CASA premature ADS-B mandate will result in even more pilots losing jobs

[Dick Smith]

All corporate jet aircraft operating above FL290 in Australia will be required to have ADS-B by 2013 – seven years before the requirement is mandated in the USA. A number of industry people I have spoken to predict that up to 50% of our corporate fleet will be sold back to the USA, rather than spending the $20 million (estimated by CASA) to fit ADS-B. They state that this type of money is simply not available.

Remember, ADS-B is not required below FL290, so no improvement will be made in the so-called “necessary” problem area of the western minefields.

With up to 50% of the fleet being sold back to the USA, many professional pilots will lose their jobs. Some will say they deserve this because these pilots have done absolutely nothing in making it clear to CASA that Australia can’t possibly lead the world in expensive requirements when there is a major recession taking place.

Fortunately it won’t affect me at all. I can easily afford the ADS-B, and I presume the Packers can too.

I would love to know what genuine measurable safety issue is being addressed. I recently flew the CJ3 out to Birdsville, and above FL290 there is basically no one there. This must be so because Airservices regularly went to TIBA without any real objection from CASA. Of course Airservices have announced that they are going to replace the radars as required, so the ADS-B requirement cannot be designed to address the J-curve.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe ADS-B is fantastic. However I find it interesting that Australia is planning to lead other major aviation countries, such as the USA, with these mandatory requirements.

It can only be happening because the people at CASA making the decisions have no understanding of commercial reality at all. The cargo cult attitude that existed in the 60s is back, firm and strong.

It appears that Qantas agreed with this early mandate because they thought it would only affect the business aviation community and wouldn’t cost Qantas a cent – i.e. that they would have got rid of their 767s by then.

Now with the downturn, there is a chance that Qantas will still have the 767s and it will cost an absolute fortune to fit ADS-B – resulting in even fewer people being employed as their company profitability is affected even more.

[Dick Smith]

No , not per aircraft! The CASA RIS claims the cost will be $19.9m for the 182 aircraft effected however industry estimates are twice this. For example the CASA figures average out at $60k per aircraft however the Collins estimate for my CJ is over $100k US and my aircraft is only 3 years old!

And the industry will have to pay the cost of the radar replacement decision so it is a double cost whammy.

Ha HA But they deserve it as just about everything I did to urge caution was undermined by cowards on this site!

Less and less jobs for the Professionals

[slice]

Your sensationalist thread title doesn't fool anybody anymore Mr Smith. The mandatory fitment of ADS-B in 3~4 years for all aircraft operating above FL290 is not going to break the back of any currently viable corporate jet operation in Australia. Of course aircraft with no ADS-B may be sold overseas and any imported would either have to be fitted with ADS-B or provision made for it to be fitted with the equipment, but if that in itself becomes the financial show stopper then I would argue that the operation itself is not viable. As for Qantas and their 767s the fitment of ADS-B would one of only many many maintenance issues facing those aircraft as by 2013 some of them will be 25 years old. You are drawing an idiotically long bow between regulations regarding mandatory equipment and their cost and pilot employment.

[Dick Smith]

Slice, of course you are correct. Unique costs of $20 to $40 million that are added to our industry compared to our global competitor countries could never effect jobs here.

Everyone relax DS is wrong again- what would he know about the costs of successfully running a business compared to people like Slice.

[Freewheel]

Dick,

A random thought based on nothing more than my own juices;

Could it be that this may spur a period of fleet renewal or an opportunity for Australian companies to become leaders in ADS-B globally? At least it's not a weird unique system that won't ever be used anywhere else.

As many corporate aircraft go deeper into their inspection/overhaul cycles, they may become candidates for replacement, rather than upgrade. They may also attract a higher price on the overseas market than when they become clapped out bolt buckets. I doubt this will change the recession forced sales much anyway.

Hardly seems worthwhile for a lazy 100k+ but you never know.

BTW - my guess is that Qantas is going to pounce on any cancelled 787 orders to punt the 767's as quickly as possible ala 2001/2......

[Pat Mcgroin]

"Everyone relax DS is wrong again"
we have all waited sooooo long for these words :D

[Dick Smith]

Freewheel , a great idea. We have an industry going into severe recession so we add to overheads so that the money spent will employ more people and take us out of recession!

I love it.

Do you work in the PM's Department?

[Jabawocky]

Dick

I believe you when you say the quote for $100K from Collins was real.... then..... but in a year or so a Transponder change and either interfacing with existing GPS data or even a suitable GPS module should not cost that much.

You know all about the economies of scale principal, and I think CASA should too, so why is the $20M figure for 182 a/c to be believed.

I realise the Boeing / Airbus folk may end up at that price but most have it now anyway.

And regardless of your ability to pay $100K or $20K......I think its a bit much to expect you to be forking out that much($100K) anyway.

Time will tell but I really doubt it will cost the industry $20M

[Dick Smith]

Seriously though, there is going to be more and more of you blokes out of work with the terrible trauma that involves if you don't wake up to reality.

Already pilots who attacked me on this site a number of years ago are asking if I have any jobs available.

The worst is not over yet in my view. Wake up to yourselves!

[Dehavillanddriver]

One popular airline aircraft recently introduced into Australia is going to need modifications costing approx 100k USD per aircraft to get ADS-B to work.

the costs are very real....

[Dick Smith]

And if it is such a good idea why has the US set a date of 2020?

Could it be something to do with the very viability of an important industry? I think so.

And what actual existing safety issue is being adressed for the $20 million?

[slice]

No Mr Smith, in the lower 48 states US radar coverage above FL290 is virtually total. That is why ADS-B there is not going to be mandatory until 2020. You also fail to mention that Europe and most of SE Asia will have the same requirement by 2013.This is a compliance cost that all operators above FL290 will have to bear, whether they are Australian or not. You also fail to consider to the huge cost savings available from ADS-B coverage (availability of optimal FL, direct tracking etc.) due to the vast reduction in separation standards just as RVSM did vertically. It is you that needs to wake up to yourself!

Pilots that are unemployed are certainly not going to be bemoaning the mandatory fitment of ADS-B as the cause of their woes!
Whatever business you operate or have operated Mr Smith, you certainly do not display much acumen for the aviation business in your various rants against CASA, ASA, the RAAF, the ABC etc. etc. etc.

[Freewheel]

Freewheel , a great idea. We have an industry going into severe recession so we add to overheads so that the money spent will employ more people and take us out of recession!

I love it.

Do you work in the PM's Department?


Dick,

During a conversation about Indigenous policy recently, somebody told me I should run for PM. I laughed and suggested......you. :hmm:

I wouldn't have thought a man of such entrepeneurial vigour as yourself would have been so quick to jump on the idea of somebody seeing this as an opportunity.

There may be the odd organisation for whom the cost of ADS-B might be the straw on the camel's back, but if so they'd likely be going down the gurgler anyway. How much for a hot section overhaul on your CJ3?

As you point out, ADS-B is fantastic, but as slice rather indelicately mentioned, there should be a substantially greater (relative) gain for Australia than there will be in the US.


Addendum;

There's still 4 years to go, so by then we'll either have begun to recover and corporate operators will know how they're travelling, or we'll all have been runed.

The danger in ADS-B implementation is not the equipment, the effect or the cost, but the principle of using it to provide something that could have been provided another way for years.

If the principle was to apply we'd have to have a TCAS to fly a circuit and an ab initio student would need to operate one of them before going anywhere alone, along with all the other burdens.


Finally, the US does get it wrong from time to time, after all where was ADS-B created all those years ago?

[Joker 10]

Dick, It is a predictable resopnse, those who don't own aircraft want those who do to spend money on those aircraft so that the non owners can either fly them about or so the non owner public servants in airconditioned control centers can relax and put the onus for separation back on the Aircraft Owners.

[slice]

joker 10 - are you on the same planet!?! Above FL290 the onus for separation has and will always be on the ATC center. And believe me anything flying at or above FL290 is air conditioned (Mil fast jets possibly excepted). Read carefully what this debate is actually about!

[Joker 10]

Owen Stanley, are you an Owner or a renter, just want to get your credentials sorted.

FL 290 + todays battleground ADSB < 5000 tomorrows.

