ADSB...Seems to work OK in Canada...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From 'Avweb' USA site,



ADS-B Proving Itself Over Hudson Bay

ADS-B has been in operation over a vast area of northern Canada for more than two months and air traffic services provider Nav Canada and the technology provider Sensis say it's working as advertised. While the 250,000 square nautical miles covered by the system is scantily populated and encompasses Hudson Bay, its high-altitude airspace is used by 35,000 flights between Europe and North America every year. Until earlier this year, those flights simply dropped off controllers' radar until they emerged hours later on the other side. With ADS-B, Nav Canada controllers can accurately track anything above 29,000 feet over the whole area and that means more efficient use of the routes. "With the accuracy of Sensis ADS-B, we can maximize airspace capacity by reducing separation standards from the current procedural separation of 80 miles to the five-mile separation standard now used in airspace with surveillance coverage," said Nav Canada spokesman Rudy Kellar.



The five-mile separation allows the most direct routing for almost all flights and Nav Canada estimates that will save 4.5 million gallons of fuel and 50,000 tons of carbon emissions a year, once all aircraft using the airspace are equipped for ADS-B. Nav Canada is expanding ADS-B to areas Labrador and Baffin Island that don't have radar coverage.


The area covered by the system being 'scantily populated' sounds familiar...

:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Thanks Griffo:D

I read that this afternoon and wanted to post it, but if I had some folk would get all hot under the collar.

Now they can blame you :ok:

[LeadSled]

All,
And doing what ADS-B is very good for, providing a "radar like" display for high level traffic from suitably equipped aircraft, just like Australia, ----- which DOES NOT mean Canada is about to "mandate" ADS-B for low level GA traffic -.---- again for the same reasons as Australia ----- "nice to have" and "must have" for small aircraft/ low level operations are not the same thing.
In fact, Transport Canada does a rather good job of keeping "rules" to a minimum for aviation, in contrast to the general Australian approach.
Tootle pip!!

[Joker 10]

I can certainly understand why one might want enhanced surveillance over areas of North Canada and the Hudson bay area is really remote.

Northern Canada is a far cry from the benign Australian environment, our Designated Remote areas can be tackled with a supply of water.

There is a great difference in Northern Canada, survival suits are required kit and 10 minutes outside can turn one into a statue for most of the year.

But does low lecvel ADSB work around Hudson Bay ??? are there adequate ground VHF stations to have reliable reporting below 5000 ft and how are the VHf stations communicating with the ATC service, microwave links are useless in severe weather which would seem to be the time they might be most needed, airbourne ice chrystals screw microwave propogation and it is hard to run fibre optic cable across ice and snow with any thoughts of reliabilty/serviceability and satellite services suffer from the same issues as microwaves in blizzards.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'No Wuckin Furries' Jab....
Ive got the broadest shoulders.....or other parts...
:ok:

Hey 'Joker',
We aren't exactly in the land of blizzards etc 'here', and I would reckon that there are enuf 'communities' around to have the required power supply and VHF gear for good coverage at say, 5,000' in some to 10,000 in others, where there ain't nutin now....

Cheers:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Here we go again.

First off why would somebody get hot under the collar about the Avweb blurb? Secondly why does it compare to anything envisaged in Australia except that it is a valuable tool above FL290 for ATC and the perceived safety of the ignorant travelling public? And thirdly what has it got to do with low level ADSB which is not on the current agenda in Australia?

Nobody I know has objected to ADSB as it is now proposed. The airlines may have a concern but that’s their worry. Perhaps it's they who will get hot under the collar?

There is a small noise about using non certified ADSB equipment to help the timid navigate without worry of mid air collision at Muttaburra, but this depends upon it being mandated for optimum performance.

I wait with enthusiasm the announcement that Airservices or CASA will allow any non certified equipment to interface with ATC equipment let alone mandate it.

In the interim a mode C transponder and TCAS works, so those owners with a Jabiru who want this feature simply need to purchase a TCAS.

Or open their eyes and look out the window.

(or just stay in bed if it's all that dangerous).

[Joker 10]

Griffo, I am so happy you agree with me, no blizzards so why would we ever contemplate low level ADSB when we can look out the window and see the world float by.

[compressor stall]

Joker
satellite services suffer from the same issues as microwaves in blizzards

Really?

You'd better tell the comms techs where I spend half the year.

The fact that they only have adsb above 290 is a choice NAV CA made - don't infer that it is technically impracticable below that.

[Joker 10]

Stallie, where you are the antenna are in geodetic domes, the remote sites in Canada don't have such luxury. the dishes are inn the open.

[compressor stall]

That's true, but the satellite link was not mentioned as a problem in blizzards at a Nav Canada ADSB presentation I was at 2 weeks ago across the pond. They do not increase separation standards during blizzards.....

I only have pictures of the setup in hard copy. I am sure they are around on the net. There receivers forward the data via either fibre optic cable and satellite - depending on the remoteness of the location.

[Joker 10]

Stallie true , but you are talking about high level ADSB, I was referring to low level < 5000 ft, then the game changes dramatically.

There are not enough ground VHF stations for low level.

[bushy]

I think it works ok in Australia too. At high level only.

[Joker 10]

Bushy sure does above FL 290 but not below 5000 and my bet is never will, just too expensive and no TSO equipment available for Lighties at reasonable cost.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Joker10. Are you against transponders?

TSO ADS-B transponders are already available. Fitted next to a TSO146 GPS that transmits the correct data message, fill in the form, get checked out and you are ready to go. Air Services is still rolling out 1090ES receivers around the J-curve co-located with MSSR sites as well as a nest of them over in WA. The only difference to pre-JCP is there is currently no cross-industry funding arrangment and the radar continue to spin at enormous cost. AFAIK, the gear is still going in.

As the coverage around my part of the country gets greater then there will be more reason to upgrade. And once there is more reason to upgrade and more aircraft fitted then there will be more reason to buy that non-TSO "Toy" to go alongside my non-TSO GPS to depicted 1090ES/TIS-B....YES TIS-B!...for my personal information.....at no cost to the owner excepting fitment of a transponder.

Time will tell who is giving correct information on this subject.

[onthedials]

Joker 10's must be taking his pseudonym too seriously. Trig TT31 Class 1 Mode S panel mount datalink transponder, with support for extended squitter. US $1945 last time I looked from a major avionics vendor in Melbourne Florida. OTD.

[Joker 10]

Yup, But it won;t work in Australia below 5000

[onthedials]

What you said before was incorrect; TSO certified panel mount 1090ES ADS-B avionics are available at reasonable cost now. And your claim of "won't work in Australia below 5000" is not correct either. Light aircraft equipped with ADS-B operating near Alice Springs, Bourke, Broome, Bundaberg, Caiguna, Esperance, Karratha, Longreach as well as a number of other locations, can use ADS-B down to the ground today. I'll leave it to others to consider how well informed you are.

[Frank Arouet]

there will be more reason to buy that non-TSO "Toy" to go alongside my non-TSO GPS to depicted 1090ES/TIS-B....YES TIS-B!...for my personal information

“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)”.

I believe this means that any equipment that has the potential to interface with ATC or the Airlines has to be approved or made unable to operate.


TSO certified panel mount 1090ES ADS-B avionics are available at reasonable cost now.

Define “reasonable cost” in relation to private GA operations.

[Joker 10]

Thanks Frank, yes the toy manufacturers have been hard at it, toy ADSB, Toy TCAS, Toy EFIS.

This is why only TSO Transponders can be fitted to ALL aircraft, anything that interfaces to the SSR system is required to operate to defined standards even day VFR or ultralights, to have it otherwise courts disaster for those we are trying to protect, the fare paying public.

I sense this thread will go into serious drift now with the ADSB chorus in full cry.

Personally I suspect we won't see mandated approved low level ADSB in my lifetime in Australia.

The SSR system in controlled airspace works very well and TCAS is now a proven technology out in the "boonies".

[BN APP 125.6]

Why don't they use ADS-B?

http://gettheflick.b l o g s p o t.com/2009/04/why-dont-they-use-ads-b.html


b l o g s p o t (some reason it is a badword)

[onthedials]

I can't make the connection about toys, sorry. The contributions of Frank A. look like a typical Pprune ruse anyway - so I don't intend to spend any more time on that aspect of the response.

The regulation (the CAO 20.18 amendments) quoted were a disgrace and Frank A should take some comfort in knowing he is not the only one who thinks so.

That does not, however, diminish the point asked by the original poster - if ADS-B works elsewhere, why not here?

The answer to that question is connected with the regulator's precipitous inclination to regulate everything with nary a thought as to how industry might comply; complicated by a sceptical and poorly informed industry and little publicly shared future vision. The particular regulatory amendment quoted by Frank A serves to ensure that no-one ever again installs the ADS-B avionics that ASA air-tested in the Bundaberg trial. It worked fine in the trial, but apparently not well enough for the regulator. Our aircraft has a manufacturer supported STC to install that ADS-B transponder and GPS combo, but thanks to this regulation, we won't. The only party that could have been disadvantaged by the confluence of factors that might have caused it to go outside allowable HPL in operations was us. But never mind, Australia had to regulate to make sure that never happened. And it didn't and won't. I hope they feel better about that.

Nevertheless, the truth, no matter how much the other posters might wish to turn it, is:

1. Joke#10 was wrong when he said TSO'd ADS-B transponders are unaffordable. Even if you have not TSO C145/146 suitable data source, you can install a 1090ES ADS-B transponder for little more than the cost of any other Mode S unit. I quoted earlier one alternative for $US 1945. In addition to that product, Honeywell's KT 73 and Garmin's GTX 330ES and 33ES may be ordered now. Garmin are offering GTX 33 and 330 ES upgrades now in the expectation that some proportion of the US market will choose 1090ES over UAT. The situation was different two years ago. It is not the same now.

