Australian Airspace Discussion

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

I believe the actual QNH is an easy fix, there are a great number of automatic MET stations on the BOM website, surely ASA has access to this data, be it real time or at fixed times.

If in the case of Benalla, if the altitude V's plot in RADAR coverage keeps the aircraft in protected area's, you would be correct then, MSAW might not have saved the day, we could play this game all day, what about the PA31 or the B407 in North QLD.

Guess ADS-B will make this equation even better ( yes whilst still in line of sight with a ADS station ), but not perfect.

Perhaps another spin, what if the two crays super computers you were talking about earlier would only enable the flight planned departure aerodrome, enroute Grids and LSALTs then destination MSA/MVA and appoaches ?, would this be better than the broad brush ?

[Flying Binghi]

How will UAVs be integrated into Oz airspace ?

Via Grand Forks Herald -

The unmanned aerial vehicles that the “systems” will fly need a special kind of airspace, one that restricts commercial and other traffic in the areas the UAVs use.

So far, so good. Still, local pilots would have to get used to the new restrictions...

OUR OPINION: 'Airspace' link proves vital to UAVs here | Grand Forks Herald | Grand Forks, North Dakota (http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=88584&section=Opinion)

[james michael]

Bing

Just shows how sometimes we in Oz are way ahead of the USA.

UAV are or have been flying in Vic, Qld, WA, without 'a special kind of airspace'.

Try 5.3, http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/rapac/minutes/vic071004.pdf and note the Heidi Fourier comment in Herti UAV air traffic integration test-flights to occur in Australia-16/03/2007-Melbourne-Flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/16/212624/herti-uav-air-traffic-integration-test-flights-to-occur-in.html) (mixing it with the heavies at 30,000)

It will be nice, though, when they have ADS-B onboard to enhance the separation :)

Tren

Question at your leisure - the radar surveillance data between the two recorded flights of TNP seemed to work lower on the earlier event when the wx was better.

Do you get much variation in the capability (due refraction, scatter, etc?) between a bright sunny day and a day of heavy cloud/rain?

[TrenShadow]

Tren

Question at your leisure - the radar surveillance data between the two recorded flights of TNP seemed to work lower on the earlier event when the wx was better.

Do you get much variation in the capability (due refraction, scatter, etc?) between a bright sunny day and a day of heavy cloud/rain?
Can't honestly say I've ever paid enough attention to correlating wx conditions to radar coverage to say...

Certainly radar coverage around the BLA/AY/CRG area does vary greatly from day to day, and even intraday. Night time seems to have particularly poor coverage around CRG - we regularly lose SW4 off radar for 50-80 miles at FL150 down the CB-CRG-ELW track. Atmospherics perhaps similar to HF (and to a lesser extent VHF) signals?

Today I had an SR22 overhead AY at A090 who mostly stayed on radar, but ended up dropping off for a few minutes. The SF34 inbound from ML behind him dropped off at A067 while the inbound DH8C from SY dropped off around A059. That's fairly typical of most days - lighties over the top will disappear for between 1 and 10 minutes depending on the strength of their transponder; turboprops and the virgin jungle jet around A060 to the north and A070-A090 to the south.

I've had bad days where I lose lighties for the best part of 1/2 an hour, and don't see the RPTs below F120. I've had good days where I've watched a PA28 from the north track almost all the way into the cct at A030.

[LeadSled]

The JCP is a marriage of convenience of ADS-B and Navaid replacement. One about 60M one about 30M from memory? But, either could be done INDEPENDENT of the other. Just convenient to mix them because ------James, my dear chap, absolute rubbish.