[Jabawocky]

Joker

From one owner to another :ok: Owen is a multiple owner, although that changes at times....just like all of us including you, so what the heck has that to do with this discussion.

I think I am going to take a leaf out of Keg's book (if you do not mind Keg) and suggest you have become an ADSB TROLL............. Of course Keg would say dont't feed them :ugh: which is what I just did :ugh:.

I see you are paranoid about it creeping below FL290 hey....big brother charging you for not receiving a service in class G :ooh::ooh::ooh:


Dehav driver....... I believe the costs for the Boeing and Airbus guys could well be 100K, however for the masses of GA they could well be much lower in a short time, including Dick's CJ3. I think Collins just charge what they like. But pressure will come with volume. Ask joker about the economies of scale. He knows only too well that if one of the common products he markets were only built in batches of 100-1000 the costs would be more than 5 times what we the consumer pays.

Again I share Dicks concern about 100K fitting for GA jets...... but volume will be the only thing that helps that. How does one see more volume?

[topdrop]

believe me if they could rip it out and not provide it they would!
Well I don't believe you and I've worked here for 30 years. Easy to say, but may I ask, where's your evidence.

[ER_ZZZ]

Sounds like FL280, FL290 will be pretty busy around deadline then.

Oh yeah, I may just turn the heat up as its a tad cold up here?

[Dick N. Cider]

Can someone remind what this thread is actually about? I've just read it twice and by the time I get to the end I've lost the plot again.:}

DNC

PS Aircon in the centres is definitely to support the equipment. (Alright I'll admit that's not the only reason but it's the mandatory one) There are contingency plans to mitigate against failure and none points to cooling the fat b@stard in front of the screens. Normal ops, air is pumped into the consoles at 16⁰C to keep the computers cool. Consoles don't work above 43⁰C and they reach that about 20 minutes after the aircon fails if alternate cooling not available (meaning removing cowls and bringing in fans).

[Dick Smith]

Dick N. Cider let me explain it to you. It is about people losing their jobs in the aviation industry. I, and some other astute business people, believe that the main result of Australia introducing mandatory ADS-B requirement s 7 years ahead of the United States will be job losses.

Of course the cargo cultist professional pilots come on this site and say that all of these small amounts of money mean nothing and you can continue to come up with unique requirements like ADS-B, or ASIC cards, and because they are all only small amounts it will have no affect on our industry.

I, others, and more and more of the silent majority are starting to understand that this industry is not through the worst of it. Many of us believe it will get far worse, and many thousands more pilots will lose their jobs.

The best way to make our industry efficient is to copy the least expensive requirements from around the world. The United States had decided not to mandate ADS-B until 2020. One of the reasons they have done this is because they know the enormous cost of such a mandate.

Yes, they do have radar across their continent. That’s because they have big cities in the middle of their continent. The only reason we do not have radar coverage in the Simpson Desert is that it would be a huge misallocation of resources.

This thread is about job losses and the need for the Government to take this into account when allowing CASA to lead the world with expensive rules that are not based on any measurable safety problem.

[flypy]

Just tried some of your peanut butter Dick.. good stuff that extra crunchy variant. :ok:

[bushy]

Do these designers have to have fitting of ADSB made mandatory before they can design the equipment?
Is CASA their sales department?

[Dick Smith]

Owen Stanley, you are in dreamworld. The units you are talking about that boffins are working on here in Australia may one day appear in an unpressurised GA aircraft. However the cost will be many times the amount quoted. This is because many of these local people simply have no idea of the enormous cost to properly TSO a unit.

These units are not designed to go in pressurised airline standard aircraft that will operate above FL290. Do you really believe that in the glass panel of my Citation, crammed with Collins equipment, I can cut another hole (where?) to fit a standalone ADS-B unit made by someone in an Australian country town?

What does this have to do with mandating the requirement 7 years ahead of the USA? Or are you suggesting the mandate comes from CASA to help these businesses? If that is so it should be clear that the Government has this policy. I have not heard of it.

ADS-B is a great gizmo and over the years it is going to roll out so most aircraft will be fitted. I have a feeling in 4 or 5 years time you will find that something new will come along – i.e. the equivalent of a Next G phone – which is better than what the Americans are using in their airline equipment now, and what Airservices and CASA have decided to copy.

[Freewheel]

Dick,

Agreed, the ADS-B of today is an evolved version of an elderly concept, due to be overtaken soon enough by a reasonably priced alternative. A man with entrepeneurial spirit and a gift for marketing might find a way to put his name to such a thing, perhaps even one compatible with a full Collins suite.....

I foresee a similar effect to going from a vacuum pump driven AH to the fancy solid state TV screens we get in the likes of a CJ3. The pilot will get a familiar result, but the method will be entirely different.

I'm going to take a step back here and seek your input as I'm struggling with your point;

You say (in effect) that a mandated event in 4 years time is going to cost jobs from now right up to and beyond that date. I don't follow this one.

Yes, we are in a recession. There will be job losses related to the recession. Regardless of where we currently are on the economic J-curve, experience suggests that 4 years is plenty of time to see a recovery begin, if not develop substantially. A business that is recovering and growing trade is hardly going to throw it's babies out with it's bathwater.

I'm comfortable with the principle that there isn't much of a problem to solve near Innaminka, but as time goes by and traffic in general increases, it might be worth staying ahead of the game.

I'm well aware of the foolishness of burdening industry with unnecessary and ongoing Oz only costs, but when a company of 20 odd employees is likely to spend +-10 grand on ASICs and DAMP between now and 2013 with no appreciable effect, adding a 0 on a one time device that might help them prevent an accident one day isn't a hard choice, especially when the opportunity might exist to incorporate it into a broader avionics upgrade.


BTW - for a stand alone unit, have you tried blue tak and an occy strap?:E

[grip-pipe]

If memory serves me well, was not ADS-B the fix for lack of ATC radar in Oz? So once again ASA and CASA go in different directions as they fail to reconcile each others organisational grand plans.

As usual the outcome is we find more ways of sending aviation industry income overseas as operators shift into lower cost aka less onerous regulatory outcomes, so it will mean some job losses but I would not count it in the thousands. Noticed the increasing o/s registered heavies and corporate jets op in and out of Oz over the past decade or so, especially in the last four.

If its business as usual we will go down to the wire on this, with everyone gearing up for it at great cost and training demands, aka FRMS, then abandon the whole process to a future date, I will go for 2025.

Still you never know Dick it may be a suitable 'nation building' program and Labour will fund it through the department whose name I cannot speak.

[slice]

grip-pipe - as I said before most of SE Asia and Europe are mandating ADS-B at the same time as Australia. Effectively a very large percentage of the worlds Airline and corporate fleet are going to have to be so equipped by then as any aircraft operating into or through the airspace of those nations will have to be ADS-B equipped. This isn't a unique Australian requirement as implied by D Smith and his fairly myopic world view. How can this possibly send a single operator overseas ? This affects pretty much everybody in equal measure no matter where they are based. I would argue the US is the exception to the rule here - but of course with good reason (radar everywhere up high). In addition you seem to ignore the big cost savings this will bring. Can you guess how much extra fuel a 737 burns going across the bight because it is stuck 2 FLs below optimum due traffic 10NM ahead?

ps ADS-B in aircraft I operate do not have any direct pilot interface ie no panel space required.

[ER_ZZZ]

Surely the airlines could cut a good deal now to ensure all new aircraft on order come fitted ADSB etc.

As far as upgrading older aircraft. Just take a look what a new TSO HF costs, there is not that much choice. How many different units of the ADSB will there be to put price pressure on the manufacturer?

[Flying Binghi]

Is it because he'll be most pi$$ed off with the fact that he wont be able to sell the cheap imported junk rather than good Australian product.

You pontificate about buying Australian made, when it looks like Austalians may come up with an affordable unit it's 'lets watch while the Americans do it for 3 or 4 times the price', goodonya mate

Hmmm, i were wondering about those recent full page ADS-B ads...:hmm:

Product to sell - invent an overblown issue ??

...of course, when the GPS sats get turned off...problems..:uhoh:

[Joker 10]

Owen obssesive Stanley C'Mon give it a break

[Flying Binghi]

...those recent full page ADS-B ads

Haven't seen them, where are they?