I would have thought that met an aircraft owner's reasonableness test. If you do not have a TSO'd data source, then yes, you will either have it install one or wait to use it. But there is no reason not to be ADS-B ready, for any altitude band of operations now. Assuming, of course, that you need it and that there is not some other axe to grind.

2. Joke#10 was also wrong when he said that ADS-B could not be used below 5000 in Australia. I gave a list of some of the existing stations at which ADS-B is available.

If you do not have and don't intend to a acquire a TSO'd data source then you could fit a stand-alone GNSS TSO C145 unit such as the Free Flight 1201, $US 5450.

I would have thought that for a serious IFR aircraft owner, these figures were "reasonable". No doubt others will have a different view, which is fine, since with the demise of the JCP noone is asking them to fit anything anyway. The point is that if you operate IFR or in CTA in the vicinity of these locations, your fitment of ADS-B WILL extend ATS surveillance, whether Joke#10 thinks so or not.

It is seems that the original poster's intention of asking what is different between here and Hudson Bay has been addressed only in relation to some concerns by Joke#10 about lack of water. I'll leave that for others to consider.

I'm not going to engage further. I believe Joke#10's points as to lack of TSOd equipment for GA has been answered. His concern about whether transponders are TSOd has no bearing on the subject since TSO C166A covers this subject exactly. He might care to read it.

Frank's concern that ADS-B equipment must meet the TSO C145/146 requirements of CAO 20.18 by 2012 is understandable but has no bearing on whether we should proceed in future with ADS-B at any level. The ABIT proponents have already indicated that SA-aware is probably the most important aspect of producing acceptable HPL parameters and this is only one aspect of that TSO.

I shall leave the rest of you in the hands of the Joker to continue what must be the most poorly-informed aviation discussion I have seen in a long while.

OTD.

[Joker 10]

Ok trying to keep it simple, I accept there is a cogent argument for ADSB for IFR traffic.

My contention is and always has been there is no valid argument for ADSB fitment to Day VFR general aviation aircraft.

The thought of an Auster fitted with ADSB being fed position information by a suitable TSO data source C145/146 compliant fills me with some mirth.

I can see the 60 year old farmer, good stick and rudder man, kept himself out of trouble for past 40 years flying over to his neighbours farm and saying thank god for that ADSB I might have got lost without it, the trusty C 172 VHf probably hasn't been turned on since the last 100 hourly.

ADSB will really be useful in R 22 mustering, they simply should not be without it, despite the fact every bit of extra weight compromises their safety margins close to the ground.

ADSB should really be useful around GAAP airport where some current teaching says turn the Transponder to standby inside 3 miles so there are not a jumble of returns at the local TCU.

And don't forget the croppies, they really need ADSB to complement their already sophisticated GPS systems and they have got the time in flight to moniter the ADSB.

Now Glider fitment will be a challenge, need lots of battery, guess we just dispense with some of the water ballst.

Yes there is a really persuasive and highly technical argument put up by the ADSB proponents, IFR I am good with, day VFR I personally think it is nonsense.

Day VFR if I recall correctly if operating outside any form of Controlled Airspace ot CTAF only requires the carraige of a Watch, Whisky Compass, Altimeter, even ASI not mandatory I believe add a VHF and a Transponder and you are good to go almost anywhere with proper notice.

ADSB above FL 290 good idea, below 5000 not particularly useful.

[peuce]

Joker ... that appears to be a very selfish attitude.

Sure, in most of the cases you mentioned, that particular pilot may not need ADSB IN ... however, by far the greater use of ADSB at low levels is SA for others ... including ATC and especially IFRs on descent into uncontrolled aerodromes.

Admittedly, that means installing equipment that is propably more useful to other airspace users than yourself, however, the proposed subsidy would have eased that burden.

Now, without the subsidy, I agree there is not much incentive to be unselfish.

[Frank Arouet]

onthedials;

I've dealt with you in a previous life I believe.

The sentiments I copied (yes copied), are from an official CASA communique. Not my contribution of guesswork or a ruse. Ignore it at your own peril.

Unless you spend more time on that aspect, the balance of your ravings are useless as a promotion to Day VFR fitment below 10,000 ft of non TSO'd equipment.

ADSB works well in Canada as it will work well here. What is the problem? I certainly don't have a problem. Above FL290 it will work just as good here as there.

What I have a problem with is a bunch of Day VFR pilots who don't own aeroplanes trying to shove something down my throat that will cost me money irrespective of how good it may be for ATC. I don't buy the theory that AsA will be watching every blip and therefor can see a crash as it happens. Neither do I buy the snake oil sales speil about anti collision unless everyone who matters has ADSB IN/OUT which means the OUT will have to be mandated.

I certainly don't buy the speil about non certified equipment being allowed to interface with the Airlines or ATC.

Finally in answer to the "reasonable" factor, I can tell you from experience that the purchase price will probably be in the order of 1/3rd the actual fitted cost and does not include yearly inspections or ADs. Read this if you think is baloney;

"CASA has published Notice of Final Rule Making (NFRM) 0709CS -
Proposal to Automatically Mandate Compliance with Airworthiness
Directives issued by the State of Design - Amendments to CASR Part 39
Full detail of the NFRM are available on the CASA website":
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NFRM 0709CS (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_93267)


What serious IFR owner/ pilots think may be reasonable bears no resemblance to what a DAY VFR owner/ pilot may think.

Now lets stick to the fact that there is no subsidy, never was. So these costs must be borne by the owner.

For the record are you an owner, operator, or pilot who hires others aircraft, or alternatively fly something that is owned by someone else for a living? Are you an AsA employee? What qualifications do you have to speak on behalf of a lot of private owners. -Please don't tell me you are part of a "peak" aviation organisation.

peuce;

I think the selfishness is a factor of both sides in this debate. Trouble is my selfishness is due to the fact that I don't have the financial resources to be a benefactor to others.

[Joker 10]

Frank, The subsidy was a cruel myth, propogated by individuals for their own aggrandisment and has done incalculable damage to the real debate which is 'Why does day VFR need ADSB ???' and why should owners of C 172 that never see controlled airspace need anything more than a serviceable VHF to go into CTAF.

The separation myth is another cruel impost on the day VFR community, most of whom are smart enough to stay away from CTAF when RPT may be active.

[peuce]

Frank & Joker .... do you have turn indicators on your car?

I'm guessing yes. Why, because the rulemakers decided, at some point in time, that the traffic density was such that, for safety reasons, indicators were required to assist with the SA of all road users.

I'm sure there were some who said ... "Bugger that, I know where I'm going ... the others can just watch me if they want to get out of my way". But they were gradually removed from the roads.

Change the environment, add a few noughts to the equipment cost ... and you have the airways situation. Methinks it might be approaching the time when the rulemakers will decide that, considering the traffic densities, the speed of new aircraft and the traffic mix ... it's time we enforced indicators (ADSB Out) on our chitty chitty bang bangs.

Everyone, whether they own an aircraft or not, will be paying for it ... in some way (hire charges etc).

I consider the only variable is the timing.... and every aviator has the right to challenge that if they disagree with the proposals .... however, the tide will eventually come in.

[Frank Arouet]

considering the traffic densities, the speed of new aircraft and the traffic mix ... it's time we enforced indicators (ADSB Out)

Gets us back to quantifying this statement doesn't it.

It has been said that there is always the POSSIBILITY of a mid air crisis, but what is the PROBABILITY?

To date everybody has an opinion as to how concerned they are, near misses, near hits or whatever, but nobody has been able to QUANTIFY the RISK except use anectdotal dreamtime stories of how they failed to look out the window in VFR.

Let me put this into another frame: I believe, as you, that ADSB will be a natural evolution of the present radar coverage and probably beyond. I will embrace this evolution just like I have the new ELT. However in Class G airspace in the GAFA ADSB is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist.

Show me a quantifiable risk in G, facts and figures, and I may change my mind. In the meantime the use of this equipment below FL290 is only an annoying dream of a few who know it must be mandated to achieve optimum perfoprmance as anything but a tool for the benefit of Airservices.

[Joker 10]

Peuce, One of my aircraft has EGPWS and TCAS because I chose to invest in the extra safety that this affords me and my family, I don't force this on anyone else I chose the investment and use the benefits.

The aircraft is not day VFR nor does it operate below 5000.

I agree with Frank that ADSB is an evolutionary technology and may ultimately become useful for all who choose to fit it.

However there is a long way to go before that day, there needs to be a lot of VHF repeaters commissioned across Australia before we see universal ADSB, then there is the standards questions, at present there is a mis mash of standards in the U.S. you can use either UAT or 1090 Es.

Some gear is TSO some not, some accepts data feeds from low end EFIS, some C145/146 GPS some C129 some have on board GPS chips.

There are passionate supporters in each technology camp, some say TSO is not necessary.

But at the end of the day like the blinkers on my car if the farmer wants to drive his ute next door for a chat he most probably won't need the blinkers, if there is no traffic then why would he ? habit I guess.

Like wise if flying the trusty c 172 next door he probably only needs to lokk out the window, lots of good technology in the aircraft but not necessary for his purpose, all he really needs is clean windows.

[Frank Arouet]

OK, lets try to get back to sensible discussion and try to prove your arguement about a crisis that asserts we have a major mid air collision risk that needs addressing.

Firstly, why pilots don't see other aeroplanes is because they are not looking for aeroplanes.