It is completely improper to run the line that has been around since the first CASA ADS-B CBA, and came from the ASA project team in the first place, it goes like the this:

(1) We, Australia, who are going to lead the world on ADS-B, and need a large installed base,particularly to help promote export ASA "services" and to;

(2) Claim to the world what a good idea it is (and it is, where it has a useful purpose), but;

(3) We forecast that Australian owners will not spend the money, because they can see little, if any, benefit, because there isn't, so;

(4) We need to force a widespread base of ADS-B, to show the rest of the world what a good idea it is, particularly if you (a sovereign nation) contract with ASA to provide the "knowhow", based on the widespread "successful adoption" in Australia, ergo;

(5) We must have a "mandate", pass regulations to legally force the widespread adoption of ADS-B, but;

(6) There is a very big fly in the ointment, which is;

(7) The Productivity Commission required (mandates) justification of all regulation, and Little Johnny, (remember him) ran an inquiry, which created the OBPR, the Office of Best Practice Regulation, the ORR, Office of Regulation Review on steroids, which, amongst other matters;

(8) Reinforced required substantial Cost/Benefit justification,so;

(9) As a result of the ORR, later OBPR requiring CBA, the (then) CASA airspace mob had this great idea, which was;

(10) If we mandate ADS-B with the (now) specifications, that will mean a forced widespread adoption of C-146/146 equipped GPS systems, which means;

(11) ASA can pull a bunch of navaids, and;

(12) We can (quite improperly) claim the costs savings as being attributed to ADS-B, when;

(13) It is nothing of the sort, it is a benefit of C-145/146 GPS, which is in no way dependent on ADS-B.

In short, the Government policies which are meant to protect us from excessive and/or unjustified regulation, and the often/usually horrendous cost of same, were largely ignored. "Decisions" were "made", then there was (and is an ongoing) unholy scramble to cobble up any justification for the unjustifiable.

I don't envy the present Board and management of ASA unscrambling this one, the GRAS ambitions are the first to go.

If proper process had been and continued to be observed (without ASA ambitions to be big players in the CNS/ATM export market) we would have still has the high level ADS-B rollout, because that was a service enhancement, agreed between ASA and its major customers.

James, of the rose colored glasses ---- "please explain" how NZ replaced their SSR heads so cheaply (fact), compared to the costs claimed in the JCP and previous documents.

Even allowing the ASA SSR replacement estimates being accurate, (which certainly seem to suggest our NZ peers are much better at getting a $$$$ good deal) as you are unwilling to accept, the savings on the ASA bottom line were sod all, and unlikely to be achieved in the real world --- especially after all the bonuses for such wonderful estimated savings were paid.

Pardon? Would it have anything to do with both getting ADS-B but IFR getting TSOP 146 navigator subsidy for the NAVAID replacement?You really have no idea about C-145 v. C-146, do you!

All you can do is parrot the technical errors in the JCP.

There is absolutely nothing VFR v. IFR in C-145 v.146. Do you really think that, if I turn up with an IFR aircraft that has C-145 GPS engines in the IFR fit, I will only get the 'VFR' subsidy ---- if there are ever any subsidies.

Your post was at 16:38. Perhaps check mine at 16:00 :rolleyes:Cute little fellow, aren't you, James ---- why don't you put up the ASA diagram showing the estimated no. of ground stations to produce 5000' coverage across Australia, it so well illustrates the improbability of widespread low level ADS-B coverage.

Did you say ASA had kiboshed WAAS? I know they have kiboshed GRAS. More info (as I value much of your research, sorry Bing http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif)Oh, dear, you really haven't been doing your homework, have you, or you don't remember ( or didn't understand what you were told by ASA at Narromine), didn't you know about the report commissioned by (then) DOTARS (BAH) because WAAS has widespread uses, beyond ASA "paying customers" ----- And just who prevailed on DOTARS to seek wider opinion than ASA on WAAS.

Haven't your good mates in YSCB told you the results ? I though you were "in the know".

If you really thought out of your box, you would understand why the WAAS coverage contract was moved (not the "new" Japanese bird) east to another satellite, and that coverage now misses Australia.

UAT was invented BEFORE ADS-BOZBD,

I have never said otherwise, UAT and VDL1/2 emerged from the ICAO requirement for a broadband datalink, and that was a interesting piece of forward thinking, at the time. As you are probably aware, VDL-4 is VDL-2 plus the ADS-B component, and is in day to day use in NW Europe. Interestingly, the US Marines have adopted VDL-4 for their range datalink, and it is the basis of a number of Runway Incursion Monitor systems in US.

