are not paying but they are not saying the tax payer is not paying?

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.

So, the airlines will continue to pay inflated charges to fund ADSB fitment to private and GA aircraft? Will they, or more importantly, their shareholders agree to that, particularly if the reputed saving is $100 milllion? :confused:

Airservices’ customers would fund the acquisition and installation of approved avionics for light aircraft.

100% of the cost?

max1

8th Aug 2008, 10:03

Tail Wheel,
You're allowed to have it,BUT, your bias is showing.

A little education before commenting please.I appreciate it is a long thread, but the reasoning behind the airlines coughing up the moohla, is dotted throughout this thread.
It involves ASA being able to drop their charges, long term.
Through not having to install new, or replace and maintain old, expensive SSRs.

tail wheel

8th Aug 2008, 10:05

Not at all Max. Simply trying to remove one impediment to intelligent debate.

I accept your view, however being somewhat skeptical, I wanted to see evidence that the Government were prepared to give back anything.

max1

8th Aug 2008, 10:11

Tail Wheel,
I've tried that, some people simply do not want to believe the what , why and how of ADS-B funding.

Howabout

8th Aug 2008, 10:16

I dunno, I'm starting to side with Dick. While I think he has avoided some questions on other threads, I noticed that every 'green light' was on when I asked my question regarding WAAS. Debate has ensued, which has been in the realms of catty, but nobody has addressed the fundamental question that I posed.

Jabawocky

8th Aug 2008, 10:28

A perfectly good plan screwed up by democracy.......:}

Howabout

8th Aug 2008, 10:30

Cryptic Jab, but can you answer the question seeing you are still on line?

james michael

8th Aug 2008, 10:38

Tailwheel

I'm about to go and have that beer you mentioned elsewhere and will certainly catch up tomorrow re other matters.

The point is that if ASA have to replace the radars THEY have to spend money and will continue to charge airlines on that basis. If they can move to ADS-B instead, there are LONG TERM savings that can be passed to the airlines - both in actual ASA costs and in airline efficiency costs (separation etc) - that offer a cost benefit plus to the airlines and their shareholders.

I say again - given that the four heads of departments signed off on the JCP, and also given the involvement of the airlines in the ASTRA forum and the ASTRA ATMSP - the onus is on those claiming the subsidy cannot eventuate to put up or shut up.

It is particularly frustrating to have put up so much factual reference to counter a waffle of rhetoric, and personal attack, and find the Government document of committal being challenged.

In business it is quite common to speculate to accumulate. The JCP is a business opportunity where ASA not committing to radar replacement enables savings to be made long-term. That requires investment now. If funding investment NOW provides a NPV greater than 1, why would any commonsense business not embrace it - i.e. the airlines, the government, and Airservices.

TW I have been researching this for about 5 years. To ensure no misunderstanding, you made 3 quotes.

Q1 - The taxpayer is not paying because the equation changes when ADS-B is used to replace radar (and there is a further saving with navaids, let's ignore that even if it's bigger).

Q2 - The airlines realise that if they DO NOT get ADS-B, and the radar is replaced, they will continue to pay higher charges FOREVER. Why not pay them for the several years needed to outfit GA to enable ADS-B then reap the harvest.

Q3 - I doubt it. But, Microair claim it can be done. Chicken and egg - no JCP decision, no equipment release. However, what do YOU prefer TW - some subsidy now or NO subsidy once ADS-B arrives by technology push? And, by providing the $10K and $15K voucher system as proposed, many owners may decide to undertake more significant upgrades - e.g. TSO 146 NAV I/L/O TSO 145 - and that means the voucher will have a gap but that's the owners choice.

Have a read of the ASTRA ATMSP and the USA JPDO NGATS for what's coming down the pipeline. And remember - in the USA they KNOW they will have to pay for ADS-B in the 2020 MANDATE. In Oz, there is a chance we may get a subsidy - if someone single handedly does not stuff it. And before that's called picking on the god figure - remember the post he made on the now vanished BLA thread about myself that would have had anyone else sin binned. Might be a great idea if Dick is prepared to debate as robustly as he serves :)

james michael

8th Aug 2008, 10:48

Howabout

WAAS is not required for ADS-B accuracy.

ADS-B is in use across Australia today by airlines - we don't have WAAS.