WW1 pilots wore silk scarves to lubricate the neck when constantly searching the sky for enemy aircraft. These blokes were actually looking for aircraft, which is more than I can say about some of our local VFR pilots. You know the V stands for visual don't you?

Now these WW1 pilots were looking for aircraft to shoot at and because others may shoot them. A matter of life and death you would agree.

Now the land mass of Australia is 7,617,930 sq kms with lets say for the low level arguement includes 20 hemispherical levels to 10,000ft. Thats a lot of sky.

Australia has how many aircraft at any one time flying in it?

France, you know where most of the WW1 shooting was going on with aeroplanes, has 547,030 sq kms. Of which lets say 1/3 was the aerial theatre. No hemispherical divisions. Say 182,343 sq km.

How many aircraft were flying around in say 1918 at any one time?

Now to prove your crisis theory, all you have to do is fill in the gaps above, allow for the fact that one lot were actually looking for aeroplanes and another lot wouldn't know what to look for, come up with a better arguement than you once heard someone say he saw another aeroplane that he thought was an airprox because it frightened him. Then tell me why I am selfish because I don't want to spend a lot of money to satisfy someone who is not capable of learning to look for other aeroplanes in the sky, or needs ATC to help him navigate the boonies, or to make Airservices life a bit easier to re-introduce air nav charges.

Satisfy my questions and I may change my mind and see things your way. But don't go all feral on me and start name calling because you are backed into a corner.

Bloody poor show that.

[Jabawocky]

Well when Virgin or Jetsar create a smoking hole at Hervey Bay or some other place similar due to a non visible a/c (by eye or any kind of Transponder), you can come to their defence and say a silk scarf and a rubber neck would have saved them. :ugh:

Come on Owen or peuce..........plenty of fodder here!

[Flying Binghi]

plenty of fodder here!

Hmmm, i smell straw..:hmm:

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Just stating the obvious here Bob and co., but the problem is really in the terminal areas.
The 'Big Sky' approach works reasonably ok in Oz due to our low enroute traffic density. (however I've had unexpected/unannounced A/C in the GAFA climb/descend at close quarters through my track...., not a pleasant experience).

Airports attract traffic because of the overflyers who want a definite fix, or because there's a navaid, or because someone wants to land there.
They generate traffic when someone wants to depart from there.
that is really where something like ADSB will help.

'See and Avoid' has problems., its' been proven to have problems., if it's the only anti-collision aid available then we'd be stupid to not use it..., but...., Alerted 'see and avoid' is a lot better and saves on laundry bills.

[Flying Binghi]

Check out the line of John Deere hay and forage equipment. Our broad offering includes rotary mower conditioners, self-propelled windrowers, round and square balers, pull-type and self-propelled forage harvesters, choppers, mowers, rakes and tedders.

Forage and hay equipment (http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/category/FR_HAY.html)

[Frank Arouet]

Biggles;

The J curve already has Radar. What terminal areas are you talking about? Surely you don't mean CTAF? Are you advocating sterile CTAF's?

Airports attract traffic, agreed, and one has to be first at ground level to climb to FL290, so it stands to reason someone will be in some conflict with someone else at some time.

All I want to know is what is the risk? Not much to ask of the screaming deaf dumb and blind private GA VFR non owner pilots and ATC inputters who want this technology shoved up my arse before the Country and I are ready or can afford it.

It's OK to bludge off the Taxpayer to fund these excesses but why don't they offer to pay me to buy, fit, and maintain the gear so they can feel happy and safe.

That would be right. Poor bloody "lefty" whingers, probably reckon Dick should buy me one. Freekin Robin Hoods without any arrows for their bow.

Their only agenda is to have it mandated.

Hmmm, i smell straw

I've noted this before by Binghi but confess to not knowing what it means. I can only plead that I was left in charge of a case of whisky.

If it is referring to identities I can possibly see a similarity to strawmen, but given that a six pack of idiots on another forum make a habit of "outing" Pprune identities (correctly or incorrectly), it is small wonder that if compromised by innuendo, a poster may want to change his or her identity.

One does presume the mantle of anonymity when posting here. Doesn't one?

Well doesn't one?

Biggles old mate. I would ask you to think about that when next assuming first names please. Don't get too familiar on the first date.

EDIT to add to Binghi post while I was rabbitting on.

You are a strange chap Binghi. Likeable but strange. I would like to meet you one day because I happen to like eccentrics. I just sold my round baler however. Bloody drought means there is nothing to bale.

I'm thinking of inventing a bull$hit baler however. Plenty of fodder here.

[Flying Binghi]

Frank Arouet, i were havin a dig at (multi callsign) Jaba...:cool:

[Frank Arouet]

What subsidy? There never was a subsidy, only a suggestion by some vested interests which was not taken seriously enough to implement.

THERE WAS NEVER, EVER, A SUBSIDY.

Get it?

I am still waiting for those facts and figures. If you and your cronies can't back up your claims, I know who is talking drivel.

[PlankBlender]

Frank Arouet wrote:

The J curve already has Radar.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but one of the main points of the whole ADS-B/subsidy debate was that ADS-B, properly implemented and mandated, would supersede radar technology, shift funds from radar maintenance to increasing situational awareness for all concerned, and stimulate the aviation industry in many different ways (and yes, handing out a massive surplus to the great unwashed is a very daft idea and utterly useless to stimulate anything in the long term apart from health care and social security costs).

It would have made perfect sense to subsidise all aircraft owners to get ADS-B OUT equipment, and a small light Aussie-built ADS-B in/out box with connector to popular GPS's was ready to go within the subsidy amount.

It's because this country has backward-looking, oversized, unproductive and in many ways useless regulators and air services providers, that reason and rational thought can't keep or get the upper hand.

Let me share a recent personal experience from my own flying: Inbound close to a YBAF reporting point last weekend, a slower high wing aircraft reported just ahead of me, due to the slightly hazy conditions and sunlight from the front I never saw him although I did plenty of looking, and I was afraid I could have been encroaching on him from the top in my low wing as we were both moving to the assigned inbound altitude. That's what happened in quite a few of the mid-air's and it's almost impossible to avoid, wrong place wrong time and you're dead! The only thing that provided some relief in this situation was the other guy's transponder interrogator (which of course doesn't work out back as it requires an interrogating entity which these small/cheapish boxes can't provide) that made me show up on his screen.

Now tell me again why mandated ADS-B is useless, i.e. everybody can see everyone else after complete implementation? :ugh:

I feel a lot of the negativity is from people who want a way to fly illegally one way or the other, would would be deprived of their anonymity with an always-on unit.. well, to any of you bl@ody !diots out there, get out of the sky, you're as much a menace to the rest of us as the drunk m@ron who plows into pedestrians because he's just killed his last brain cell with a Bundy & Coke:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

tell me again why mandated ADS-B is useless

ADS-B is not useless. Never said it was. As an evolution of existing radar I have always supported it. There is no radar in the GAFA. Why, because there is not enough traffic to have separation issues.

Again to all those who believe there is a problem with separation in class G airspace, QUANTIFY it here so all can see the RISK.

If it's so good, and the risk is so real, you won't need to mandate it will you?

Anyway low level ADSB is not on the cards in the near future so your immediate concern should be to learn spatial awareness of potential threats in the air.

As for drunk morons, well there is another thread about that and there are thousands being arrested by CASA on a daily basis.

[Joker 10]

Gosh, Now I am worried, so we all go into busy GAAP environments peering at targets on small LCD screens

Your Quote:

Let me share a recent personal experience from my own flying: Inbound close to a YBAF reporting point last weekend, a slower high wing aircraft reported just ahead of me, due to the slightly hazy conditions and sunlight from the front I never saw him although I did plenty of looking, and I was afraid I could have been encroaching on him from the top in my low wing as we were both moving to the assigned inbound altitude. That's what happened in quite a few of the mid-air's and it's almost impossible to avoid, wrong place wrong time and you're dead! The only thing that provided some relief in this situation was the other guy's transponder interrogator (which of course doesn't work out back as it requires an interrogating entity which these small/cheapish boxes can't provide) that made me show up on his screen.

Now I frequently use TCAS in quite busy environments around Minneapolis St Paul and I can assure you my eyes are not inside peering at the avidyne display.

Eyes scan the sky even though I am in a Radar Controlled IFR environment, the TCAS is a great aid enroute but in a busy intensive traffic environment it can be distracting to the point that it becomes a nuisance.

Nothing will ever replace eyes as the primary collision avoidance aid, yes environmental conditions can compromise their effectiveness but that is when all the situational awareness tools come into play.

ADSB unquestionably is a great aid above FL 290 and helps with reducing separation standards to increase traffic densities.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Joker 10 Now I frequently use TCAS in quite busy environments around Minneapolis St Paul and I can assure you my eyes are not inside peering at the avidyne display. and quite rightly so.., fixating on the panel is not a good idea and nobody says that one should do so.Eyes scan the sky even though I am in a Radar Controlled IFR environment, ahhh, another set of eyes there from ATC who can see the 'big picture' in your radar area.the TCAS is a great aid enroute but in a busy intensive traffic environment it can be distracting to the point that it becomes a nuisance.so..., you have an auxilliary aid to assist your 'see and avoid' but you choose to place less reliance on its' warnings in the busy terminal area because you are already expecting to find extra traffic there, flying there in semi-standardised patterns.

You use a system to help you avoid possible traffic conflicts, so why are you so opposed to a different system, that'll do a similar function, but with more benefits to ATC and, (if you have ADSB-IN) directly to you ?