Owen Stanley, aircraft owners get the mag free


A little paranoid perhaps? If I was you I'd hide under your bed, the government is watching everything you do, first it's through your mobile phone, cameras at work and NOW.........it's ADS-B

Errr, if the sat's get turned off = No watching via ADS-B...perhaps i'm paranoid that no one is watching me..:ooh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

46 posts and degeneration sets in. Not one sceric of facts from the proponents of this thread other than scaremongering over job losses.

Next method is to denigrate opponents as NON OWNERS who have no real say in how things should be....sounds like "pay your way, have your say" BS from the eighties/nineties that precipitated this sorry mess....Tell me Dick, did you actually BUY your first aeroplane and then learn to fly in it or did you start off like the rest of us and nearly every other pilot on the planet and pay for the hours to learn. If this is the case, do you quietly rejoice the fact that someone invested their hard earned in making an investment in aviation?

Dick,If you did buy your own, did you quietly rejoice in the fact that your instructors invested their hard earned in getting to such a position they could give you quality instruction? Do you also quietly rejoice in the fact that someone took a punt in investing in aircraft for those pilots to learn in?

I know a guy who flies for a guy who has a few quid. He just got a new toy to go with his other toy and looks like getting another toy with longer legs and now heads a department of five pilots to fly the guy with a few quid around the planet. Not bad for being semi-retired. Now, I met the guy with a few quid. I am pretty sure he would sue for a device that would allow him more DCT tracking if it got him to where he wanted to go even fifteen minutes quicker. I am pretty damn sure he wouldn't look at the device and one of his drivers and have to decide which to keep.

If you have to think how much the Roller costs to run then you cannot afford it.

The same goes for you, Joker!

AirServices only want the transponder. Regardless what "owners" think. If you do not like this you can go fly something that has numbers for a rego. AND their days are numbered too. ABV050 and airspace comes with certain trade-offs.

Smith, do you REALLY understand why the yanks have set 2020 and the rest of the planet is going earlier.

[Joker 10]

This is the first accurate reply to Dick in this thread:

AirServices only want the transponder. Regardless what "owners" think.

[slice]

Oh yeah joker - so do elaborate. What exactly is inaccurate about my reply or anybody else's reply?

[Dick Smith]

OZ Why is there a mandate?

If ADSB brings advantages to Bizjets such as direct tracking and these advantages are cost effective owners will update. It's called the marketplace.

I think you may find the early mandate exists because the boffins want to lead the world -no other reason.

The reason I owned my own aircraft from very early days is that I ran a business which concentrated on not wasting expenditure if there were to be no effective productivity improvements.

Fortunately in Electronics and Publishing I did not have the equivalent of CASA forcing extra costs on my business

If I had I probably would have gone broke.

OZ, I want more people employed in Aviation not less - that's why a started this thread. How can $20 million of costs be added to a small part of our industry without effecting jobs?

And by the way- when I am out in the outback in the CJ I always get direct tracking when I ask for it - and that's now before ADSB.

The reason is obvious -there is hardly anyone else there!

And there are going to be less in future.

[No Further Requirements]

The reason you get direct tracking is that the technology in the ATC centres has been subject to constant improvement. TAAATS and its associated upgrades (like the LAT-C tool) makes working out non-radar areas of conflict much quicker and easier than before. ADS-B is just another tool in the ever improving aviation world.

Is there any talk of a subsidy for this requirement?

Cheers,

NFR.

[Flying Binghi]

...a select few who have 'power, money and influence' worked to destroy the concept,...

A conspiracy...:eek:

[bushy]

The aviation comunity was fed a whole lot of "pie in the sky" falsehoods about ADSB.
That has been proved because none of it eventuated.
ADSB, or a later version will eventually be mandated for use in controlled airspace. But not yet. ASA and the airlines would benefit from this.
On board weather data, terain, and synthetic vision would be more useful for most GA pilots and operators.

[peuce]

Dick,

I would imagine the reason why ASA hasn't left it to market forces for Aircraft owners to install ADS-B is because .... just because you have it, doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be provided with any efficiencies. If ATC don't know where the other guy is ... you won't get the short cuts. Everyone has to be in it for true efficiency.

[Jabawocky]

Worth repeating that..........

I would imagine the reason why ASA hasn't left it to market forces for Aircraft owners to install ADS-B is because .... just because you have it, doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be provided with any efficiencies. If ATC don't know where the other guy is ... you won't get the short cuts. Everyone has to be in it for true efficiency.

[Flying Binghi]

Eh..???..:ooh:

According to reports coming from the US government, the planned EU satellite navigation system could be in big demand if its own GPS network falls into disrepair

US says GPS satellite coverage may fail soon | News | TechRadar UK (http://www.techradar.com/news/portable-devices/satnav/us-says-gps-satellite-coverage-may-fail-soon-599431)

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/374229-us-says-gps-satellite-coverage-may-fail-soon.html

[Spodman]

Been thinking about this, and don't really see why they have opted for an exclusive model when that option has been resoundingly rejected in the past for other implementations of new gear.

NAV/AUSEP, RNP & RVSM were all introduced and those that didn't have it were (are) massive roadblocks in the sky, that reduced to insignificance in time. I think the approach made with RVSM makes the most sense, all can enter, but the RVSM equipped aircraft have priority, and ATC decides. If a non-RVSM will be in conflict with a RVSM aircraft the non-RVSM gets shifted. Every so often a non-RVSM aircraft that gets royally shafted bleats that he has to divert somewhere for fuel. Tough. Can't recall anybody being made unemployed or dying because of it.

The US, however, opted for an exclusive model for RVSM. Maybe somebody's agitation to standardise with US whims has resulted in the stated policy for ADS/B. The US has surveillance coverage across their country in Class A airspace. The proposed policy will deliver the same result here. Brilliant.

Maybe it is just the magnitude of the difference, which I'm sure some pilots wouldn't appreciate. Consider yourself departing YAYE in your RNP and ADS/B equipped jet, and there is another jet coming the other way under your intended cruise level. If you are both identified with ADS/B (and implementation has finished and we can use the radar standard) then the ATC has only to establish vertical separation above the other guy's level before you get within 5 NM of him, restrict you below until you have passed him, or vector you at least 5 NM left or right of him for an unrestricted climb.

If the other guy hasn't got the gear then you either get 1000' above him 10 minutes before the ATC thinks you will pass - could be more than 80 miles separation - or wait til you've passed (plus variegated procedural standards).

[Dick Smith]

Spodman, the scenario you give an example of is the situation at the present time. Why can’t each aircraft quote a GPS distance from a location (as they can do with DME) and then let ATC use a more enlightened form of separation, rather than 10 minutes?

In fact, I understand we were supposed to introduce some type of GPS distance standard. Remember we are a sovereign country. We can introduce standards that suit our present needs.

Before everyone starts shouting, remember I have always said “copy the best from around the world and keep the best of what we have here.” That is what I have always done.

[No Further Requirements]

Spodman, the scenario you give an example of is the situation at the present time. Why can’t each aircraft quote a GPS distance from a location (as they can do with DME) and then let ATC use a more enlightened form of separation, rather than 10 minutes?

Dick, Spodman is talking about getting vertical separation achieved before they pass, which is 10 minutes before the estimated time of passing. No GPS/DME kit will let you achieve this standard before the time of passing. After they have passed, different story.

[Freewheel]

Before everyone starts shouting, remember I have always said “copy the best from around the world and keep the best of what we have here.” That is what I have always done.



and quite right too, but now we're doing it and it's still a problem?

[Spodman]

Why can’t each aircraft quote a GPS distance from a location... blah blah Well indeed. I am not aware of any such arrangement around the world, if somebody has news of one I would happily fight to implement it, but I don't see how you can get anything useful from distance reports between two aircraft that have not yet passed.

They are used all the time, with greatly reduced separation, for aircraft tracking in the same direction, (tracks different by <45 degrees), or aircraft that have passed, as I indicated......or wait til you've passed (plus variegated procedural standards). If not, in the scenario above, the ADS/B equipped aircraft would have to wait 10 minutes AFTER the estimated time of passing to go through the clodhopper without the gear if he could not get above by 10 minutes before! My 80NM was a bit optimistic. If you figger 300kt gs for both it would be more like 100NM, increasing to 200 if unable to establish passing somehow. This is how it is done now.