If you need references, ask.

This may help:

1.8 Australia has analysed 3 months’ of ADS-B data from aircraft which are known to have acceptable ADS-B avionics – i.e. aircraft which have been authorised to receive ADS-B services in Australia. We have examined about 160 million ADS-B reports and correlated these with the GPS
receiver onboard the aircraft. Details of the analysis method are discussed in Appendix A.
1.9 None of the authorised aircraft have TSOC145a/C146a avionics and none of the avionics are SBAS/ WAAS certified. However some aircraft are fitted with GPS receivers that are “SA Aware.”

JM

tail wheel

8th Aug 2008, 10:57

james

My skepticism was based upon the fact that in three score plus years in Australia, over half in aviation, I'm yet to see a benevolent Government!

If the funding issue is resolved beyond all reasonable doubt, then the technical debate may continue - without personalities!

Tail Wheel

Howabout

8th Aug 2008, 11:13

Sorry JM, that doesn't answer the question. I am only asking for clarification. If the FAA is saying that WAAS is essential, then how come we don't need it? It's a pretty basic question.

Dick Smith

8th Aug 2008, 11:30

Howabout, It is a most important question about WAAS. I think you will find there are those who are so hell bent on the subsidy proposal going ahead that they will not answer it!

My information is that the Airline CEO's have never signed off on the subsidy and never will as there is no measurable safety issue that the $100m subsidy deals with.

Jabawocky

8th Aug 2008, 11:36

Howabout

WAAS is not needed for ADSB, here or anywhere else.

WAAS really gives big gains in Vertical accuracy, ADSB uses the Altitude Encoder like you have now in your Mode C set up.

ADSB does not have or warrant the WAAS vertical accuracy any more so than radar and Mode C.

WAAS is needed for making a NPA into a PA, so the ILS type of accuracy and Minima that the yanks have on GPS approaches.

Australia would also benefit from WAAS.

Regionals would greatly benefit and the big three also at regional aerodromes. As an example a few weeks back while battling VFR around low cloud, mist and light rain, I could here the Sunstate guys and girls having several misses at Roma, Charleville, Blackall and so on. A week before Jetstar and Virgin were having the same trouble at Hervey Bay, and I think Sunnies at Bundy as well. Maroochydore was also having the same trouble.

WAAS is another thing of the future with BIG safety gains and efficiency gains, when the weather is not so good.

And if anyone can..... they should push it ant any opportunity.

J:ok:

Howabout

8th Aug 2008, 11:38

Well, I see just about everybody's back. Now JM will you please answer the question?

OZBUSDRIVER

8th Aug 2008, 11:53

Howabout, Have a look at the spec of a WAAS receiver. You will notice it is TSO146a When you look at that TSO you will see something called FDE or Fault Detection Exclusion, it is this particular feature that is required for the integrity message of the NUC. If no FDE then NUC delivers a value that signals TAAATS to ignore your signal transmission. The original trials were done with TSO129 gear which just flagged the pilot that RAIM was not available. This isn't good enough for the ADS-B 1090ES message. Hence, the need for TSO145a/6a gear. WAAS is great but not needed for the gear to produce the right message for the transponder.

You should start a thread up about WAAS so someone can explain to you about what it really would mean for instrument approaches across the GAFA.

ADS-B doesn't need WAAS, it does need FDE. Is that clear enough:ok:

Howabout

8th Aug 2008, 11:53

Jab, thanks. As I said before, my knowledge is limited. However, I stiill don't have a straight answer.

If the FAA say that augmentaion is essential, and they are probably the supreme organisation (accepting their faults) regarding aviation regulation, how come we don't, at least, try and learn from them?

I ain't pushing Dick's barrow, but sometimes he makes more sense to me than some of the other posters on this thread.

Jabawocky

8th Aug 2008, 11:54

Go back a page, Dick Smith and myself have answered it for you......

I think he would like WAAS too.

As for the ADSB............:ugh:

Howabout

8th Aug 2008, 12:10

Good grief, this is like asking questions akin to pulling teeth. I apologise in advance to everyone else on here, but the question I asked was 'If the yanks require augmention why don't we?'

I don't think that I have got a definitive answer yet.