If you had an option to reduce the sensitivity of the TCAS,would you do so as part of your inbound procedure to reduce the 'distractions' ? genuine question



and Frank AWhat subsidy? There never was a subsidy, .... that wasn't how I interpreted the JCP. I still don't believe that the $ voucher was sufficient to cover the real costs, but I do believe that it was/is still a good idea.

[Frank Arouet]

How thick are you? There was never a subsidy to scuttle.

The JCP was a think tank of ideas from industry. The ideas formed a proposal and it was not an instrument of law.

It would appear on the outcome that there were more lunatics than ADSB fanatics. Who is out of step now?

[Frank Arouet]

Well that answered my question about thickness.

The fact is it COULD HAVE BEEN AN INSTRUMENT OF LAW couldn't it?

And Germany could have won the war. (They had nice uniforms).

What is your point?

And Franky, just how many identities are you running on this forum?

I post here on the presumption of anonymity. The moderators know who I am because my name is the email address I used to register. Is this relevant to the thread or do you need to know to cross post on another website? Ask a moderator if will he will tell you.

You sound like an ATCO who needs some urgent stress leave. Have you been examined lately?

If looking at radar screens all day depresses you, perhaps consider medicine as a career change. Your bedside manner is impeccable.- Circus doctor perhaps.

[Joker 10]

So the question,

If you had an option to reduce the sensitivity of the TCAS,would you do so as part of your inbound procedure to reduce the 'distractions' ? genuine question

Answer

You can't change the sensitivity of TCAS, you can change the range 3 miles, 3 miles 10 miles

And the real problem when approaching busy terminal areas is every active transponder is now a target including when you are in range all the taxying aircraft, clutter is a real issue.

So mine is programmed to turn off the audio advisory function when the Rad Alt is at 2500 ft AGL, removes distractions as one aquires the Glide Slope.

In the U.S. with parallel runways in operation this is a good move.

By the way whilst in early days of the ADSB discussions there was some talk of a "subsidy" for General Aviation the notion of a "subsidy" never got traction from the Government, it was bandied about as if it were fact but in truth it never existed.

The JCP was a Joint Consultative body, had no power and was the Government Aviation Instrumentalities methodology for consultation with the Industry at large.

[bushy]

It's not that long ago that A gradual change occurred in our major airlines. I was very surprised to see them start operating into Aerodromes with no tower. But the dollars were there for the airlines to get, and govt would not build towers for them. The airlines would not build the towers either. So transponders and TCAS became very important, and now ADSB.There never was a subsidy and there was a lot of other wildly optomistic propaganda which was not true.
Logic tells us that pressure from major airlines and ASA will eventually result in ADSB being mandated for operations in CTAF(r)'s. The dollar will win. The big dollar operators will prevail. The little operators will have to fit ADSB or keep out of CTAF(r)'s. But not yet.
Forunnately we avoided the knee jerk reactions that would have resulted in strange, hybrid unique Australian systems. (so far)
ADSB (out) offers very little to the day VFR pilot/operator, but, like transponders it is prudent to fit one to avoid limitations.
The electronics are developing rapidly. Synthetic vision, weather and vertical profile guidance for approaches would be more useful.

[Frank Arouet]

Owen Stanley;

One.

Re subject matter. You can't quantify the risk statement. Give me the facts and I may align my views with yours. Flight instructors like you worry me. Also, are you really an ATCO?

Bushy;

How come when you say it it is OK but when I say ADS-B is not useless. Never said it was. As an evolution of existing radar I have always supported it I am subjected to the slings and arrows of outrageous torment by the likes of Mr Stanley and Dr Livingston wherever he is.

[Jabawocky]

I have been too busy and not interested enough to debate with those who have their heads burried in the sand, but this one got me hook line and sinker!

Frank Arouet, i were havin a dig at (multi callsign) Jaba...http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/cool.gif


Multi call sign hey.........multi.....that would suggest more than one! Sorry to disapponit you, although I do use a variant on that other site, but again just ONE!

And Frank, not sure about outinngs, maybe you are referring to to others, but as Owen has suggested it would be nice if you are using multi usernames to keep one username to each topic type. for example, if its ADSB use Frank, if its about the price of AVGAS use XXXXX if its about Radial engines use YYYYY...... just be consistent! Same goes for the joker.

And yes it would be safe to assume Owen is a real life (and very experienced and senior) ATCO. Some of us here are not so conecrned about hiding behind usernames, rather the fact some seem to question the integrity of those useing them, possibly as a result of a guilty concience!:=

Well done Owen........I am out of here again for a while, but maybe we should suggest that these jokers get themself a few rides on a Turbo Prop in and out of Albury and a few other places, then spend a day with you......... I bet they would have a change of heart! See they may be perfect pilots, its the rest that worry me!

J:ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Geez Jaba,

ANY other topics you can recommend??
I'm Game.....:ok::ok:


And, as 'Biggles' has said, and I agree in my 40 odd years as a CPL and 26or so as a FSO, it is the ALERTED traffic info service that is invaluable....

and is not ADSB the better way - NOW THE ONLY way - of doing this in the 'boonies' away from the infamous 'J' and its RADAR ????
(Like, the rmdr of OZ.....& apart from the CAGRO svc'd ad's........)

Cheers..............:D:D

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky;

I have one username.
I don't post on other forums.
You can assume I am a real person.
If my identity is compromised I may change my username.
I have never used different usernames simultaneously.
I have held a pilots licence for 44 years.
Mr Stanley's pious position does not make him "senior" to me.
I believe any Instructor or ATCO with an attitude like Mr Stanley is more of a menace to aviation than those he calls clowns, dickheads and the like.
I have flown in and out of Albury on many occasions.
I believe Mr Stanley needs some stress leave.

Oh, and I don't suffer fools very well. Feel free to cross post that.

EDIT to add. Can you quantify the risk factor in class G airspace?

[Frank Arouet]

Now we are on the same page.

I have said on many occasions ADS-B is not useless. Never said it was. As an evolution of existing radar I have always supported it

The risk assessment I am seeking for is that of class G airspace. I understand a Dr Hall did such research during the NAS period and was so small as to be of any consequence. I can't find that data, which I think concluded the risk was one to the minus five.

But given the "anectdotal" and sometimes hysterical "experiences" in class G airspace and recent mid air collisions within the J curve, it would be appropriate to substantiate whether there is a real and more contemporary risk in the GAFA that ADSB would economically address.

[Frank Arouet]

Groan:(

Read my words again.

If statistics can say what you want them to say, what does opinion without any corroborating evidence say?

Statistics being beyond belief, define massive enhancement

I have had one aeroplane fly over my farm in two weeks. Statistically there was no collision risk. but should we ignore this??

How will ADSB stop colliding aeroplanes and their debris falling on my roof? Will it make me twice as safe, three times? what?

[Jabawocky]

This only proves that over your farm house is not much of a risk! Can not say the same thing for hundreds of other airports around the country.:ugh:

We had to replace enroute radars.

Or Go ADSB

We handed out billions to spend on pokies plasma TV's and iPhones...but were we at risk of not having a mobile phone that worked safely! :E...... No of course not.

But the JCP failed to get up. Now be honest here, if you had a couple of hundred million in your pocket and you had to spend it, which would have been a better investment for the country, for ASA for the taxpayer? ADSB roll out or new iPhones for the masses?

J:hmm:

[PlankBlender]

Let's try to put a new spin on this discussion:

No contract, LOI or similar has been signed to replace/maintain the radars.

The cost figures to replace/maintain the radars that were used in the discussion on how to proceed with ADS-B are now a few years old and were even at the time only an optimistic estimate.

When it becomes inevitable to sign a contract or write a big cheque, some hard questions about alternatives will be asked if not by the relevant industry organisations or other interested parties, surely by financial oversight committees or whatever other budget control instance exists in government, and ADS-B will be looked at again in terms of technological feasibility, ongoing costs and benefits, etc.

The good news here is that there is a very solid business case for going the ADS-B route, even if there is a vocal minority of unsolidaric nay-saying aviators who say they will gain no or only incremental benefits (I would call this shocking airmanship, Frank A:yuk:). Should we be lucky and the situation in the US is a little clearer by that time, we might just get a lean mean traffic machine in our cockpits at a fraction of the current price! :ok:

I for one know that I will feel a fair bit safer once my usual VFR instrument scan includes the position of traffic around me. And if that includes by definition and necessity the cowboy who thinks he is beyond the regs and can just scoot around 'because the absolute risk of a midair is very low' (which really only means they have no regard for their own life or that of others in the air or on the ground) :ugh::yuk::ugh::yuk:, all the better!

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky;

There is no radar at or near my place either. The reason for this is because Airservices cannot justify the expenditure for the obvious lack of a risk. Is there radar at Oodnadatta, Boulia, Moree, Hay?

If you HAVE to replace the existing radars, I am not opposed to doing so. But as there is none anywhere near where I, and where thousands of others live and fly, there is nothing to replace is there?

The JCP not getting up and Rudd spending money on the plebs is a bloody stupid comparison. Hospitals come to mind as being more important than either.

PlankBlender;

You obviously haven't taken anything in that I have written.

ADS-B is not useless. Never said it was. As an evolution of existing radar I have always supported it

Before you go off about shocking airmanship, you would be advised to brush up on English language comprehension before CASA test you.

This thread was about ADSB in Canada and how good it seems to work above FL290. I support this function, but just like in Canada, it is not a current item in the Canadian boonies or the below 10,000ft in class G airspace in Australia.

If anybody can give me a basis of fact that justifies the need to have it mandated in class G, I will embrace it with all the enthusiasm you lot do. To date nobody can, or if there are facts and figures, they don't support your case so you ignore them. Talk about closed minds.