On the other hand, the same direction RNAV standard is 30NM, with work-intensive voice distance checks to monitor two aircraft. If the same pair of aircraft had the gear to facilitate surveillance by ATC they could fit another 9 aircraft between them (theoretically:}), and separate just by looking at them while eating a sandwich, (sandwich not compulsory...)

[Quokka]

Spodman, the scenario you give an example of is the situation at the present time.

This is a lie Mr Smith... and you know it.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Spod this guy is not going to see the massive benefits to be had by having full surveillance accross the country would deliver.

I'm in a country with 5 times radar redundancy (that is 5 radar heads all fully covering the entire FIR (albeit in a small FIR)), and we have installed 4 ADS-B outlets, and soon to be 6. One reason is we get 10 times faster update rate than with radar heads, so when vectoring into Dubai we get a more accurate picture and a quicker indication of turns etc.

Secondly, while it is unlikely that all 5 radars will fail simultaneously the chance of our telecommunications provider dropping the ball (who controls all the links from the radar heads to our centre) is a lot higher. If this happens right now between 35% and 40% of our traffic stays on radar, and even if we lose our FDP we still have a callsign as our system displays the callsign sent as part of the ADS-B message from the FMS of the aircraft.

Finally as some of our radars come up for life extending services, with a full and reliable ADS-B network, we can start decommissioning a few of them. The savings in doing this are massive as an ADS-B fibreglass stick costs practically nothing whereas a major life extending radar head service and calibration are big bikkies.

Dick, you need to see the writing on the wall, ADS-B gives so much, and saves so much cash all around, it is the future, and I wouldn't be buying shares in companies who manufacture and service radars.

:ok:

[Flying Binghi]

................................:zzz:

[Blockla]

In Europe effectively if you aren't RVSM approved you do not operate above FL280; what shouldn't Australia adapt the same process to aircraft without ADS-B.

ADS-B Introduction will solve two massive problems:-

1) ATC Staffing - Procedural sectors will be able to release many staff from rosters because of the reduced complexity (position reporting monitoring/establishing procedural standards (paperwork working out the times and distances for lateral/crossing/opposite direction standards). I'd guess ADS-B surveillance as well as equipment would release 20-50% of staff from procedural sectors. Workload would be greatly reduced.

2)Efficiency - Whether it be better introduction of preferred routes, or the likelihood of the availability of preferred levels etc. Let alone the ability to introduce 'race track' patterns in what now is a very regimented (for the main) two way route structure. Vectoring to get aircraft through each other, monitoring nose to nose climb throughs like we do on radar etc.

My only concerns are that the mandate will beat the equipment roll out and/or the ability to use radar like standards and that would be embarrassing; then there is the issue with establishing sector sizes with an ability to actually use the new standards; ie not making people sit on 500NM screens and trying to separate to 10NM or less... Of course that may destroy point one above...

There are huge complexity issues regarding a very small % allowed to operate without the gear; we tried it with RVSM, originally there was 70%+ able; there were huge issues because of that 30%; RVSM only applied in one spectrum and was relatively easy to deal with (it still is for the occasional non-RVSM that we see) but to apply the same to the lateral/longitudinal/opposite spectrums and you'll find it very difficult indeed especially with the equipment available to highlight the issues (or not highlight them)...

As for using GPS... We already do... Lateral track spacing WA routes recently introduced is all GPS based.

We get passing and longitudinal distance standards using GPS instead of RNAV, establishing Laterally clear using GPS distances, but the opposite direction and crossing tracks are still problems that are very real and will effectively will be solved by increased surveillance; the amount of time an aircraft is in lateral conflict by one minute and has to be moved is massive; under ADS-B very few will need to be moved vertically.

If I were a betting man ADS-B will be a huge financial benefit to industry, despite the individual costs involved in the initial outlays; one wonders if the money will actually flow back if there are any ATC cost reductions, but the track mile / better routes / better profiles will save huge $$$ annually.

The lack of 'funding' would be about who gets it ie would we provide it to non-nationals or only VH- aircraft? So we still need a mandate to cover non VH-? Hence we have a mandate?

[Spodman]

...they could fit another 9 aircraft between them...Oops, stand me down please. Should have been 5.

Hello ANSA, thanks for your news. I was just wondering what display you get from an uncoupled radar track also in ADS/B coverage? Do you get both tracks superimposed or are they combined somehow? Or does somebody just fire a missile at it, like Ferris said once :8

Sorry to hijack the thread, but Dick seems to have lost interest anyway.

[Dick Smith]

Blockla, thanks for the really good post. What you are saying is that there is a really good cost benefit reason for introducing an ADS-B mandate above FL290 in Australia seven years ahead of the USA.

If this is so – and I’m happy to accept that it is so – why hasn’t there been a cost benefit study done to show this? The regulatory impact statement that was used to go to the mandate above FL290 actually showed the cost savings of not replacing radar units. This is completely false as Airservices has made the decision to replace the radars as required.

You are saying that by going to ADS-B, we will save on ATC staffing, we will gain efficiency etc. Well, put it in a simple study. Show the cost (i.e. it is estimated between $20 million and $40 million to upgrade the fleet) and show the benefits.

Don’t you think it is strange that no one has done this simple study? It is almost the same as the reluctance to use the establishment and disestablishment formula for Class D towers. This was used to close Mt Isa tower and Wagga tower. It is no longer used because I understand it would clearly show that places like Ayers Rock, Avalon, Broome and Karratha require a Class D tower.

The longer the Office of Airspace Regulation continues to manipulate figures to the profit benefit of Airservices and the airlines, the greater the risk will be of an unnecessary accident.

[Dick Smith]

AirNoServicesAustralia, you have said:

Dick, you need to see the writing on the wall, ADS-B gives so much, and saves so much cash all around, it is the future …

If the mandate will save more money than it costs, it has my total support. All we have to do is a cost benefit study that shows this. Not a cost benefit study that shows the cost saving of removing the radars when we are not going to remove them.

Just as I simply don’t believe the $42 billion it is going to cost Australia to wind out a higher speed internet service will be cost effective, I have great difficulty in believing that rushing into an ADS-B mandate 7 years ahead of the USA will be cost effective.

However I’m willing to be convinced. I’ll become the greatest supporter of Australia leading the world if it could be shown that there is a one cent greater benefit than the cost.

I love technology. I have the latest technology in all of my aircraft and at the present time I am negotiating to get the CJ3 upgraded to ADS-B out. What a nightmare! Every time I talk to Collins they have a different figure and a different explanation.

The reason I’m updating to ADS-B early is not because I believe it will save me money, it is just that I like the latest instrumentation and I can afford safety benefits, even if they are not cost effective.

The rest of the industry may not be the same way. There are some companies that are right on the edge, and putting in an extra $100,000 of expense will normally encourage the owner of the aircraft to ship it over to the USA where there is another 7 years of life.

Show us a genuine cost benefit study. If it is positive, you have my support.

[Spodman]

Show us a genuine cost benefit study. If it is positive, you have my support.Support for what? Not my decision whether is implemented or not, and don't really mind if it is or isn't. I expect Blockla & ANSA feel the same. I too believe there would be genuine efficiencies to be had, but as an ATC that isn't my problem. I push the buttons on the console and talk to the aeroplanes, and apply the separations standards our masters make available to us. If they make it possible to make 'those' two aeroplanes 'there' pass 5 miles apart, but 'those' two over 'there' need 200 miles separation I'll do it, experiencing a small, cumulative sense of satisfaction for each situation I resolve efficiently as I can with the tools that are made available to me.

You are pissing on the wrong tree.

[Jabawocky]

The reason I’m updating to ADS-B early is not because I believe it will save me money, it is just that I like the latest instrumentation and I can afford safety benefits, even if they are not cost effective.

Yet it was not OK for ASA to save a heap on radar replacement and give those who could not afford it...like many RAA members a $7000 ADSB/ModeC box............FFS!!!!!

That would have improved safety not just for them but also fare paying pax at CTAF R's around the country!

J:ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

...and the 'beat up' continues..:hmm:

TCAS and transponders have been around for years. If some lighty pilots think there is a safety issue from not having ADS-B, then they should already have a TCAS, or similar, system in their aircraft - if they don't, then i would question their motives for wanting ADS-B...perhaps profiteering greed is a motive ?

...anyway, ADS-B needs GPS to work....sort of the remains of the day me-thinks...:hmm:

[Jabawocky]

TCAS and transponders have been around for years you ding dong....but if you are stupid enough to think there is 100% fitment you are an idiot.

Yes ADSB requires GPS....and if you are 100% correct that one day for a few minutes the GPS system falls over......dead as a dodo.....who cares???? If as has been said a hundred or more times now.... if they all got the ADSB/MODE C......let me spell it out for all the THICK AS A BRICK FOLK...... the MODE C part would still work.............and the TCAS would also work......you know at CTAF R etc, ....

How dumb are you folk :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

TCAS and transponders have been around for years you ding dong....but if you are stupid enough to think there is 100% fitment you are an idiot.

Yes ADSB requires GPS....and if you are 100% correct that one day for a few minutes the GPS system falls over......dead as a dodo.....who cares???? If as has been said a hundred or more times now.... if they all got the ADSB/MODE C......let me spell it out for all the THICK AS A BRICK FOLK...... the MODE C part would still work.............and the TCAS would also work......you know at CTAF R etc, ....

How dumb are you folk

Jaba, i can see my previous post lacks a little clarity so will edit it....tommorow..:)

[Jabawocky]

En-route radar could have been replaced at a cost saving and the safety benefits,

There is a ppruner called En-rooter .......he surely would know a thing or two about this topic.....or has he been replaced too! :eek:

[peuce]

Dick,

I bet someone could produce a cost benefit analysis that showed it was better to keep the RAAF Caribous ....

However, common sense dictates that technology moves on and one has to evolve with that technology ... or suffer the consequences.

[SzabaTheHut]

I dont Think Dick is arguing that the technology is a problem - far from it he thinks its a positive step forward. My understanding is that Dick is saying that the timing of the rollout being ahead of the US will push up costs and pushing up costs is rarely a good thing.....

I'd rather adopt a low cost proven technology than be an early adopter of a high cost early model technology. Dick is on the other end of that spectrum but is warning the industry about the cost and potential ramifications of costs of compliance.

I think Dick might be off the mark in the scale of the fallout from the cost differential and the subsequent employment issues, i think this is a crumbs issue compared to other operational costs but his basic premise that it will cost more to go earlier than the US is correct

[bushy]

ASA and the airlines do not spent a cent if they can possibly avoid it. This was a sugestion that never went any further, and the "dumb" people knew it would not.
The "dumb" people also did not believe the fairy stories that circulated about the magic things that ADSB was going to do for them at no cost, just because the benevolent airlines and ASA liked them.
And they were right. The proposed ADSB fit was in effect only another transponder that they would have to carry around and have serviced, probably at a coastal city 1000 miles away from base. And it would only work at one or two locations in their area.
It reminds me of the story of a counterfieter who printed a lot of 12 dollar bills and , realising his mistake decided to visit those "dumb" people in the outback to get them changed.
Yes they changed them alright. For three dollar bills..

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Perhaps we should all take a step back, and look at where the push for mandatory ADS-B actually originated.

All easily available to those who want to take the time --- are the records of the ATLAS program. Please allow me to simplify it, because I don't want to write pages that nobody wants to read.

ATLAS proposed a "brave new world" where there would be only two classes of airspace, "controlled" and "uncontrolled", or in its new guise (ASTRA last week) , "managed" and "unmanaged" --- although there was some confusion, would all airspace be "designated" (for want of a better word), and traffic be divided into "managed" and "unmanaged".

Regardless, a central concept is that all aircraft have to have a full time datalink with HAL, or whatever the giant airspace management computer might be called.

There is a not so uncommon story here, some Australia persons at ICAO succeed in having a relatively low level CNS/ATM committee (detailed in ATLAS records) come up with the grand two class airspace plan, then, low and behold, we are told ( all in ATLAS records and subsequently) that this is the way ICAO is going, so Australia has to fall in line.

The "need" for mandated (ie universal) ADS-B as a datalink sprang from the need to have a full time datalink, so that "all" aircraft became known/managed traffic ----- all absolutely nothing to do with any present or future "safety" problems ---- but to enable "freeflight".

To a large degree the "radar savings" were a red herring, the "bottom line" savings were minuscule to nothing, again all easily verifiable from published data ---- AA Annual report being the starting point ----- at best 3%.

This even before a "promoter bias" discount was applied to the "savings". Those of you familiar with assessment of public sector "cost/benefit" analysis, will be all too familiar with why a "promoter (or proponent bias) discount" should be applied to such project assessment of savings. See Australian Government guidelines (OBPR etc) for this adjustment.

How do you think the JCP fared when this was applied??

All the unquantified or (at times hilariously) mis-quantified benefits ( in the two CASA cost/benefit studies/JCP) were, in the opinion of many, post facto justifications to mask the proposal of mandatory ADS-B as a necessary enabler for what was, essentially, one class of airspace.

Why has nobody risen to Dick Smith's challenge to justify the asserted savings to airlines?? Maybe, just maybe, with the current AUSEP standards and RVSM, and current and projected traffic levels, a reduction to a 5 mile standard produces no en-route savings. Virgin top management seem to have come to that conclusion.

That is not an argument against the present FL290+ program, if the service provider and it's customers want it, that's their decision. There is no doubt ADS-B/C will make an increasing contribution to provision of CNS/ATM services.

The greatest single attribute of the present ICAO airspace classifications is that it is built around the premise that a minimum "separation assurance" standard should apply to all airspace ----- all classes are to be equally "safe".

By definition, once that separation assurance standard is achieved, provision of additional CNS/ATM services, and their associated cost, are "economic waste", because it is expenditure for which there is no possible return, and can be no return, because the separation assurance standard is so high, that no additional level of services will further reduce the residual collision risk.

Have a look at the Airservices risk analysis of providing C v. E services between 10,000 and FL200 ---- in both cases, the assessed collision risk was statistically zero ----- "vanishingly small", to use the proper expression. Therefor, C was not "safer" than E, because it could not be, given the traffic levels. If there was a vast increase in traffic, the answer might be different.

Sadly, this is all a complete perversion/inversion of the original "freeflight" concept, where there was a potential for considerable economic savings (by a reduction in ATM costs, not an increase) and collision risk reduction (removing traffic concentration) in areas of high traffic levels, but that is too big a topic for this thread.

Tootle pip!!

[ferris]

An interesting view of the world, Ledsled. Therefor, C was not "safer" than E, because it could not be, given the traffic levels. If there was a vast increase in traffic, the answer might be different. So, if there is no difference in the cost to provide the service in C or E, why would anyone be interested in changing C to E? Unless you A). had the idea that you wanted to introduce vast amounts of E, thinking that it is cheaper to service than C, and B). ignore the fact that traffic will increase in the future, and are prepared to design/introduce an airspace system that is aimed at current traffic levels and will require changes in the near future to cope with unspecified traffic increases.
Sadly, this is all a complete perversion/inversion of the original "freeflight" concept, where there was a potential for considerable economic savings (by a reduction in ATM costs, not an increase) I put it to you that the savings to be made in the freeflight concept were not to do with airnav charges. More to do with efficiencies in fuel and aircraft utilisation etc. Airnav charges are an indirect tax, which will occur regardless of the mode of service (or the cost of that service).

Speak to more people at the coal face as to whether they think E is as safe as C, and their reasons.

The US is moving to an "in or out" system (regardless of where ICAO goes). That fact is an inconvenient truth for certain 'activists'.

[Flying Binghi]

That fact is an inconvenient truth for certain 'activists'

Errr, are you suggesting the US is blindly following an 'unproven' and discredited model ????....:hmm:

[LeadSled]

Ferris,

I discussed separation assurance figures, derived by AA, for C versus E between 10,000 and FL200, that is all. I made no comment about the cost of providing the service.

