CASA regulatory changes ADSB

[Frank Arouet]

On 27 February 2009, the Director of Aviation Safety made the
following instruments: Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Order (No.
1) 2009 <http://casa.gov.au/rules/changes/2009/cao20_18.pdf>
, Civil Aviation Order 82.1 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2009
<http://casa.gov.au/rules/changes/2009/cao82_1.pdf>
, Civil Aviation Order 82.3 Amendment Order (No. 2) 2009
<http://casa.gov.au/rules/changes/2009/cao82_3_2.pdf>
, Civil Aviation Order 82.5 Amendment Order (No. 2) 2009
<http://casa.gov.au/rules/changes/2009/cao82_5_2.pdf>
and CASA 41/09 <http://casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/2009/CASA41.pdf>
– Direction – use of ADS-B in foreign aircraft engaged in
private operations in Australian territory.
These instruments operate in combination to ensure that new
requirements for the use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance –
Broadcast transmitting equipment (ADS-B) apply, according to their
terms, to all Australian aircraft, foreign aircraft in Australian
territory engaged in RPT, charter or aerial work operations and
foreign private aircraft in Australian territory. The new requirements
make fitment and operation of approved ADS-B avionics equipment
mandatory on, and from, 12 December 2013 for all Australian aircraft
operations at, or above, FL 290 (unless CASA has authorised
otherwise). Although specific compulsion commences from 12 December
2013, from 6 March 2009, if ADS-B is carried voluntarily for
operational purposes (in any airspace at any altitude), it must be
approved equipment that makes specific flight identification
transmissions and it must be operated continuously (unless authorised
otherwise by air traffic control). Non-approved equipment must be
deactivated (except in VMC test flights below FL 290). The CAO
amendments and direction 41/09 were registered on the Federal Register
of Legislative Instruments on 5 March 2009 and come into effect on 6
March 2009.

[Joker 10]

This will draw the flies from that other web site, now there is clarity in the situation. I wonder how they will justify their previous positions.

This time CASA have got it right the instrument id chrystal clear.

[Jabawocky]

Joker........and an apt name indeed!

How naive you must be..........

The above was always going to be the case. Don't you get it :ugh:

All at or above FL290.......:ugh:

Now your post just smacks of a certain identity.........and I would bet a large chunk of cash on it.........so what on earth are you trying to achieve with muck raking over a war you and others help lose for the GA world. If they mandate it in the lower levels without a subsidy, mate I hope you feel guilty because I won't. And it wont hurt me as much as it would you and 98% of the fleet.:=

Enough said........Goodnight!

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky;

Yes you are right. It was always going to be the case for the lower levels, as it was with the subsidy wish list. The war as you call it, was just some people stating their opinions about the obvious outcome and being ridiculed by the proponents.

The only winner turned out to be common sense.

[Jabawocky]

It was always going to be the case for the lower levelsI assume you mean the upper levels.

As for the war......ASA had it right, they just bungled it and now its wrong!

Common sense was actually lost. Its the bigger picture that matters yet folk like the RAAus and other self interest groups would not see the greater good and thus were against it.

If anyone at ASA reads this and wants a regularly flying GA test bed, and wants to replace a GTX327......let me know!

Would look great just here http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/238969-more-photos-220.html#post4758169

[Frank Arouet]

The outcome of events means what I said.

ASA didn't bungle it, (although they were the primary beneficiary). The ADSB Implementation Team (ABIT), assumed too much on the basis of their "recommendations" and ran a platform based on false expectations that have left people such as yourself disappointed. Blame them.

[Jabawocky]

Frank for someone with only a few posts and new to this site you seem well abreast of the debate here, and sound familiar too!:suspect:

I agree ABIT should have done a better job, so ASA/ABIT bungled it! Is that better?

I am not personally disappointed, it was not me that was needing ADSB, I still do not NEED it, but I believe for the greater good ASA actually NEED it and we as GA folk would as a result have had by-product benefits. And those who could have done with some avionics upgrades would have benefited heaps. From where I stand I had very little to gain. Just better ATC coverage! And what is wrong with that??