This thread is starting to bore me. Isn't there a dedicated ADSB forum where you blokes can sit around wringing hankies and read what the VFR PPL gurus preache to the already converted.

If you want something bad enough, there are better ways of getting it than trying to shut down the opposition. Write to your Local member.

[bushy]

I think you will find that ADSB is already in use in Australia, but so far only above fl290. The process has started. The ground stations are being installed in places that jet airlines go to. The major airlines will demand that it happens.
And in due course I bet we see ADSB mandated for CTAF(r)'s. Without add-ons it will be of little benefit to VFR aircraft in G.

Radar may or may not be replaced. We must remember that primary radar should be able to see aircraft that do not have a transponder (but not well) and nothing else will except eyes.

ADS(B) will extend the coverage and traffic information (and maybe controlled airspace) to places our existing radar cannot reach. Towers will not be necessary as the coast dwelling city slickers will control things from hundreds of miles away in another state.
No, I don't have inside information, but even blind Freddy should be able to see this.

I think terrain information, synthetic vision, on board weather and TCAS would be of value to all aircraft. ADSB is of value to some IFR aircraft, and ASA.

I just hope this equipment can be maintained in areas outside the J curve.

[max1]

NavCanada are talking up their ADSB capabilities, they are miles behind us.
We are actually rolling out our ADSB groundstations, they are using a couple (one?) of groundstation/s to pretend that they are at the cutting edge. They are talking up their 'World Leading' of ADSB because this is what administrators do, it makes them feel good.
ADSB groundstations are cheaper to instal, and maintain, than rotating radarheads by a large factor.
The subsidy was there. It was those with an inherent distrust of government (maybe fairly placed) that have delayed the ADSB rollout.
In a few years these same doomsayers will be whinging that we could have had ADSB and its advantages years ago,like Canada, but for incompetent aviation regulators.

[Joker 10]

Can somebody please point me to where the Treasury Document is that authorises any form of subsidy for ADSB present or past document I am not fussed.

Just want objective evidence there was ever a subsidy.

[peuce]

Okay you guys. Two factors here:


You're too lazy to do your own research
You don't believe the 1st hand evidence provided by Controllers


So, here's a hand up:

1st stop should be this document ... http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/See_and_Avoid.pdf

Next, you could have a look at: Keeping Your Distance (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorials/e00011.aspx)

Then ... http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2007/pdf/b20070107_001.pdf

Then ... http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2009/pdf/AR2007057_2.pdf

There's plenty of info there about the airprox statistics for Charter and RPT aircraft in Uncontrolled airspace.

But, if I could paraphrase them all ....


Airproxes continue to occurr
See and Avoid is not a practical deterent
Other electronic tools are required ... to provide ALERTED see and avoid

[Frank Arouet]

peuce;

Very relevant and interesting reading for those who have not done so. The human factors pertaining to seeing other aircraft is particularly relevant considering I have previously said that the reason people don’t see other aeroplanes is because they are not looking for other aeroplanes.

The other links are headed in relevance to class G airspace operations by the ATSB “charter” research and conclusions document. In particular;


http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2009/pdf/AR2007057_2.pdf

"Breakdown of separation and airprox occurrence
• The combined rate of BOS and airprox occurrences, comparing 2001 with 2006,
did not significantly change (3.3 per 100,000 hours flown in 2001 compared
with 5.3 in 2006).
• The individual rates for BOS (2.4 per 100,000 hours flown in 2001 compared
with 4 in 2006) and airproxes (0.9 per 100,000 hours flown in 2001 compared
with 1.3 in 2006) also did not significantly change.
• The majority of BOS occurrences occurred in CTA, primarily Class C airspace
while airproxes predominantly occurred in MBZ/CTAF(R), Class G airspace."


NOTE:
This however does not include the private VFR GA operations hours flown which in effect would probably double the hours flown yet have the same number of BOS and airprox. (that is if you understand the principle that it takes two to have the incident in the first place).

Interpolating can we therefore expect the figures to read;

The combined rate of BOS and airprox occurrences, comparing 2001 with 2006 is 3.3 per 200,000 hours flown in 2001 compared with 5.3 in 200,000 hours in 2006.

Also airproxes predominately occurred in MBZ/CTAF R, class G airspace which accounts for probably .001% of the total land mass of Australia.

The balance of the land mass of the country of 7,692,030 sq km or 99.999% of it, had nothing of any consequence to involve it in the study. (Excluding of course class E airspace, say 10%).

Therefor if we “sterilize” the CTAF R environment from private VFR day aircraft there will be no appreciable risk in this theatre of operations and zero in G airspace or the majority of the land mass of Australia.

Can we conclude it would be a more cost effective measure to exclude certain classes of aircraft from these areas unless they have an operating transponder and/ or TCAS, or if you wish ADSB, than foist the gadgetry on the majority of private users who simply see it as a cost impost to make a very dubious contribution to air safety in this country.

Now can someone furnish data that proves the actual mid air crisis based on current collision data and how ADSB will economically make a difference.

Given that one requires an ASIC to access a CTAF R perhaps comparing those recreational and GA pilots who do not possess one and therefore don’t fly in CTAF R, with the number of pilots in the system would further strengthen the argument either way.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

'Frank A', you assert This however does not include the private VFR GA operations hours flown which in effect would probably double the hours flown yet have the same number of BOS and airprox. ... hmm., a quick look at BITRE.gov.au for 2007 ... Activity in the General Aviation sector was 1.83 million hours of which about 450k hours was training., sure, not all of that 1m+ hours was spent in cross-country transit, but it's a far cry from the 100k hours you use.

Your interpolation then produces The combined rate of BOS and airprox occurrences, comparing 2001 with 2006 is 3.3 per 200,000 hours flown in 2001 compared with 5.3 in 200,000 hours in 2006. but the ATSB statistic was The combined rate of BOS and airprox occurrences, comparing 2001 with 2006, did not significantly change (3.3 per 100,000 hours flown in 2001 compared with 5.3 in 2006). which means that you are claiming that GA produces zero BOS and airprox !... yeah.. righhhhht..

(BTW. is there a process whereby GA can report airprox ?)



Given that one requires an ASIC to access a CTAF R ... what !!.., when did that happen ?

[Biggles_in_Oz]

'Frank A' Now can someone furnish data that proves the actual mid air crisis based on current collision data and how ADSB will economically make a difference.
from the previously mentioned Keeping Your Distance (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorials/e00011.aspx) Since 1995 the ATSB has received almost two thousand reports of events where the proximity to another aircraft was considered to be a hazard. It has investigated more than 350 occurrences in all classifications of airspace where it considers that ACAS (or would have if fitted in the aircraft) significantly improved situational awareness for flight crews.

By the year 2000 occurrences where an ACAS would improve situational awareness outside controlled airspace had increased to 40 compared to 60 inside controlled airspace. In 1997 there were only two reported ACAS occurrences outside controlled airspace. The increase is mostly due to the fitment of ACAS in aircraft that were previously not equipped.

[Frank Arouet]

Read the link again.- It is titled “trends in immediately reportable matters involving “CHARTER” operations 2001-2006”. Where does it say 3.3 and 5.3 respective BOS and airprox incidents per 1.83 million hours?

I am not claiming the balance of GA produces zero, on the contrary I make the point that the incidents must have involved 50% more hours from some other sector of GA than charter. Or can an airprox involve only one aircraft?

Access to RPT-CTAF R airport’s don’t need an ASIC ???

Owen Stanley;

The only arrogance I note is in the severe mental handicap you have for interpersonal engagement. If your primary employment is communication you are being paid by idiots.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Hey Mr 'Frank A', you added 100k hours of GA time to those charter statistics to come up with your unbelieveable 'interpolation'.

as for the ASIC, an ASIC is not required at all CTAF (R)'s . eg. Polo Flats. I can't seem to find an RPT-CTAF R place., CTAF yes, CTAF R yes. RPT CTAF R no.

[Joker 10]

I will have another try,

Can somebody please point me to where the Treasury Document is that authorises any form of subsidy for ADSB present or past document I am not fussed.

Just want objective evidence there was ever a subsidy.

[peuce]

Frank .... lets forget the statistics for a moment, FACT ...BOS/Airprox continue to occur, despite the best efforts of man and beast. Is it not conceivable that eventually one of those airproxs turns into an air touch up?

Our options are either to sit on our hands and say "well, we gave it our best shot... but **** happens" or do we consider that perhaps the commercial and personal loss of a B737 hull and 150 pax at Port Macquarie might be worth the investment in a low level surveillance tool ... to enhance the see and avoid tool?

Agreed, yes there is a monetary cost. Who should pay for it is another question. My advice ... use your energy to convince Kevin that it's well and truly in the public interest.

Joker ... from what I read on these pages, the subsidy was a proposal ... dependent on the ADSB roll out going ahead within a certain timeframe .. so as to be covered by the reduction in Radar costs. Therefore, I would not expect there to be any "Treasury" or "ASA" paper authorising it ... as it was never "picked up" by the Industry. You don't do the paperwork, until programs of this scale are a goer. Whether they were fair dinkum ... well, we'll bever get to really find out.

[Frank Arouet]

Biggles;

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2009/pdf/AR2007057_2.pdf

"Breakdown of separation and airprox occurrence
• The combined rate of BOS and airprox occurrences, comparing 2001 with 2006,
did not significantly change (3.3 per 100,000 hours flown in 2001 compared
with 5.3 in 2006).
• The individual rates for BOS (2.4 per 100,000 hours flown in 2001 compared
with 4 in 2006) and airproxes (0.9 per 100,000 hours flown in 2001 compared
with 1.3 in 2006) also did not significantly change.
• The majority of BOS occurrences occurred in CTA, primarily Class C airspace
while airproxes predominantly occurred in MBZ/CTAF(R), Class G airspace."