OZBUSDRIVER

8th Aug 2008, 12:30

Tailie, there is no official piece of paper until the minister signs off on it.
As for your asking me to put up or shut up. I put it to Mr Smith to back up his "RUMOUR".

The time for this debate passed in October last year. To be honest? I await Minister Albanese and his response. I am very sure AirServices would like to know. They have to sign a deal that will cost them more money just to keep the opportunity for ADS-B uptake alive.

When this thread started it was about a supposed bungling of ADS-B. In all the years I have researched it, I have never seen anything other than a single goal with a singal peice of equipment.1090ES upper and lower airspace all on the same page. That message hasn't changed The costs haven't changed.

The only thing that has changed is the argument against. First it was equipment and standards, then it was an orphan technology, then equipment components were not available then it was WAAS then it was equipment costs again and now we have again the airlines will not pay for it....OH yeh, I forgot the most biggest purphy of them all. Spoofing ADS-B signals and the terrorist threat of being able to track ADS-B equipped aircraft with a ten dollar aerial.

This argument is so old, I grow tired.

OZBUSDRIVER

8th Aug 2008, 12:33

The yanks require augmentation for their instrument approach part of ADS-B. If you go and have a read of Capstone it will be clearer, Howabout. hope thats a bit clearer. WAAS is not a required item here. As I said many many posts ago there are probabley more IFR people here who would wish for WAAS than ADS-B. CU:ok:

Jabawocky

8th Aug 2008, 12:48

Howabout

Sorry mate seems I posted at the same time as you.....apologies for the confusion.

Hope its clearer now.

J:ok:

Howabout

8th Aug 2008, 13:18

Thanks for the tempered responses guys. I do appreciete that this can get a bit heated. I will go away and read some more. However, I still have that WAAS thing. Regardless, I think that this thread has probably educated me more than any of the others.

Good night, sleep tight and I will have a red shortly.

Jabawocky

8th Aug 2008, 13:39

A Red now:eek:

you needed one a few hours back!

J:ok:

james michael

8th Aug 2008, 21:52

Howabout

A late answer to your question - because, had you read my post to TW it said I was going off to have a beer and would catch up tomorrow and you would not have expected me to answer while my green light was off.

I've just had my morning walk and found no shops open. Last night you posted your enquiry at 19:48 and by 20:16 - less than half an hour later - you had decided Dick must be correct because you did not get a technical answer from anyone else. Haste in aviation can be fatal. I'll patiently await the shops to open - while contemplating your comments.

To answer your question in more detail - and it has already been well detailed - WAAS requires satellites, Oz does not have them or the critical mass to make WAAS cost effective, and Airservices are pushing their own ICAO compliant alternative solution GBAS/GRAS.

WAAS is NOT required for ADS-B accuracy (I think I already said that).

Of 156 MILLION samples over 3 months in Oz, the NUC >4 figure (i.e. data considered safe to display on TAAATS for ATC use) was 99.997% for SA Aware data. Do the numbers yourself - I think it means about 5 rejections.

TW

I entirely take your point that the debate may continue without personalities. In examining this thread from my arrival on it, your message will hopefully be well received by quite a number of posters including a favoured one who cast doubt on my veracity and right to anonymity :)

Howabout

9th Aug 2008, 02:43

Sorry JM, but I didn't say that Dick was correct. Without going back over the thread, I think that I said that I was 'leaning' in his direction, which is a little different. However, thanks for the stats regarding accuracy.

james michael

9th Aug 2008, 05:34

Howabout

Point taken - and conceded. I was biased in my thinking by your later comment about him making more sense than other posters.

The OZBUS post of 21:53 yesterday well sums up your query. To expand, when your life depends on it with ADS-B you need FDE and SA. Summed up by these extracts:

Recognising the wide scale civilian application of GPS, the US President issued a directive in the year 2000 turning SA off, thus making higher accuracy GPS available to the world. SA has been turned off now for many years and the USA have committed to it remaining off to the extent that new generation GPS satellites do not have this feature.
Modern GPS receivers can detect whether SA is ON or OFF. These receivers are called SA AWARE receivers.

All TSOC145a/146a certified GPS receivers are SA aware. This is a requirement of the standard. Some modern TSO129c receivers may be SA aware but most assume SA is ON because SA awareness is not required by the standard.