J

[Frank Arouet]

I post here on the presumption of anonymity. Don’t challenge me nor assume I am new to this site mate.

Self interest groups are a valid point only if you believe one side held the balance of sway. Personally I believe all arguments were listened to, recommendations taken into account, an eventual and sensible cost benefit analysis was done which found only Airservices had anything appreciable to gain, and a decision was based on common sense for the greatest common good.

Obviously this didn’t include an avionics upgrade for your aircraft.

[Dick Smith]

Does this mean all aircraft which fly above FL290 will need to have ADS-B at least 7 years before it is a requirement in the USA? If so, what is the justification for being so much in front of the United States?

Obviously the cost is going to be tens of millions of dollars, so people would want to see the cost benefit study for introducing it so early.

[Jabawocky]

I post here on the presumption of anonymity. Don’t challenge me nor assume I am new to this site mate.

No need to........Maybe I am gifted in some strange way, but I have spotted many multiple ID's here, and later when I have met up with folk in my travels ...guess what, even those who have tried really hard, they still show their hand. I have no desire to know exactly who you are, and being annonomous is fine, but there is just a familiar ring to things is all.

Obviously this didn’t include an avionics upgrade for your aircraft.

Nope!!! No need........ I upgraded the entire aircraft for a new one!:ok:

Have a good weekend!

J:)

PS Dick.... if everyone waited for someone else to be first...... we would all still be cavemen and http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/cannibal.gif

[Dick Smith]

Jaba, fortunately everyone does not wait - this allows the astute ones to benefit from the expensive mistakes of others.

Surley this will cost Qantas a fortune and speed up their financial problems.

[peuce]

Does this mean all aircraft which fly above FL290 will need to have ADS-B at least 7 years before it is a requirement in the USA? If so, what is the justification for being so much in front of the United States?


Because we can ... and it's always good to get one up on them !
But more likely ... because our radar equipment will be dead or dying and needs to be replaced with the new upper airspace standard ... ADS-B

[Frank Arouet]

“from 6 March 2009, if ADS-B is carried voluntarily for
operational purposes (in any airspace at any altitude), it must be
approved equipment that makes specific flight identification
transmissions and it must be operated continuously (unless authorised
otherwise by air traffic control). Non-approved equipment must be
deactivated (except in VMC test flights below FL 290)”

Are there any ADSB trials still going on that meet the test flight criteria? Who are doing these trials?

Are RFDS in WA still trialing this equipment below FL 290 and except for Airservices interaction how many aircraft in or out of their fleet are fitted with ADSB “IN” or "OUT" to calculate the value of the equipment for collision avoidance?

Is the equipment being trialed approved or operating on an exemption?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

What are you really trying to create here, Francis?

Everything you have portrayed as a scandal is nothing. Everything you have submitted is already included in the JCP as well as the rules for ADS-B fitment.

TSO145a/146a? TICK! TSO166? TICK! what else were you expecting? Do you want a list of equipment and price/availability for GA aircraft to sway your mind again?

Methinks manufacturers will need access to TAAATS to test their equipment to ensure compliance with the orders. How else would this be possible if there wasn't a clause in orders to facilitate this.....so much for a deep thinker!

Voltaire would be ashamed of your use of his name.

[Frank Arouet]

I'm trying to create a discussion if thats OK with you. What scandal are you prattling on about?

If the outcome is as you expected, and is, as in the JCP, why did you and others create misinformation about a subsidy for low level ADSB.

You haven't answered my questions.

Is TSO145a/146a and TSO166 In /OUT equipment being used in the RFDS WA trials, not "tick tick". what does that mean, an insect?

Is any non certified equipment being tested? There was talk about an Australian IN - OUT ADSB unit that was costed as equivalent to "the subsidy" Is this still being tested and is it yet certified? Tell us more, I'm sure we all support Aussie Industry. Last I heard this was a secret.

Are there any other trials going on as we speak? Do we get to see the results or are they also secret?

IF use of the equipment prohibits turning the equipment OFF, how does this make an effective collision avoidance system when in the circuit for example, and the noise and alert clutter could drive you to distraction?