These figures are for CHARTER operations. If the combined rate of BOS and airprox were 3.3 and 5.3 per 100,000 hours for the period who was the other party to the BOS or airprox. Some of you bloks are probably capable of having an airprox by yourself, but it generally takes two doesn't it?

So the incident is the same but must have included more than one aircraft that was NOT involved in CHARTER. Insert your own figures per hours flown for whoever was the other GA party.

Whatever figure you come up with, the number of incidents remains the SAME.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

So the incident is the same but must have included more than one aircraft that was NOT involved in CHARTER. ...but why should that be so ?
A read of the "METHODOLOGY" section in http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2009/pdf/AR2007057_2.pdf doesn't seem to say who the other party was in an incident, it could have been a GA or another RPT.

Whatever figure you come up with, the number of incidents remains the SAME. well, yes, for those quoted charter figures.
I could take a leaf out of your book and come up with my own extrapolation (using the 2006 values), to produce figures of 13+ airprox and 40+ BOS incidents for the 1million+ of GA hours per year.
Now., is such an extrapolation valid ?, hhmm. perhaps....
Without other (GA) data it is only a first approximation.

[Jabawocky]

Watch this space............ when the repoty comes out, I am sure that Farnk and Joker will say SEE & AVOID does work :}.

But it damn near did not! ANd not I am not talking about two ultralights either! Some serious heavy metal and some very acutely trained top guns.............:ooh:.

Don't ask questions coz they will not be answered. Period! Wait till its comes out. But do not say we did not say so! :ugh:

J:)

[Joker 10]

I wonder who "WE" might be, the 6 from the other forum who debate with each other methinks !!

Don't ask questions coz they will not be answered. Period! Wait till its comes out. But do not say we did not say so!

[Jabawocky]

You are chasing ghosts again.

No, this has nothing to do with anyone on the other website at all. I would bet they have not a clue the incident occured. So long as it does not get swept under the carpet, and it shouldn't, it will come out in due course.

But I am not in a position to say anymore on the facts of the matter, so lets leave it at that.

Just watch this space! You are clearly not very good at following instructions are you! :ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

It's futile debating this subject here. The same people who believe it is so inevitable that a catastrophic mid air is going to happen so they can say "I told you so" are the same people who can't see the remotest possibility that Airservices "could" use ADSB as a revenue gathering device for "air nav charges".

The thread is supposed to be how ADSB appears to work OK in Canada above FL290 as an ATC tool. There is no mention made made of on board anti collision functions with this equipment, which only the most parochial mind could twist to engender support for their zealous and monastic agenda to have it mandated in class G airspace.

Jabawocket;

(sic) repoty? Heavy metal and top guns are usually synonymous with class C airspace.

Most major incidents are a combination of breakdowns by related, interdependent, or interacting elements forming a collective end result.

The panacea is not gadgetry. However given the preference to knee jerk reactions by Governments and Regulators to over-regulation instead of remedial action, you and your lot should lobby on this basis.

Truly the work of people keeping flying affordable and safe.

Wake me up when it happens.:rolleyes:

[Joker 10]

Don't chase ghosts not all 430 of them.

[Frank Arouet]

Owen Stanley wrote on another thread;

Most of its citizens are lazy and appathetic

And those poor buggars know they have no right to exist on this Earth without the kind permission of the Government Bureaucrats, the regulators, and the peons with a prison screw mentality who are paid to do their bidding.

Having an opinion of your own or dissenting from the expensive and distasteful vomit that is forced down our throats is subject to vilification and ridicule.

He also said: Frank, I think I know who you are buddy

Good on him, It is good to know your enemy.

The only "team " I know with no balls don't eat in my paddock.

[compressor stall]

I see the quality of logic and reasoned debate has remained the same as when the thread opened - akin to that in Monty Python's witch burning sketch

I quickly realised that any argument that begins with one side trying to draw the following leaps of logic faith:

1. Canada have ADSB above FL290
2. Satellite communications don't work in blizzards
3. There are not enough ground stations in Canada to have coverage below A050
4. Therefore it won't work in Australia.

Is completely pointless. :rolleyes:

Is it little wonder why most people tune out of these debates? When someone puts forward a rational well researched and well documented argument - rather than something out of an alternate logic paradigm - more people will listen.

Wake me when it happens.

[Jabawocky]

Joker ...cracking the jokes now, sorry doode but its -10 now :p

Heavy metal and top guns are usually synonymous with class C airspace.

Oooooh Frank...... if I did not know better, I would have said you were really smart and already knew the answer, but the questions have not all been asked just yet. Some day soon you will fully appreciate why I think that last comment is a cracker!


And while we are studying your outstanding levels of accuracy and relevance
The thread is supposed to be how ADSB appears to work OK in Canada above FL290 as an ATC tool................... let me give you a very recent history lesson!
http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/370019-adsb-seems-work-ok-canada.html#post4862556
http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/370019-adsb-seems-work-ok-canada.html#post4863833
http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/370019-adsb-seems-work-ok-canada.html#post4863951

The first three posts that had any direct reference to Australia were all from ........ :D:D:D Yep you guessed it The Three Stoogers! ;)

All in jest folks! :O

[Quokka]

Yup, But it won;t work in Australia below 5000

Actually... it will.

ADS-B is line-of-sight to the horizon.

RADAR consists of two beams pointing up in the air... therefore a RADAR shadow exists beneath any particular set of RADAR beams, a very large shadow. There is also a gap immediately above the RADAR site... the "cone of silence".

The RADAR points up... ADS-B is omnidirectional. Therefore, at any site where a RADAR and an ADS-B outlet are co-located, there is substantially more surveillance coverage below 5000FT using ADS-B than there is using RADAR.

In Australia, ADS-B has been installed where VHF outlets currently exist. Therefore, where there is ADS-B coverage below 5000FT, there is VHF coverage below 5000FT. There is also a power supply and a data link (or several) from the outlet to the Centres in situ.

[LeadSled]

But the JCP failed to get up. Now be honest here, if you had a couple of hundred million in your pocket and you had to spend it, which would have been a better investment for the country, for ASA for the taxpayer? ADSB roll out or new iPhones for the masses?


Guys,

Where is the Rudd-O-Sphere proposal for new IPhones for the masses, I must have missed that one. Frank A is right, doing something about our decaying, management bloated hospital system is right at the top of my list of armchair priorities.

However, much to the chagrin of the dedicated enthusiasts on (or off) the JCP, the low level ADS-B "Mandate" didn't get up, for the following (not necessarily exhaustive) reasons:

(1) A close reading of the actual JCP paper, applying Productivity Commission/OBPR criteria, clearly showed that a mandated low level ADS-B rollout addressed NO identifiable critical collision risk in Class G airspace, let alone:

(2) Supporting mandated low level ADS-B as the cost/benefit answer to the (non) problem, in fact, the subsidy proposal was because there was no rational justification, and:

(3) The major airliners (at CEO level --- not at the middle ranks levels who were JCP workerbees) never agreed to any subsidy --- for the meaning of that, I refer you to the publicly available details for the Airservices/AATA/BAR pricing agreements, the recent Airservices annual reports etc, so:

(4) Therefor, one might reasonably infer that the airlines, at CEO level, were less than convinced of the critical safety issues many of you here devoutly believe exists.

When times were good, and QF was making record profits, I "am (very) reliably informed" Dixon of QF was quite blunt (a characteristic of said gentleman) about the chances of QF subsidizing any GA equipment, even if there was a safety issue, which his then Executive General Manager Flight Operations and Chief Pilot said there wasn't. I can quite well imagine Paul Little, of Toll Holdings, taking exactly the same view at the time --- and he and Dicko talked to each other.

What chance now, with the GFC, or in the foreseeable future???? Bets, anybody???

Indeed, no names, no pack drill, but I well recall a certain Virgin Flight Ops department management Captain say to me (with plenty of witness) words to the effect:" I want ADS-B, but I can't justify the cost to my management",and further:

(5) No subsidy proposal was ever presented to the Airservices Board, to make a decision (notwithstanding much talk in the middle ranks of now largely departed AA "managers", unrealistically low cost estimates/subsidy levels in the JCP, etc), and:

(6) Notwithstanding all the talk about "radar savings", the bottom line balance sheet savings to Airservices were at best about 3% max., including the ongoing costs of the remote radar heads, for a high risk strategy to rely on ADS-B. Don't forget there has been an almost complete change in senior AA management/CEOs since the ADS-B "mandate" hare was set running. As the editor of Private Eye would say:"Is there a connection, we should be told".

(7) If Joker 10 is who I think he is, in fact he is rather close to senior Treasury officials, and fully understands the Government processes, at that level ---- a major investment in the rollout of low level ADS-B (including at least one new communications satellite to support the load) was going to need a Prime Minister and Cabinet,Treasury and Dept. of Finance signoff to go anywhere, and that didn't happen, and there was never a reasonable prospect ---- no matter how enthusiastic the support of a very small number of committed, nay evangelical, proponents ---- of that happening.

Remember, the present ground station rollout is some 30-40 stations, a bit behind schedule, but coverage just to 5000ft AGL was going to need 350 plus, give or take, a huge undertaking ----- with the prospect of little "user pays" income to support it, even after the capital cost.

One of the posters, early on, made a statement that was a little strange, a reference to "new faster aircraft" or something like that ???? I must have missed these newfangled faster "knots" that have succeeded the old "knots".