If you understood all the ICAO rules for IFR operation in E versus C, you would understand some of the potential savings of operating cost (flight time) in E versus C, in like for like conditions, without consideration of any ATC charges. That is, even if the ATC charges are the same for each, there are still potential operational savings in E v. C, like for like.

---is aimed at current traffic levels and will require changes in the near future to cope with unspecified traffic increases.Go have a look at the AA projected traffic levels out to 2025, even if these rather optimistic traffic levels are achieved, they will still only be one fifth of the current US traffic levels, in roughly the same volume of airspace.

-----in the freeflight conceptYou are not talking about the original freeflight concept, which was a result of a study by (as I recall MIT) for United Airlines in the late 1960s-early1970s. This was a study of en-route collision risk in the US upper airspace system , versus random tracking.

And yes, they already had 100% radar coverage in that airspace. A most interesting study, the results validated by a comparison with collisions at sea, and before you jump in about cruise speeds and all the other differences, dig up a copy and read it, MIT are not a pack of fools ---- and there are about 6.5 million ships over 2500DWT, and by definition, they all cruise at the one level.

United's interest was reducing collision risk, other operational savings were secondary.

Has it ever occurred to you that high level separation services might not provide ANY additional risk reduction, compared to true random tracking, indeed possibly the reverse. Then have a look at the history of ATC error in Australia, and say: "Thank (insert deity of choice) for TCAS".

Remember Ansett and TAA both fitted TCAS, long before it became mandatory for "airlines" in Australia, because of just that problem. I must say TAAATS seems to have reduced the en-route error rate, but approach and departure areas are another animal.

What is currently tagged "freeflight" is a complete inversion of the original concept, US PATCO (before Regan fired them all) went ballistic at the original thought --- I will leave you to figure out why ---- suffice to say it would have produced all the saving you mentioned, and a few more. What is being promoted now should be called "nofreeflight", but that wouldn't sell, would it?

-----as to whether they think E is as safe as C, and their reasons.I am well familiar, this is a particularly "Australian thing", identified in the PCH report as "a perception of a problem", and remains entirely unvalidated, ie: it is (only in Australia) asserted by a particular group of (Australian) domestic pilots, without them being able to produce a shred of evidence to back up their claims.

If you care to get yourself a full set of (say) Jepp. world wide en-route charts, you will find really quite large areas of E airspace, in some cases right up to FL450, which is non-radar E. Indeed, you might find quite remarkably large areas, up to similar heights, as G airspace. Last time I noticed, there was not much F left, it used to be quite popular.

It has been said that E is now the most widely used controlled airspace, this is probably true, it is far more widespread than just in US. It is also quite possible that there is now more non-radar E, than radar E, but I am certainly not going to be the one to work it out. There is a swag of both.

I have spent a considerable part of my logged hours in Class E (and G) airspace, my colleagues and I have never had any qualms, and we were/are flying something a little bigger than Australian regional equipment ---- and for quite a while, into places where a "CTAF" would have been an upgrade.

Never mind, we understood the ICAO SARPS, it all worked fine, although those occasional pilots who were brought up in the "ATC clears" from cradle to grave used to take a little while to adapt, some never did, and bid back on to "shorthaul", which in this case meant European.

With the minuscule size aviation in Australia, outside a couple of coastal sectors, I never cease to be amazed at the self generated problems that just don't seem to happen in the rest of th world of aviation.

Finally, as confirmed in the Senate RRA&T hearings last week, the FAA have no intention to move from the current airspace classification between now and 2025 and beyond, despite the fond imaginings of a few ATC boffins. In the ICAO sphere, even less chance of a brave new world of "one airspace concept plan", in between concepts and realization, there are always changes when theory collides with real life, just like the JCP, really.

Tootle pip!!

[le Pingouin]

If you understood all the ICAO rules for IFR operation in E versus C, you would understand some of the potential savings of operating cost (flight time) in E versus C, in like for like conditions, without consideration of any ATC charges. That is, even if the ATC charges are the same for each, there are still potential operational savings in E v. C, like for like.


The cost savings can't be terribly significant - Rex & QLink don't seem interested. Why not ask them which they'd prefer?

[ferris]

With the minuscule size aviation in Australia, outside a couple of coastal sectors, I never cease to be amazed at the self generated problems that just don't seem to happen in the rest of th world of aviation. There it is, in a nutshell. Oz has a small amount of aviation in a geographically enormous playpen. The US, Europe etc have much denser activity. This is the great stumbling block to just 'transplanting' other systems. This is constantly ignored by the proponents of NAS, AND E. Class E requires far more intense monitoring in radar covered airspace. That level of monitoring comes naturally to the small sector sizes in the US and Europe. It is simply inefficient to have that level of servicing in oz. Our sector sizes and ratio of controllers/aircraft/airspace means that perhaps our system of ICAO F and C is the most efficient use of resources, until ADS-B or something else comes along to change those fundamentals.

Getting pretty sick of trying to get some quarters to understand this. Whilst you may sweep away some opposition as being 'cultural', this is a fundamental lack of appreciation of the task.

[Blockla]

To back up Ferris' point; I now work in Ireland and we divide our airspace which is smaller than the TAS sector at home into 10 different 'flexible sector' configurations and they are currently working on dividing it further up to 14 high level sectors.

When it's quiet we 'collapse' the sectors back onto 2 positions, ie late at night before the East bound rush (around 3.30am)... When working one of the two sectors achieving anywhere near the operational efficiency that we can when we un-collapse the airspace is next to impossible.

It's amazing how inefficient you are judging conflict points and distances when looking at a bigger range. You tend to use 10NM instead of 5 beacuse you are unable to monitor it all effectively.

That bigger "Irish" range is still smaller than most Australian sectors. It matters not what standards you can apply or what classification the airspace is, if you are looking at a 500NM range aircraft that are 5NM apart are touching... Ultimately the bigger the range the less efficient the system.

You might only have 2 aircraft to work, but working them efficiently and maintaining a watch on the rest of your airspace is next to impossible if you are on a large range.

[Dick Smith]

Ferris and others, the reason operating Class C is claimed to be no more expensive than operating Class E in Australia is because the Class C is not correctly manned.

For example, under the NAS, a Class D controller is responsible for a small amount of airspace – normally 4.3 miles in radius, up to 2,500 feet AGL. This is so the controller can concentrate on the airspace where the collision risk is greatest – i.e. close to the airport.

Let’s look at what happens in Australia. The single controller in the tower at a place like Albury not only has to be responsible for the Class D airspace to 4,500 feet, but also responsible for the Class C airspace to 8,500 feet. Obviously if there is circuit traffic including an airline aircraft, and suddenly someone calls up 40 miles away in the Class C airspace at 7,500 feet, the concentration of the controller must move elsewhere.

This is the whole secret to it. It is the reason the United States and other countries don’t turn their Class E above D into Class C. That is, the controllers would then be concentrating on a vast amount of airspace where the collision risk is small. They would also have greater responsibilities in that airspace – i.e. the separation of IFR and VFR procedurally.

Surely this is obvious, or are we going to wait for another incident like the one at Hamilton Island? Two airline aircraft were nearly put into each other there because (amongst other things) the controller was trying to hold other aircraft out of the zone – because it is so huge, and because we don’t use proper Class D procedures.

The ATSB at the time was so convinced that I was right that they refused to allow a release of the transcript of other aircraft talking on the frequency around the time the incident took place.

Some of the military people at the ATSB have their minds set in concrete, and basically they look backwards. They don’t even have the self-confidence to ask experts in other countries – say, the NTSB – on how we can actually do it better.

I will say it again. We will wait for the accident, killing 40 or so people in one of these Class D zones before we realise that to give one controller a huge amount of Class C airspace (as well as the Class D) is just going to increase the chance of an accident.

[le Pingouin]

Dick and others, how is mentioning D towers relevant to the vast majority of E airspace? I have to provide exactly the same separation in C as E for a pair of IFR. Same cost.

The D tower still needs to be manned - it takes the same number of staff whether the airspace is small as per your model or larger.

The controller can still be distracted by an aircraft calling at whatever point - 40 miles, 20 miles, 10 miles, 5 miles.

[ferris]

It is fascinating, Dick, how you can either
A) totally ignore the issue of sector size/range scale or
B) deceptively try and move the argument away from that issue because there is no way around it.