As to UAT, that is/was the whole point of having a Universal Access Tranceiver, all sorts of communications, of which ADS-B information is but one use. UAT is an application of the Qualcomm CDMA data format.

TSO145 chipsets ARE availableAgain, never said otherwise, it is the $$$$$ that is the issue, compared to the fanciful claims of our mate James, of an all singing and dancing but unnamed TSO's ADS-B IN and OUT for AUD$10,000.

Mode A,C,S 1090ES DO260A transponders are avilable right nowAgain, never said otherwise, it is the $$$$$ that is the issue, would you like to quote a price for this device, I know roughly how much the Garmin is/will be, likewise the Collins TDR-94D -800 #.

As a matter of interest, anything that fits the KT 76 slot (without major modification) can't meet the present regulations CASA have published, without an exemption that seriously compromises the performance, but I will leave you to work out why.

And finally, does Aus GA need a unique broadband serviceNope, never said they did, but airlines do.

You are aware, are you, of the SITA/ARINC VDL-2 network well on the way, to succeed ACARS, due the bandwidth limitations of ACARS ----- and the FAA/Eurocontrol "mandate" to transfer most/all high level and most else routine voice comms. to datalink, due running out of frequencies/channels.

ICAO had this one right in the first place some 20 years ago, short term thinking ( a common problem) has got us into this position, yet again the "cheap and easy" solution is turning out to be very expensive for everybody, especially airlines.

Tootle pip !!

[K-941]

:suspect: Yeh good one Lead, post in the one thread he cannot respond in! :suspect:
TW, how about it? :mad:

[james michael]

Leaddy

What on earth are you smoking? Again you start off wrong, then go both downhill and convoluted into an obscure political argument.

ADS-B can be done with a simple blind box in the luggage compartment using a TSO145 driver to generate GPS data to a transponder squitting ADS-B OUT (among other things).

ALL affected aircraft - VFR and IFR - can be so fitted. That's ADS-B.

Meantime, and absolutely a separate exercise with no relevance at all to ADS-B, Airservices are reducing the NAVAIDS to a backup network capable of providing 'home, Jeeves' at full tootle pip speed in the event of a GNSS failure. That needs a GPS navigator. That is why IFR gets a greater subsidy.

Who gives a rats about the NZ SSR - are you determined to keep the wagon wheels rolling as the rest of the world moves from the horse and cart to the automobile?

How many stations to completely cover Oz at 5000' - what a great idea Leaddy - have you suggested it to Telstra, Optus, Three etc for mobiles as well? We could probably bitumen all the tracks as well. The ADS-B cover suggested is to cater for reasonable coverage of much that is now NOT covered by the antique monsters with revolving heads, and never will be under that technology.

Are you so set in your opposition that a doubling or tripling of the mantle of safety is inadequate - you must have 100% or nothing - cost me that out in NZ SSR heads.

The WAAS coverage contract moved - I see, that was Airservices was it? Always thought it was the yanks and outside our control.

Leaddy, go and read that USA document. They are waking up that THEY are going to be the unique group in the world.

You've lost me Leaddy - good luck with your kero lantern and coolgardie safe :)

[Flying Binghi]

UAV are or have been flying in Vic, Qld, WA, without 'a special kind of airspace'.


I am well aware of the Oz tests james michael. I see there was a thread on pprun recently about U.K. airspace closeures for UAVs - did you read it ?

It will be nice, though, when they have ADS-B onboard to enhance the separation

Is that the plan ? ...ADS-B for UAVs

[Flying Binghi]

I see there has been no rebutle to the GPS guided terror weapons scenario I offered .... heck, I even threw in an easy to rebutt section in the PMs to get a bite from the main players - nothing :)


...So, as it stands, the GPS guided terrorist 'buzz bomb' scenario is highly probable, and could very well indirectly affect any GPS based nav system in Oz.

Fin.