The limit is, still, 250 kt. below 10,000 in G, which is the airspace we are talking about. Unlike C and up, there is no "clearance" for higher speeds below 10,000, only the authority of the PIC, in the event of a safety of flight issue that requires a higher speed. Behind schedules or saving a minute on descent are NOT safety of flight issues.

Also, for information, ICAO does not permit the use of aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance devices, ie TCAS or ADS-B, or Unicom/varients as mitigators in assessing separation assurance (roughly collision risk) in determining required classes of airspace for demonstrated traffic levels.

Neither does Australian. That is most unlikely to change any time soon.

If the traffic goes up sufficiently, the class of airspace goes up.

I am not debating the pros and cons of this exclusion, just stating the rules.

Airservices has quite substantial/more than adequate information on what happens in G, around airfields, and quite adequate (and internationally/ICAO) accepted collision models, our statistics validate the models results. A reference was made to Professor R.J. Hall, PhD, an internationally acknowledged risk management expert, who is well familiar with the use and abuse of models. His various papers on aircraft collision risk (and abuse of models to get pre-ordained "political/industrial" results) make fascinating reading.

I always hoped that sanity would prevail over "mandated low level ADS-B", and it has, but I must admit I did breath a sigh of relief when the decision was made. It went someway to restoring my faith in the sanity of upper echelons of the Australian Public Service, despite what always looked to me like insanity in the lower orders.

"Strangle the parrot" takes on a new meaning, the ADS-B Low level mandated parrot is dead, not just "resting" (with apologies to Monty Python).

Tootle pip!!

[Joker 10]

Gosh the air in Albury must be really rare we have Owen spouting identities here, maybe he will be good enough to identify himself, Nah I thought not hypocrit.

But continue with the personal attacks it is a good way to display your lack of real credibility.

[Joker 10]

No problems from me , Tony Mitchell and I don't need to hide behind private Emails

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The proposed ADS-B low level roll-out was not about collision risk...it was about saving money for the airlines. The carrot was quite explicit!

Leadsled, I appreciate how your argument has changed over the years. This no subsidy no ADS-B! issue is your final position. After this argument fails what will you oppose ADS-B with?

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Anybody who knows who I am, can read my public submissions about ADS-B, as NPRM, JCP replies, etc. I do not resile from anything I have written about ADS-B.

In fact, my position has been totally consistent for many years, dare I say, before many in the GA community had even heard of "ADS-B", even if they knew about Capstone.

My associates and I flew our first "air to air" ADS-B IN/OUT more than twelve years ago, but the costs of a C145/146 GPS engine, and certification costs were off the planet for a small organization, as we accurately forecast only a very limited market.

Unlike AOPA in more recent years, my position on ADS-B has never had anything to do with the existence or otherwise, of a subsidy.

From the start, I have agreed and supported the idea that ADS-B, in some form, would eventuate, and if you read my submissions, you will also find some long discussions about the original ICAO competition for a "universal broadband datalink", for uses including ADS-B or C, routine ATC comms. and many other uses.

This gave rise to the competing US UAT and the European VDL-4. Interestingly, IAOPA, including AOPA/USA and Australia, supported VDL-4 in submissions to ICAO at the time of the original competition for ADS-B. IAOPA has observer status at ICAO, as does IFALPA and many other similar bodies.

VDL-4 was the first ADS-B to be put into routine daily use, as opposed to "trials".

Then the "1090ES" format popped up, as a system touted as "cheap" by manufacturers of existing avionics, who would have had to pay royalties to the patent holders for UAT (Qualcomm) or VDL-X (Erikson). 1090ES, years after, has proved to be anything but cheap, as far as aircraft equipment and retro-fit integration is concerned --- to cash strapped (particularly US) airlines.

The irony is that airlines are now having to fit a "universal broadband datalink" anyway, to fulfill all the other uses originally mooted by ICAO ---

In a shorter timescale than ADS-B "mandates", a compatible broadband datalink with be required in both FAA and Eurocontrol areas, to unload the saturated VHF voice channels used for the bulk of ATC comms.

VDL-2 seems to be the system of choice (ARINC/SITA is replacing ACARS with VDL-2, which is VDL-4 minus the ADS-B/C function) ---- plus the often huge cost of retrofitting airline aircraft with 1090ES ADS-B, if the aircraft did not come ex-factory fitted. Even sections of the US military are using VDL-4 on their practice ranges.

For realistic cost estimates for 1090ES, have a look at the FAA ADS-B NPRM, those estimates have been validated with actual equipment retrofits costs here ---- and are many times the "proposed subsidies" quoted in the JCP.

What I have resolutely opposed, (and NOT limited to ADS-B), are the many examples of unjustified regulatory intrusion in aviation, always spruiked under the mantle of "safety", but all too commonly the pet wheelbarrow of some well meaning but misguided individual(s), or some rent seeking group.

From the start, I opposed "mandated low level ADS-B" for reason that are clear to any rational person.To incur huge cost, for no identifiable benefit, is quite irrational.

Indeed, the opposite of an economic rationalist is an economic irrationalist. I am quite happy to be branded an economic rationalist, and demand value for money in Government regulation.

In fact, many would say that Australia, aviation included, is the most over regulated and over governed nation on earth, to our very great cost in irrational, ineffective and inefficient but invariably costly regulation, often for little or no measurable benefit.

Have any of you seen the strident demands to "regulate" walking the Kokoda track, another country, for C--t sake!! ---- what next, "mandatory" "safety" helmets for golfers?? --- Now, there's a thought ---- huge potential market, if only we could get Government to raise a mandate.

NOBODY ever quantified a demonstrable safety benefit to GA for low level ADS-B------- lots of passionately held opinions, and some very interesting cases of support for commercial (not "safety") advantage.

In fact, the economic benefits of the reduce traffic spacing now possible at high level over Australia are somewhat less than obvious, but if the users are happy to pay, that's their decision. No other country, including ones with many times our aviation activity levels, are proposing mandating low level ADS-B, let alone for VFR.

"Knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing" ----- we know both the (estimated and realistic) cost of mandated low level ADS-B and accurately know the value --- and the value to GA and Regionals and similar, as a whole, is near enough to nothing, as makes no difference -- a factual statement, which is clear from any rational reading of the mass of public documents.

Faith is a poor substitute for fact in Government decision making, no matter how dedicated to defense of the faithful.

Tootle pip !!!

PS: One of the more technically inept things in the "subsidy" debate was to equate C145 as something to do with VFR, and C146 as something to do with IFR, and propose different levels of subsidy, on that basis. VFR and IFR have nothing to do with the C145 and C146 differentiation, as anybody with a cursory knowledge of the relevant RTCA standards and TSOs should have known.

[Joker 10]

Owen Stanley, very cute, and I was right you hypocrit, I am transparent you are not, why am I not surprised.

[Joker 10]

Yup hypocrit you hide from your employer Air Services and then abuse other people from your cloak of anonymity, that is the true mark of a coward and worse is absolutely unAustralian.

I hope your group of likeminded acolytes also Air Services employees enjoy your company, I sure as hell wouldn't.

So all you hidden Air Services employees get on the bus and support your anonymous mate in his quest to slag off others from his hidden persona, hypocritical as this is the very sort of behaviour he accuses others of hiding behind.

[Joker 10]

For the unenlightened this is how funds get approved:


An agency usually only gets óngoing'' funding for the ongoing administration of its responsibilities. Its responsibilities can be legislative in nature, or govt policies that are given to it to administer that fall within its charter eg the new children's channel for the ABC.

The budget process is where 'new policy proposals' are considered.

Usually, the only way to get funding outside the budget cabinet process is by getting cabinet approval via a full submission, or at the very least approval from the minister for finance, the treasurer, as well as the PM.

At this time of year everything would be through a budget cabinet process via the expenditure review committee.

Each year Depts and agencies submit 'new proposals' for approval as part of the budget process.

There is usually a small group of ministers including Treasurer and Finance who would meet as a Expenditure Review Committee to work through each new policy proposal and decide if it should proceed in principle, and how it is to be funded.

Usually a request for a say $100m new policy would need to be accompanied by ideas on how the funds could be offset through new taxes or charges, or a reduction in other activities. Portfolios are usually required to find the funding from savings or new taxes within their own protfolio. There would need to be extraordinary public benefits for $100m to be given without some quid pro quo.

It's most unlikely that any new policy proposal by an agency would get up without the full support of the portfolio minister.

[max1]

Joker it's spelt hypocrite, thanks.
Look it up in Websters, or the Macquarie, and I don't think you are applying it correctly.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

VFR TSO C145a is a GPS sensor that can be incorporated in a transponder. IFR TSO C146a is a STAND ALONE Navigator suitable for IFR.

A chipset or a complete box....methinks there is a difference.

More later...time line to follow.

[Joker 10]

Rather depends Rockwell chipset or Hitachi Chipset as to the way the chipset is supported by software and I/O interfaces.

[LeadSled]

Ozbusdriver,

You are on the right track, a C145 chip is for incorporation as a component in a system board, say an IRS/FMCS or an EGPWS system board, but nothing to do with VFR v. IFR. As an slight oversimplification re. RAIM, fundamentally all C129/129A/C145/C146 GPS produce position and rate information suitable for IFR navigation.

Seems to me the only equipment standards for VFR navigation relate to a compass and a clock.

For example, the GPS engine in the EGPWS of the new RFDS PC-12 provides the information to the ADS-B function of the transponder, as I am informed.

C146 is for a GPS engine integrated on a circuit board that includes additional components, processors, memory and programming that provide for, say, a moving map or other navigation , with ARINC serial outputs for additional functions, such as an instrument display/autopilots.