How many aircraft are fitted with ADSB IN to facilitate a study on it's effectiveness and merits for anti collision in the low levels, or is Airservices still the only beneficiary here?

And Voltair would roll over in his grave at you "outing" his real name on a public forum that prides itself on the principle of anonymity. Next you'll "out" me as someone you think I am. Talk about defending my right to an opinion. Well -yes, as long it doesn't interfere with your opinion mate.

Are you really a busdriver?

[peuce]

I think I can see a GPS-guided Buzz Bomb !

[Jabawocky]

peuce...what more can I say....:D:D:D

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky. I've never seen you lost for words.

Didn't you say you had personally seen the Australian ADSB IN/OUT unit under development and thought it had merit. Is this still being trialed?

[Capn Bloggs]

I, for one, cannot wait or ADS-B (OUT, at least; IN would be the cream on the cake). Millions of dollars are being wasted by inefficient airspace management in my patch caused by lack of radar, not to mention extra controller resources and/or decrease in safety due to overloading of frequencies as procedural standards are applied.

Bring it on, I say, and the sooner the better.:ok:

Dick,
what is the justification for being so much in front of the United States?
Well, why NOT? Why should we follow the US? They're not the world's greatest economists, so why would they be the world's greatest aviators?

Surley this will cost Qantas a fortune and speed up their financial problems.
Eh? How would that be? How many of their jets will need to be fitted by then?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, can't let go of the old ways, can you?

How about doing some research and finding out for yourself. Making demands will not work too well in getting cooperation:} Why don't you get your mate over in WA to make contact and ask nicely.

Do you still believe no equipment is available that meets the TSOs? Cummon Francis, this has been done to death!

[Frank Arouet]

Now you are being obtuse.

I am keenly seeking information on the Australian ADSB IN/OUT device that you and a few others held in such high esteem.

Because it appears to be a secret I can't find anything on any web site so my research is blocked by people like yourself and Jabawocky who have seen it and won't tell us about it.

My asking about the trials is to find out if the results supported the notion that it was a valuable anti collision tool in class G airspace. ie. outside of the J curve. Is it still about $10,000 and how does this measure up on a cost benefit analysis vs the big sky theory?

I can't ask much nicer than that.

[Jabawocky]

Jabawocky. I've never seen you lost for words.

Didn't you say you had personally seen the Australian ADSB IN/OUT unit under development and thought it had merit. Is this still being trialed?

No not lost for words, but when you look outside the box a little and listen to the folk like Bloggs, and some RFDS folk and the ATC's..... of all the folk I talk to and understand it, not one has ever said anything but good things. Even some RAA folk who were just not aware of the facts, and then they changed their mind.

I am just over the debate! Although I get moments of weakness.:ouch:

Onya Bloggs!

J

[Frank Arouet]

Meaningless heresay without any facts as back up.

Can't anybody tell me if the RFDS trials were with compliant equipment and except for Airservices, how did the anti collission factors serve any purpose with the IN/OUT systems in sync?

I'm beginning to think this Australian ADSB IN/OUT gizmo was just a figment of a fertile imagination and misrepresented by the proponents as the general fix all freebie to get the ignorant masses on side.

Someone shot the tooth fairy and nobody is accountable for the spin.

[Flying Binghi]

I'm beginning to think this Australian ADSB IN/OUT gizmo was just a figment of a fertile imagination and misrepresented by the proponents as the general fix all freebie to get the ignorant masses on side.


My understanding was it were a real unit - just had some problems.

Bit of a mystry thread this one ...:confused:

[Jabawocky]

frank

Unless you have a medical concession smoking pot is still illegal in this country!

Binghi....... the bigest problem was not the unit.....just the CF of the government agencies. But all is subject to change!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, stop being so lazy and just get behind that keyboard and actually read a few more pages of the search than just the first hit.:=

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky. You learn fast. When cornered like a rat, resort to petty innuendo.

OZBUSDRIVER. You were a driving factor in this equipment and how it related to "the subsidy". You were also adept at redirecting criticism away from debate that didn't suit and I am guessing your refusal to eleborate now is to save face.