[james michael]

Bing

I'm not even game to go fishin' or stand in the backyard in case of a terrorist attack with curare dipped arrows dropped from a marauding UAV - you have converted me to fear of attack and I have pulled out my 1942 copy of the Air Raid Warden's Handbook :D

But, in the world of reality, yes UAV will have ADS-B - although it will of course be turned off should they be in hostile territory at war.

try Avionics Magazine :: Europe’s Answer: UAVs in Controlled Airspace (http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/1022.html)

And, no, I did not read the thread re airspace closures overseas for UAV - I cannot see the need for such measures.

[Flying Binghi]

Bing

I'm not even game to go fishin' or stand in the backyard in case of a terrorist attack with curare dipped arrows dropped from a marauding UAV - you have converted me to fear of attack and I have pulled out my 1942 copy of the Air Raid Warden's Handbook :D

But, in the world of reality, yes UAV will have ADS-B - although it will of course be turned off should they be in hostile territory at war.


james michael, please show me the reference you are useing, re Oz UAVs having ADS-B.

I will add, that yet again you are miss-representing the GPS guided terror weapon scenario I have presented. james michael, unless you intend to offer a serious rebutle - dont waste my time.


And, no, I did not read the thread re airspace closures overseas for UAV - I cannot see the need for such measures.

james michael, do you make the decisions re airspace ?

[K-941]

do you? that is the tin foil hat wearing bunker brigade eh MarilBing? :rolleyes:

thank the (insert deity of choice) you do not :E

arc up in progress :}

[Pera]

I will add, that yet again you are miss-representing the GPS guided terror weapon scenario I have presented. james michael, unless you intend to offer a serious rebutle - dont waste my time.

Unless you have a serious argument, stop wasting everyone else's time.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The stupid thing about FB's revolving door argument is it's not his idea to start with. He borrowed it off one of the Brit threads where someone was being a bit sarcastic. Our Binghi tarted it up a bit and made it his own. It's quite sad, really!:ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

The stupid thing about FB's revolving door argument is it's not his idea to start with. He borrowed it off one of the Brit threads where someone was being a bit sarcastic. Our Binghi tarted it up a bit and made it his own. It's quite sad, really!

We've been through this before - I make no claims as to being the originator - I think Hitler can lay some claim to being the originator of 'Buzz Bomb' terror weapons being used against civy targets :hmm:

You'll have to try better then that OZBUSDRIVER. I note from your extensive posts on other threads re this scenario, its got you worried about something ?

...actually, the sheer volume of attacking posts from some others has been amazing. If you think the scenario wont work for some reason - why the panic ?

[max1]

FB,
Please don't bring your BuzzBombs to this thread, you will just get it shut down.

By all means start another thread and those who haven't yet tired, or self immolated, will be happy to cross swords with you there.

I don't see where you need to dicuss your doomsday scenario on an 'Australian Airspace Discussion' thread. Thank you in anticipation of doing the right thing.

[Flying Binghi]

I don't see where you need to dicuss your doomsday scenario on an 'Australian Airspace Discussion' thread


max1,...................please :*

[max1]

FB,

I have started a new thread (sandpit) for you, I am hoping the Mod won't move it to Jet Blast (where it deserves to be).

[Flying Binghi]

max1, I'm waiting to hear back from james michael. There is a few questions I asked re other subjects. Apparently the 'researcher' is off looking for answers - or hoping LeadSled might save the day ...again :hmm:



Re, GPS guided terrorist weapons, I see no reason to debate the issue further....unless somebody can offer some form of rebutle, the scenario stands :)

[james michael]

Bing (M)

I'm waiting to hear back from james michael. There is a few questions I asked re other subjects. :confused:
LeadSled might save the day
If living history over and over and resisting change can save the day, I'm your man too.

Max1

Well said and done. When I get into conspiracy theory mode I draw the same conclusion re forced thread closures.

Returning to airspace minus buzz bombs, the USA ARC report is a lengthy read but reinforces the necessary link between ADS-B and future airspace states - both there and here.

[Flying Binghi]

james michael, I note you for one can be insistant re getting your questions answered - seems to me as though you are being a little hypocritical here. You made the claim, ..."in the world of reality, yes UAV will have ADS-B"...

I'll ask again - please show me the reference you are useing, re Oz UAVs having ADS-B.