The statistic I mentioned in my previous post can also be expressed as:

99.997% availability is equivalent to a 6 minute outage for each aircraft every
approx 138 days. (Good enuf for me anyway)

FDE on the other hand is best summarised as to identify and exclude the malfunctioning satellite in order to continue navigating using the remaining satellites.

Flying Binghi

9th Aug 2008, 07:19

When discussing SA lets not forget, as OZBUSDRIVER pionted out, the US has NORAD to take care of terrorist miss-use off GPS ... Australia has what ??? :hmm:

james michael

9th Aug 2008, 07:42

Flying Binghi

9th Aug 2008, 08:09

Bing

Based on many others replies to you about this repetitive low probability terrorist UAV scenario, and my need not to be biased, repetitive, or antagonistic - can I suggest as I prepare to rip my first ring pull of the day:

The USA has NORAD, Australia is best served by GONAD - in other words, we'd be nuts to worry about a scenario with odds less than winning Tattslotto

james michael, please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ? :hmm:

OZBUSDRIVER made the assessment that a sparrow would'nt get through NORAD. I wonder what the Oz equivalent is - a couple of airborne plateforms perhaps ? ............:hmm:

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Aug 2008, 08:56

Binghi, you really are bottom shelf at Dimmey's mate!

Has it ever occured to you that your scenario can exist with or without ADS-B roll out. SO, your scenario has no bearing on any argument for or against ADS-B. Your assertion has no validity. It has been pointed out ad infinitatum
If ANY loss of integrity is detected there is still the back up of selected Navaids and Primary Radar around our major airports.....except Hobart..to ensure safety of airbourne aircraft. Why the mods let you continue with this totally ludicrous line of argument is beyond me.

Your use of GPS is in the same catagory as the use of mobile phones as detonators of IEDs and the internet to forment terrorism. Terrorists are common criminals who work outside state sanction. How do you defend against a bank robber FB? Effective local policing!

EDIT- I've even left you a flaw in my argument, FB. That is if you are really up to speed on how a terrorist thinks?

KittyKatKaper

9th Aug 2008, 09:13

FLying Binghi please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?Have you done a study of the odds ?.
What do you reckon is the probability of your scenario.
Come on., tell us all your figure.
You seem to think that it's a high probability event.

Flying Binghi

9th Aug 2008, 09:31

CaptainMidnight

9th Aug 2008, 09:34

Don't engage the guy, and he'll go away ..........

Flying Binghi

9th Aug 2008, 09:35

FLying Binghi
Quote:
please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?
Have you done a study of the odds ?.
What do you reckon is the probability of your scenario.
Come on., tell us all your figure.
You seem to think that it's a high probability event.

Hmmm... KittyKatKaper, I think I'll wait to hear from the posters that, by saying the scenario has a low probability, are admiting it to be a valid probability :hmm:

................:) :) :)

.

Flying Binghi

9th Aug 2008, 09:56

james michael My compliments to you for persevering with the debate here.

That was a previous post from you CaptainMidnight. I guess we know who you support. Do you stand to gain financialy from ADS-B ?

james michael

9th Aug 2008, 10:14

22 April 2004

There is a high probability there will one day be a terrorist attack in Australia, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.

According to a Newspoll published in the Daily Telegraph today, 68 per cent of adult Australians believe terrorists would "strike before too long".

But it found 91 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds would not change their daily routine despite recent terrorist attacks in western countries.

Mr Ruddock said it was likely there would be a terrorist attack in Australia.
"I think it's a high probability (there could be a terrorist attack), a high probability," he told reporters.

"But in my judgment you still have to do everything you can to deal with it and I would hope that inevitability that many believe, won't be realised."

Mr Ruddock said Australians were concerned about the threat of terrorism but would not allow it to change the way they lived their lives.

Bing

Come out of the bomb shelter and your diet of dickmite - it's four years later, Ruddock has not been razed by resurgents, and Oz has moved on.

The question remaining is why you - allegedly the owner and pilot of an aircraft well equipped - persist in this repetitious thread drift and improbable scenario and innuendo about fellow posters.

Smokescreen anyone? Constant attempt to pervert the ADS-B thread to closure perhaps :E

Flying Binghi

9th Aug 2008, 10:36

Via james michael -

22 April 2004

There is a high probability there will one day be a terrorist attack in Australia, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.