Now the subsidy and low level fitment is "kaput", you have an opportunity to resell the product on its merits. Previous arguement was centered around people believing in tooth fairy stuff about free units and how they were an urgent necessity for collision avoidance.

I support Australian manufacturing, been a part of it, felt the pressures of cheap imports and unfair competition. I know how R&D is not given the support it needs.

Please don't think I am against the concept of ADSB, never have been, never will. I just questioned the immediate low level need and the snake oil sales pitch about a subsidy.

Why don't you stand by your earlier enthusiasm.

I note the CASA exemption for ELT fitment after what appears to be lobbying by a certain group that would allow another Australian manufacturer to take up the slack and get their unit approved.

Is this the same manufacturer?

[Jabawocky]

Jabawocky. You learn fast. When cornered like a rat, resort to petty innuendo.

after this.........
Meaningless heresay without any facts as back up.

Can't anybody tell me if the RFDS trials were with compliant equipment and except for Airservices, how did the anti collission factors serve any purpose with the IN/OUT systems in sync?

I'm beginning to think this Australian ADSB IN/OUT gizmo was just a figment of a fertile imagination and misrepresented by the proponents as the general fix all freebie to get the ignorant masses on side.

Someone shot the tooth fairy and nobody is accountable for the spin.


Mate......petty inneuendo it is not, you were meant to have a laugh at it....which no doubt you did, but lets just say after the post you made....well I was lost for words for once! Just go and do some proper research. :ugh:

Cheerio!

[Frank Arouet]

Rather than waste my time researching something that is obviously a "fizzer" I'll just assume it was all part of the fairy tale to garner support for Airservices lackeys on the ABIT.

You made the statements about how good it was, saw it in the flesh you said, but now it is too embarrasing to talk about.

I asked a serious question without malice about ADSB trials and you came back with Unless you have a medical concession smoking pot is still illegal in this country!

Meaningless senseless innuendo.

As for research, I am doing research on Pprune. If I recall correctly another spent a considerable amount of time "researching" this very topic but it turned out he already knew the answers.

I don't mate, and it's obvious your earlier assessment was useless information.

[Jabawocky]

Rather than waste my time researching something that is obviously a "fizzer" I'll just assume it was all part of the fairy tale to garner support for Airservices lackeys on the ABIT.

then
As for research, I am doing research on Pprune. If I recall correctly another spent a considerable amount of time "researching" this very topic but it turned out he already knew the answers.

Contradictions there?? :hmm:

[PlankBlender]

Frank, if you're reading past ADS-B threads you will find postings and published articles about a prototype IN/OUT device that could have been on the market in the required time frame had the subsidy not been canned (or postponed, whatever it may be).

I have personally seen this device work (on the bench at a busy aerodrome, connected to a Garmin GPS/display, picking up the actual traffic, sweet!), as have some of the other posters here, but unless you happen to know the people behind it, you won't get more info as the inventors are understandably protecting their intellectual property and the considerable investment that has gone into the prototype. There'll be people out there who'd love to copy the design and make it themselves or sell it to the highest bidder, no doubt.

As per the ADS-B implementation itself, it looks like the debate isn't over at all, ASA have not signed a radar replacement deal and they probably know it's going to cost them much more than the initial (approximate and now outdated) estimates, so chances are we haven't seen the end of it at all.

I can only hope by that time the paper pusher in Cantberra will have begun to see the light on aviation (or at least on this topic, hope's the last thing to go..) and will influence ASA to do the right thing, i.e. give owners and operators some sort of incentive (subsidy, waiving of other charges, or similar) to stimulate GA in this country.

[Frank Arouet]

At last a sensible and rational reply that even I can understand.

Notwithstanding the protection of intellectual property, I begin to think that some may have gone off half cocked by advising that this existed to further their own ADSB agendas.

All this aside, I do embrace the technology as an evolutionary fact of life. My major concers have always been this rush to force it onto us by a premature mandate in the lower levels and the incredible naivety demonstrated by those that were greedy enough to believe they were getting something for nothing.