Ferris and others, the reason operating Class C is claimed to be no more expensive than operating Class E in Australia is because the Class C is not correctly manned. So, you believe that by shifting some workload away from a tower controller, that workload "goes away"? At present, under your scenario, there is one controller in the tower (not overworked or distracted by traffic further than 5 nm from his tower :rolleyes: ), and there is another controller in a centre that works the airspace overhead (on a range scale of 500nm, because that's an efficient use of that resource). Under Dickspace, what happens? You have one controller in the class D tower, with a tiny little zone, so he reads the paper for most of the day because his workload is now so low that he is bored stiff (but still has to be there). The controller that was working the airspace above single-handed, now has had to split the airspace into a high/low split. So now there are two controllers in the centre working that sector. Increase in manning of 50% overall, and no more traffic in total being worked. Yeah, right, Dick. The reason they do it the way they do in the States is because the overlying airspace has already been split into ten different sectors because of the larger amount of traffic. They already have 20 controllers working the volume of sky that 2 controllers are working in oz. Due to their higher volume of traffic. I know it might be really heart-breaking to figure out that maybe the oz system is the most efficient use of resources for the given traffic density/geography/radar coverage etc. etc., but suck it up.
Spurious arguments about class D towers and zone size cannot shift the fundamentals of sector sizes, and centre manning.

[peuce]

Out of interest ...

Has ASA, or anyone for that matter, done a study on radar sector sizes ... and specifically ... at what size/display scale does it become unmanageable/uncontrollable/unsafe ?

I guess, when you get to a certain scale, you can't "visually" determine if separation exists and would have to rely on alarms. Are a reliance on alarms a valid separation tool?

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, your mind appears to be totally set in concrete. I remember when the air traffic control manager of Juneau tower came on this site and explained how Class D works in the USA. Within 2 or 3 posts, controllers – no doubt similar in thinking to you – were saying that he wasn’t even a controller because the way he was explaining how Class D works was beyond the realms of possibility. In fact he was a controller with over 20 years experience. He’d even been to Australia and stayed with the President of Civil Air.

I’ll say it again. It is proudly stated by Airservices that the airspace between Melbourne and Sydney is equivalent to some of the busiest airspace in the world. Look at this link (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/downloads/World-Air-Traffic_0-24h.wmv)showing air traffic over a 24 hour period. Note how the airspace between Melbourne and Sydney has similar densities to busy airspace in other countries. If this is a fact, I ask why can’t we have airspace similar to that in highly trafficked areas in the USA? Or are you suggesting that we are not as wealthy and we don’t value human life as much?

It appears to me that your mind is totally closed and you are going to fundamentally stick with what you learnt - probably 20 to 30 years ago.

Believe it or not, there are better ways of doing things. Yes, in some cases it will require extra controllers. They will be paid for by the airlines, not by general aviation.

Keep you mind closed and resist any change until we put a big one in – and then you will obviously run for cover and say, “I wasn’t a decision maker so you can’t blame me.”

For the more laterally minded people reading this thread, if countries such as the USA can give a proper control service to IFR aircraft at low levels in similar traffic density to what we have between Melbourne and Sydney, there is no reason why we can’t. In some cases you will have to increase the manning slightly.

Look at what happened at Benalla. The aircraft was not only well off course, but descended below the lowest safe altitude by more than 1,000 feet – when in good radar coverage. The pilot wasn’t even told this by the controller because the alarm system is not enabled, and we don’t even have a procedure for the pilot to inform the controller that he is now visual.

This is because people like Ferris have resisted every change. Six people were killed at Benalla. When will you actually listen? When it is 50 people? 100? 120 people?

That enroute airspace below 8,500 feet was designed for radio operators – originally from the 1930s. We have never updated our procedures to use air traffic controllers and radar to give maximum safety.

Anyway, you show your resistance to change by calling the airspace “Dickspace.” The airspace classifications are actually set by ICAO, and work extremely well in some of the densest trafficked areas in the world.

I once again ask you to read this post (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Is_Class_E_safe.php) by Voices of Reason in relation to Class E.

Resist change as much as you want, but one day it will come in. Remember I’m not asking for Class E at Bourke – that would be a huge misallocation of resources. But between, say, Melbourne and Sydney, if we can’t afford Class E to lower levels, there is something drastically wrong with the practices at Airservices.

[Spodman]

... and the preceding page has WTF to do with airspace above FL290 or ADS/B???

[Blockla]

Resist change as much as you want, but one day it will come in. Remember I’m not asking for Class E at Bourke – that would be a huge misallocation of resources. But between, say, Melbourne and Sydney, if we can’t afford Class E to lower levels, there is something drastically wrong with the practices at Airservices.Ferris and many others that respond to you Dick work overseas (including me); we are not talking with an Australian only "fundamentalist" perspective.

The point you miss, over and over again, changing the classification of airspace and adding additional tasks to the existing sector structures (like removing the TWR C steps and turning them into E enroute steps isn't increasing safety (yes it might at the runway, where the collision risk is greater, but not between 10NM and 30NM and not everywhere else in the overlying sector due to workload issues), it's moving the workload, from one relatively quiet position and adding it to an already busy position. The service levels may be very similar (E vs C), but the efficiency provided will drop greatly and ultimately that will effect safety.

Australia stuffed up the implementation of Class E; because the industry were told cheaper and more efficient; which as a by product meant to ASA and project types that it means no extra ATC jobs, sectors, frequencies, radar heads, consoles, displays etc. This is where it was fundamentally butchered; added tasks to ones who were at capacity or close to it at times and removing tasks from those more able to cope, D TWRs with an ability when busy to say hold position to aircraft on the ground...

If you wanted to increase safety greatly you could have a class E (pseudo approach role) done with radar (or ADS-B) from each TWR location and have an ADC 'only' type role within those locations (staffing goes up, safety goes up). Put radar type displays into each class D TWR like most class D's have in the USA etc.

But this is useless supposition cause where are you getting the ATCs from?

[ferris]

It is proudly stated by Airservices that the airspace between Melbourne and Sydney is equivalent to some of the busiest airspace in the world. It depends on how you define "busy". Mel-Sy as a city pair is busy, but the airspace between those points in nothing like a busy piece of US airspace. It's ridiculous to suggest that it is. You may want it to appear that way to help your cause, but it simply is not. There is not a comparable amount of GA underneath that city pair. If you take Washington as a comparison, that centre has about 60 sectors, covering a geographical area similar to Mel-Sy. Melb centre has about 60 sectors, and covers half of Australia and a big chunk of ocean. Or are you suggesting that we are not as wealthy and we don’t value human life as much? I am suggesting we are not as wealthy. Australia simply does not have the amount of aviation, so the US CAN afford more services- just purely based on size of their industry. We will never have the amount of money at our disposal, and have to allocate our resources accordingly. ADS-B would be an ideal, cost effective tool for oz. I'll ignore the puerile/straw-man human life comment.
Yes, in some cases it will require extra controllers. They will be paid for by the airlines, not by general aviation. That's an interesting assumption. You believe that changing the service delivery, to assist private pilots, in a way which will add cost, should be paid for by the airlines? What about all those pilot jobs? The ones that are lost when any slight cost increase occurs? Do I need to remind you of your thread title? It appears to me that your mind is totally closed and you are going to fundamentally stick with what you learnt - probably 20 to 30 years ago.I learn all the time, Dick. I am currently at my third international location. I've seen things done different ways. I work with guys from all over the world (incl the US). I realise it's your normal style to attack the man when you can't argue the facts, so I wont take it personally. When will you actually listen? Right back at ya, baby. Many would consider me an 'expert'. What was all that about "listening to experts" you claim you do? That enroute airspace below 8,500 feet was designed for radio operators – originally from the 1930s. We have never updated our procedures to use air traffic controllers and radar to give maximum safety.Yet, today, oz still has about 99% of airspace below 8500' covered by what? The answer, Dick, is not radar, it's......radio. However, were something better than radar to come along, something like, umm, say, ADS-B, well there's a whole new world of possibilities. You'd be onboard with promoting such a forward move as soon as possible, wouldn't you, Dick? Or would your mind be stuck in concrete, resisting the inevitable change, trying to stick to the old-technology radar that you learned about 20 or 30 years ago? But between, say, Melbourne and Sydney, if we can’t afford Class E to lower levels, there is something drastically wrong with the practices at Airservices. Lots of us have been saying there are things wrong with AsA for a long time. However, since you are loathe to do anything regarding the charging regime I refer you to your thread title, once again, and ask you if the benefit you seek fits under affordable safety. And whether you are pushing the right barrow at all. If you were screaming to get ADS-B fitment so that a lot of your hopes could become reality, people might have more respect for your position. But what is your position on ADS-B again? Oh that's right; it's too expensive.