[ICAO-Delta]

I'm outa here
ID

[Flying Binghi]

Whoops.... one should be carefull not to scare away the sheep :E


Something for entertainment while we await james michael

Air Force addresses concerns about UAS invading the airspace

“A lot of general aviation will be below that 6,000-foot level,” said Gerald Evans, of the Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va. “Crop dusters fly so low, there will be little, if any impact.”

Air Force addresses concerns about UAS invading the airspace | Grand Forks Herald | Grand Forks, North Dakota (http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=88969&section=news)

[james michael]

ICAO D

:ok:

Bing

What makes you think the "world of reality" is ONLY Oz?

And, as far as your last post is concerned, someday UAV may well BE crop dusters.

UAV = ADS-B - it's a given. Like Leaddy you are stuck in 'today syndrome'. Go play on your Whizzer thread - well done Max 1 :D

We need to consider an airspace when UAV emerge from being military toys to a commercial proposition. General aviation is an example of something that emerged from the wars - open your mind ;)

[Flying Binghi]

What makes you think the "world of reality" is ONLY Oz?


The thread title - "Australian Airspace Discusion"

And, as far as your last post is concerned, someday UAV may well BE crop dusters. UAV = ADS-B - it's a given.

Agreed.

We need to consider an airspace when UAV emerge from being military toys to a commercial proposition.

Hmmm... agreed - we do need to consider this. Am I getting the impression that UAVs will not go mainstream in Oz without an ADS-B system ?

I wonder what other influences there are to this low level ADS-B push ? ... thats apart from the so-called safety benifits - do you have any thoughts james michael ?

[james michael]

Bing

If you read this thread you should have no difficulty comprehending that the world of reality is not just Oz. In fact, this thread disproves reality at times.

UAV ADS-B - I have no thoughts other than safety.

If you are going to have someday UAV buzzing around at low levels cropdusting, taking estate agents aerial fotos, doing survey work, etc it is a given that see and be seen will not work - therefore it follows that if they have ADS-B OUT and IN and you likewise - there is every possibility you will not make your way to whatever number of virgins await the faithful ;)

[Flying Binghi]

Bing

If you read this thread you should have no difficulty comprehending that the world of reality is not just Oz. In fact, this thread disproves reality at times.

UAV ADS-B - I have no thoughts other than safety.

If you are going to have someday UAV buzzing around at low levels cropdusting, taking estate agents aerial fotos, doing survey work, etc it is a given that see and be seen will not work - therefore it follows that if they have ADS-B OUT and IN and you likewise - there is every possibility you will not make your way to whatever number of virgins await the faithful http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

james michael, I will accept your round-about answer as a yes - that UAVs will need ADS-B before to many more come on line :hmm:



Maybe other ways to do it though. Heres an older paper (of interest to me re the authers) http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00002862/01/2862.pdf

[CaptainMidnight]

If you are going to have someday UAV buzzing around at low levels cropdusting, taking estate agents aerial fotos, doing survey work, etc Global Hawk & Predator/Mariner aside (as they are in a league of their own) apart from cropdusting, UAVs of all shapes, sizes and styles have been operating within Oz doing such things and much more for about the last 4-5 years.

Don't tell FB.

As far as I am aware, one type being operated is capable of operating a transponder, and another ditto either now or shortly. The rest aren't so equipped for a variety of reasons - vehicle size vs. payload is one reason.

[james michael]

CM

I'm with you on the situation.

While they emerge they need some 'nurturing'. But, payload arguments fall short of my expectations that they tell us where they are. Or, we end up with Bing's dedicated airspace.

Example - Defence re Wide bay Qld:
As an integral part of the Army training program it is necessary for UAV operators to train and practice prior to deployment.
The wide Bay Training Areas (R681 A&B) are ideal for this. However the terrain is not satisfactory for launch and recovery (under training).
ADF proposes a Restricted Area extension to the south east of R681 encompassing the defence owned airstrip south west of Tin Can Bay.

Herti, Kingfisher - shape of things to come. Up to us how we meld them into Oz airspace.

[Flying Binghi]

CaptainMidnight, did'nt you read the link in my previous post ? :hmm:

...anyway, knockoff time :)