This just in/ NFRM JCP Transfer to satellite technology for navigation and surveillance;

NFRM JCP - Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation and Surveillance - Final Rule for Aircraft Avionics Equipage (http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airspace/jcp/nfrm_jcp.htm)

[Jabawocky]

My major concers have always been this rush to force it onto us by a premature mandate in the lower levels and the incredible naivety demonstrated by those that were greedy enough to believe they were getting something for nothing.

Well the idea was that as you and many others in G at CTAF R's would not directly benefit or need it so you should not have to pay for it. Thats fair is it not? Therefore they (ASA) were going to give it to you for free.

Of course if they buy the radars and do not mandate it for a very long time say another 10-20 years, it will not affect you anyway as you may not be still flying. Plenty of others will be though.

You can't be half pregnant, you either support it in a full sense or not! Dragging out over 10 years or so and slowly making it compulsory means we all pay more in the long run and in the interim ASA and the RPT folk get less value for what we/they paid for. Sure in the upper levels they get some use, but thats only part of the package!

You know, I would be just as happy if ASA and CASA came out tomorrow and said by 1st of Jan 2012 everything that flies must have ADSB&ModeC out. And if you dont get going it will be a supply problem like 406 EPIRBS. Ohh and yes you pay your own way!

Would stop all the argument about getting something for nothing then huh! Maybe I should champion that idea all the way to the top. What do you think folks?

Jabaless:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

True Jabaless (Does that mean the -10 stretching it's wings is imminent?)

In the know and I am very happy with what is about to be released. Happy to pay my own way. Always have.

Get yourself down to Avalon, Francis!

Sorry for no info coming freely. Sick of being used by the opposition too lazy to do their own research.

[Frank Arouet]

Ah, the "ENIGMATIC" busdriver refuses to give any data about a product he so rabidly tried to sell the poor unsuspecting public knowing full well it was not certified. Don't worry sunshine, the true story is out about the minor "glitch".

Therefore they (ASA) were going to give it to you for free.


Frog$hit!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just a little bit of extra info on how the Europeans are going to be implimenting their ADS-B(lengthy download 21Mb)

ADS-B in non-radar environments (http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/gallery/content/public/images/ADSB_1.0_2,5MB.wmv)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ENIGMATIC.....not bad, shows you either are trolling for a bite or you actually learnt something.

And now Francis, if you please. The web address so everyone else can make their mind up.

[Jabawocky]

I think I am just about over this debate, now I thought by "reading between the lines" I knew where Frank is coming from, as in who he represented, and not with the intent to out him as to who he actually is, because that is not relevant here, well it could be but thats just not the point.

I do however wonder if in fact, based on other comments on other threads if Frank is actually employed by, or a board member or a potential board member or some senior position holder with a Recreational Aviation Group...... of which I am also a member!

Just seems like Leopards and Spots has something going for it here.

Now I think I know why my comment earlier stirred such a response on another thread.................
Crikey!

We won't need an eyesight test shortly.

Quote:
I fear this will attract some of the ANTI ADSB brigade
Well I just posted on another thread that I support an evolutionary introduction of ADSB. Always have and always will. This sort of post doesn't give credit for the facts that have been said over and over again.

Starting to get a clear picture of what you do and don't support!

Jabaless:ok:

PS yes Ozbus......you are on the money.:)

[Frank Arouet]

I think I am just about over this debate, now

I agree, until the gear is certified continuing the debate has no further merit.

[Joker 10]

Yes have to agree, low level ADSB is a dead duck

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Tunes, it isn't dead yet by a long chalk!

[Jabawocky]

I agree, until the gear is certified continuing the debate has no further merit.

You guys are a waste of oxygen :ugh:

There is TSO'd ADSB equipment available now. Ohh and yes it is available for GA, and a little hint, if ASA give me a few bucks I can remove my brand new GTX327 and replace it with.............:ooh:

I repeat.........I am over this debate! (Just can not handle the incompetent folk debating it on the other side. Someone did say do some proper research :ugh:) Hint go read the latest Aviation Trader!