According to a Newspoll published in the Daily Telegraph today, 68 per cent of adult Australians believe terrorists would "strike before too long".

But it found 91 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds would not change their daily routine despite recent terrorist attacks in western countries.

Mr Ruddock said it was likely there would be a terrorist attack in Australia.
"I think it's a high probability (there could be a terrorist attack), a high probability," he told reporters.

"But in my judgment you still have to do everything you can to deal with it and I would hope that inevitability that many believe, won't be realised."

Mr Ruddock said Australians were concerned about the threat of terrorism but would not allow it to change the way they lived their lives.

Bing

Come out of the bomb shelter and your diet of dickmite - it's four years later, Ruddock has not been razed by resurgents, and Oz has moved on.

The question remaining is why you - allegedly the owner and pilot of an aircraft well equipped - persist in this repetitious thread drift and improbable scenario and innuendo about fellow posters.

Smokescreen anyone? Constant attempt to pervert the ADS-B thread to closure perhaps

........................................:hmm:

I'll repeat myself - james michael, please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?

.

ferris

9th Aug 2008, 11:24

Flying Binghi

9th Aug 2008, 11:57

I dont actually think you have put much thought into your buzz bomb scenario, FB. Your attempts to garner support for opposition to ADS-B are tiresome because they are so tenuous. You really will have to think up better reasons than this, and your repetitive recital is doing you no favours. It makes you look like a bit of a nutter- so it's gotten to the point where you are now working against the other nay-sayers.

- terror can be had by much simpler means, and in much greater quantities, using other methods (as has been descibed to you).
- even if your scenario were to eventuate, turning off the GPS signal is highly unlikely. The authorities would weigh up whether the attacks would stop (and they wouldnt, as "buzz bombs" wouldn't NEED a GPS signal, and could still be utilised blind and perpetuate any 'terror' achieved) Vs the benefit of GPS.
- continually claiming that, because something cannot be absolutely ruled out gives it credence, is poor argument, and has been treated as such. Your continued attempts at breathing life back into your argument have seriously diminished your premise.

By all means, continue to press your lame-duck argument.

ferris, I dont think you have understood the scenario I have presented, so I'll take it piont by piont -

..."it's gotten to the point where you are now working against the other nay-sayers"

I have written on several occasions that my views/concerns are entirly my own. It may be you who wants to tie me to other posters ?

..."terror can be had by much simpler means, and in much greater quantities, using other methods"

I think you have missed my piont about Oz based (i.e. 'inhouse') potential terrorists having a high probability of being 'found' by our security people before any 'event' happens - exibit A, the Footy bombers. The problem with the GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bombs' scenario, is they are launched outside of the majority of Oz securitys 'influence'

"buzz bombs wouldn't NEED a GPS signal"

ferris, You'll have to explain that further.

..."continually claiming that, because something cannot be absolutely ruled out gives it credence, is poor argument, and has been treated as such. Your continued attempts at breathing life back into your argument have seriously diminished your premise"

I'm yet to see any serious rebutal to the dangers that the GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bombs' present to an increasingly GPS reliant Oz ATC system. As I wrote previously, ...by saying the scenario has a low probability ...admiting it to be a valid probability

ferris

9th Aug 2008, 15:15

You are now definately in the tin-foil hat brigade. I'm sure the nay-sayers will be impressed. Whether you (or, more importantly, they) like it or not, there is guilt by association.

It has been explained to you that because something is merely possible, does not make it likely/plausable/VALID or any other word giving weight or credence to your scenario. In fact, your statement is utterly incorrect, as several posts on this very thread point out why your opposition to GPS reliance isn't valid. Get that; OPPOSITION TO GPS RELIANCE. That is the key- not whether it is possible for terrorists to build weapons that utilise GPS. You have been rebutted most conclusively, and your seeming inability to grasp that is what is relegating you to the lunatic fringe.

If you are so sold on your conviction, I put it to you that it is up to you to take apart each and every rebuttle post on this thread, and sway the wider audience. Because just sitting back and declaring that no-one has rebutted YOU, and that your scenario is possible, and therefore a show-stopper, just isnt flying.

While your posts may be a fine example of circular argument, persuasive they are not.