In fact, both the C145 and C146 TSOs have a matrix of sub-standards, labeled from Alpha to Gamma, which defines futher capability, and suitability for specific functions. Thus, a unit from Freeflight Inc., quoted in an earlier post, is C-14X Alpha, and as such, is not a suitable position/rate source for WAAS/Precision vertical navigation - sadly not likely to be an issue in Australia, unless the forthcoming Aviation White Paper comes up with something right out of left field..

By contrast, the GPS being quoted by Garmin to feed its 1090ES ADS-B transponder is the GPS output from their UAT box in isolation, and is C-146 Gamma, WAAS enabled, with all the bells and whistles.

If you go the Garmin way, the irony is that you will be carrying around the full Garmin FAA UAT box, but without any access to the available broadband functions, and in all likelihood, the AA ground receiver you are broadcasting to will be the Thales box also being supplied to FAA, but with the UAT (and possibly, VDL-2 voice/4 ADS-B) processor card slot(s) on the mother board left empty.

Your further investigation will reveal that, once 1090ES or UAT ( or VDL-2/4 ??) aircraft signals are received at the ground station and processed, the output to ATC computers are agnostic to the inbound information source format.

Maybe the FAA aren't so dumb, after all, in having a dual system, it almost guarantees no swamping from limitations imposed by number of available transponder codes, 4096.

Tootle pip!!

[onthedials]

Captain Leadsled’s contribution presents a number of misunderstandings and it is hard to know where to start.

Let’s begin with his advice to Ozbusdriver about the C145 “chip”. There are a few semiconductor products with that text in their name, but unfortunately none have anything to do with navigation. Perhaps the photodiode sold by that designation is the most aptly named, as its behaviour is to produce an electrical current from light, which would be a welcome change from the ill-informed rubbish included in several posts in this thread.

If a TSO C145 “chip” (or even “chip set”) was available then the aviation GPS businesses of Honeywell, Garmin, Freeflight and several other companies would have been history long ago. But there’s no such thing and they’re not. To make a compliant TSO C145 device necessarily involves sophisticated and highly integrated circuit board design and assembly. Considerably more than a single chip or chip set as has been indicated. Yes, you can source GPS semiconductor device products with WAAS capability, but that is far from TSO certifiable.

The good Captain then goes on to tell us what is and is not in TSO C145 and 146.

In such circumstances, one is compelled to refer to the actual, rather than the imaginary views of those documents (at revisions A, B, or C) propounded here.

Nowhere in those documents are there references to a "GPS engine integrated on a circuit board that includes additional components, processors, memory and programming that provide for, say, a moving map or other navigation, with ARINC serial outputs for additional functions, such as an instrument display/autopilots". In fact, chip sets, ARINC, moving maps and circuit boards aren't mentioned at all. Interfaces are mentioned once and only in general relation to adequacy of the interface specification for integrated equipment. “say” what you like, sir, but that’s not in the documents. Refer to TSO C146C at section 5 p. In TSO C146A it’s at 5 (a) 2. b. Recommended reading for those with fertile imaginations.

Now maybe Captain Leadsled really intended references to RTCA DO 229D? Doubtless, he will quickly be able to point to the relevant sections of those documents that reference those items. (this will be good).

Equally intriguing is his authoritative advice based on references to the Freeflight products as "C-14X Alpha".

First, Freeflight don't make any 146 devices, so what else could they be other than TSO C145? Is there some new TSO in the 14X-series coming that the rest of us never heard of?

Pray, good Captain, do let us know.

Second, his reference to "Alpha" confuses (erroneously or deliberately, I can’t tell) the TSO designation C145 at revision A with the classes of equipment within that TSO at its various revisions. The former is the revision of the FAA standards document. The latter is the class of equipment called up within that standard. In fact, the certification of all the current Freeflight products (models 1201, 1203 and 1204) is Beta-1. Refer to http://www.freeflightsystems.com/docs/FFS_GPS_WAAS.pdf

He also repeats the misguided argument bandied about in relation to the alleged need for Mode A 4096 codes by 1090ES technologies. I suggest that he and anyone else concerned about any potential architectural limitation refer to the following RTCA special committee paper: http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/WG3_Meetings/Meeting15/1090-WP-15-20.pdf
The limiting address space for 1090ES is the 24 bit ICAO skin code; there is no dependence on 4096 codes unless certain legacy ground stations require it. 1090ES ADS-B transponders will send the 4096 code as a type 23 message, but there is no fundamental reason why it has to be used unless legacy ground equipment requires it.

I did not want to have to waste more time on this thread and withdrew from it earlier. But several people have raised questions about it with me and I feel compelled to correct some of the half-baked ill-informed pretensions being put forward as authoritative here. Most of this thread serves little purpose other than to further confuse readers seeking the correct information. Perhaps that is what various posters intend.

Poople tit!!

OTD.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

To be specific. The TSO 145a refers to a GPS SENSOR TSO 146a refers to a GPS NAVIGATOR

Chip sets was probable not a good description and thank-you OTD for that. I do refer to a complete circuit board that can be incorporated within a device. A navigator is a complete stand alone device that provides all the functionality expected. LS you can invest in Garmin. Luckily there are other manufacturers that still see the big picture....Funny how the neighbours to the north haven't followed their southern cousins in incorporating UAT within their network. or any VDL entity. Mind you they did look at WAMLAT as a stop gap until they got more comprehensive coverage with ADS-B.

LS I bet I could google up a reply from the US AOPA that would show a contrary view to what you think is their position. I will have a look and see what I can find tomorrow....off to bed:8

[LeadSled]

Mr. Onthedials,
What a wonderful job of trying to confuse the audience, and probably resulting in confusing yourself. The annual comedy festival is on right now, perhaps you should give it a try.

Where do I start --- lets take the last one first ---- re. any limitation of 4096 ---- FAA/Mitre Corp. still thinks it's a problem, who am I to argue. Sure, if you eliminate most or all of the SSR, then it's no longer a problem (and would never be a problem in Australia, no where near enough traffic) but that's not what FAA is planning, is it.

In the highest density areas of US, most of the SSR (and new and upgraded Primary Radar) is going to stay ---- have a look at the complaints of AOPA/USA and NBAA about having to keep transponders if they fit UAT. After all, if you bother to actually read what I wrote, in this context, I was referring to FAA.

As for the rest, let's keep it really simple:

It would be quite pointless trotting out reams of documents that stand behind FAA TSO's, and you know, as well as anybody else reading this thread, what C145 and C146 GPS TSOs refer to, but 6/10 for an amusing attempt at sarcasm, dripping with contempt. Such a balanced and dispassionate exposition.

Thanks for the information about the Freeflight products, I thought they were C145, but chose to leave it at C14X, because I wan't going to spend too much time checking whether they were C145 or C146, and I am please to see they have solved some of their recent technical problems (you know about the AD directed downgrade, of course) and they are now where they are. It was all a bit embarrassing for various name brand avionics manufacturers using Freeflight (nee Trimble) C 145 GPS whatyamacallits doodads in their equipment.

Go check your documents, from memory mine tell me Gamma 1(or is it Gamma 3) is the minimum for a WAAS enable precision vertical guidance (to below non-precision approach minima )--- and less than that capability means there is little benefit from WAAS, after all, you can do non-precision approaches on the humble C129A -- RAIM permitting.

Back to the core issue ----- the essential difference between TSO C145 and TSO C146 GPS, in the simplest possible terms, and that is all that is needed for this discussion, is:

A C145 what ever you want to call it (in this context) lets call it a GPS "processor", is for incorporation in an avionics manufacturer's device, where all the supporting (and, of course highly complex) avionics gubbins are specific to that device, not necessarily from the same manufacturer as the GPS processor.

Say a stand alone EGPWS that does not depend on an external GPS feed, as it has its own on-board GPS. Or a Meggitt "glass cockpit" setups, STC'd for various aircraft. Or a Honeywell GNS XLS FMCS.

Just so you don't get confused about which C145 I am talking about, I am not talking about:
Cessna C145
C145 2-Chloroadenosine triphosphate tetrasodium hydrate
C145/170. A50T110. Non Thermostated glass cells.
MSO-C145 - Digital Anti-Jam Receivers.
PDB-C145 photodiodes
C145 Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention, 1976.
---- and any number of other things where C145 appears.

A C146 (in this context) device will typically be a "system", a GPS processor and supporting additional processors, memory, whatever, on a circuit board, that might be incorporated, as is, in a variety of devices by a variety of popular brand names, without the proprietor of the brand name having to develop the whole system from scratch --- as is the case a lot of consumer electronics manufacturer, the same under the skin ---- and aviation is only a very small part of the "GPS" market.

I won't bother with the same "explanatory" exercise as to what I am not talking about re. C146

I suppose you do know who's "GPS chips/chipsets/engines (common term of your choice - but I am certain you know what I mean ) are in who's big and not so big brand name boxes.

And the other main point, and where this started, is that none of it has anything to do with C145 = VFR and C146 = IFR, as the subsidy arguements were presented in the original CASA NPRM and carried through to the JCP.

Perhaps you could help me ---- those dinky little thingies I buy in boxes of 10 from Rockwell, which, when fitted to our circuit boards, produce all sorts of useful position and rate information --- what do you think I should call them ?

They sure a hell are not a "GPS", as in something you can switch on. They certainly don't look like a "chip set", like you find on the main board of your PC or laptop to support the processor. A clue, as well as a bunch of numbers, C129A rates a mention, and they are certainly not diodes, or light bulbs, or Seafarer's Conventions.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

Well!:confused: that's easy for you lot to say.

Owen Stanley;

Thanks, lets assume clean slate all round.