[peuce]

Dick,

Strangely, I think most punters on this thread, including you, are in violent agreement.

Both sides are basically saying that the increased use of current (and future) surveillance would be a great thing.

Both sides are now admitting that there is most probably a pricing/staffing cost connected to such an expansion.

The only difference now is that you are saying ... well, go ahead and do it... the other side is saying ... well, we don't control the purse strings and resources, so perhaps you should be trying to convince someone else.

[LeadSled]

Owen Stanley

The technology is out there and at very reasonable cost, Australian technology to boot. Product that fits into the cost range of the ill fated proposed subsidy.

Could you please provide details, including price, and where I can look up the TSO details. It seems Microair are still struggling to get their basic Mode S transponder TSO'd and into the market, let alone an ADS-B enabled version.

This subsidy proposal was destroyed by a couple of pompous, self serving, 'gentlemen' with 'power, influence and money' why they did this no one will ever know.

How often does it need to be repeated:

The "subsidy" proposal never even got as far as a firm proposal to the Airservices Board, let alone to top management of Qantas or Virgin for their agreement, because those two airlines would be contributing the bulk of funds ---- remember it was always called a "cross-industry" subsidy. Asking Geoff Dixon to stump up $100M+ for GA, you have to be kidding!! With the current financial state of Qantas, what do you think Alan Joyce's reaction would be. ASTRA records already show that the Virgin workerbees could not justify the cost of ADS-B to top management in terms of any operational savings ---- it's all public information.

There were and are two chances of the Government of the day reducing their dividend demands of AA, none and Buckley's.

The subsidy issue was only part of the reason the low level ADS-B program was dropped, and not even a very important reason.

If safety problems demanded low level ADS-B as the solution, it would be imposed, and we would have to wear it.

There was and is no air safety problem or pressing airspace capacity issue to which mandatory (low level) ADS-B was or is the answer in the foreseeable future.

Watch for the flow of exemptions come 2013.

-----subsidy for the fitment of the airborne equipment and ground equipment cost could come in under the cost of replacing the radar heads.

izzatso? I recommend you go back and look at the various figures, CASA, Access Economic, and the JCP, even without allowing for the fact that the actual cost of replacing the SSR radar heads will be a lot less than shown, in fact about the same cost per item as has been achieved by our neighbors across the Tasman.

Even allowing the AA figures in the JCP, and before applying any "proponent bias" discounting of the claimed savings, the "SSR radar" savings were about 3% or less on the AA bottom line, it's all public information.

Quite simply, from a high level policy perspective (Treasury, Finance and PM&C), the low level ADS-B program didn't make sense, regardless of what its band of fervent supporters thought and obviously still think.

It wasn't and isn't about technology ---- it was about best use of (national) resources. Being technologically the first'st with the most'st doesn't cut any ice around the Treasury or the Dept. of Finance, much less PM&C. There are some seriously hard nosed individuals in the upper echelons of that lot, as any Canberra based public servant well knows ---- and that was all before the GFC.

Dick Smith didn't kill it, it died a natural death.

OK, so it might not benefit you every day, if it benefits the majority in high density areas we should scuttle it for you?

Do you actually understand which SSR's were to be withdrawn?

You do know about the program for the new primary radars, I trust, with some major improvements in capability, certainly not new for old.

All the high density routes will be covered, and a lot more beside, and down to a quite low level in important areas. Does "90%+" of the population (as in people) will be covered" ring any bells ----- clue ---- the US has a major primary radar upgrade program in progress --- for the same reasons.

Tootle pip!!

[le Pingouin]

Resist change as much as you want, but one day it will come in. Remember I’m not asking for Class E at Bourke – that would be a huge misallocation of resources. But between, say, Melbourne and Sydney, if we can’t afford Class E to lower levels, there is something drastically wrong with the practices at Airservices.Dick, why are you blaming the workers (controllers) for the deficiencies in the schemes of their bosses (Greg Russell, et al)? We aren't the ones who have tried to introduce assorted systems without adequate resourcing, planning or comprehension. We are however the bunnies who get to use it. Do you wonder why we aren't appreciative of it?

Or do you seriously believe ATCs have the power to do as we want?

If you want to change things stop bleating on in here & start bashing the appropriate ears. Hmmm, or maybe you have & they've been pointing at us as the problem...... That sounds strangely familiar.

[Dick Smith]

I am not blaming the controllers. I find there are many controllers – especially the younger ones – who want to embrace the idea of giving a better service in radar covered airspace where we have airline traffic.

I can see why the bosses are happy to exploit controllers. You may remember with NAS 2b, the airspace above Class D was Class E. It was a number of controllers who vocally led the movement to have this reversed and made Class C – without any extra manning or without even an approach radar facility.

Can you imagine this? There was no hope of any more pay for the extra responsibility, but these controllers were saying to their bosses, “Give us the extra responsibility compared to controllers in other countries. We don’t want radar, we don’t want extra staffing and we know we will be paid no more as there is no more income, but we will do it anyway.”

Once the bosses see that controllers are happy to take extra responsibility when there is no potential for any more income – and therefore no potential for any higher pay – the bosses will exploit.

I spoke to a US controller and union member, and asked if the FAA insisted on changing the Class E above their Class D to Class C, without any extra staffing or radar, would they accept it? He said, “There’s no way we would take on that responsibility as we would not know where all the VFR traffic is, as about 50% of our towers with Class D airspace have no radar coverage to the Class E above. In the USA we will only operate Class C airspace with an approach radar facility and adequate Class C manning.”

There you have it. Australian controllers insisting that they have this extra responsibility, and even reversing NAS 2b, whilst US controllers are simply saying they would never take that extra responsibility unless it was properly manned and with proper radar.

[Kangaroo Court]

Having spent many years flying in and through the US airspace, I can state with complete honesty that Dick Smith is actually right on the money with this one!

There is nowhere in the US that doesn't have Class C without radar-PERIOD!!

No controller would ever agree Stateside to operating Class C without radar...in fact most Class D towers now have radar too!

[Dick Smith]

Of course the radar in the US class D towers is used as a situational awareness tool as US class D controllers are not radar rated- just as in Australia.

About 50% of the 350 US class D towers have no radar coverage to the E airspace that adjoins the D.

In the USA the class D changes to E when the tower is not manned- not to class G as in Australia.

A very much safer system. Bring on NAS!

[peuce]

So ... you're saying that there's "no way" that the yanks would have Class C without radar ... as they "wouldn't know where the VFRs are"

Yet ... yet ... they would have Class E without radar, because the VFRs would be invisible and, presumably, ... "out of sight, out of mind" ...

I suppose there's some whacky logic there :confused:

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, the VFRs may be “invisible” to someone 20 miles away in a control tower without radar, however they are certainly not invisible to the airline aircraft. All VFR aircraft flying in Class E in Australia need to have a transponder, and airline aircraft normally have TCAS.

You seem to have forgotten that at the present time we have Class G airspace in places like Proserpine – with no transponder requirement at all, so it is certainly “out of sight, out of mind” for the ATCs, even though there is good radar coverage in the area.

At least with Class E we not only bring in a mandatory transponder requirement, but we actually separate IFR from IFR. It is a good step up from the Class G we have now, which most pilots want to remain because that is the way we have done it for decades.

[Howabout]

So, Dick, and in regard to your first point, if it's so foolproof, how come a DJ 737 nearly cleaned up a lighty in the vicinity of YMLT when we had E over D?

[le Pingouin]

I am not blaming the controllers. I find there are many controllers – especially the younger ones – who want to embrace the idea of giving a better service in radar covered airspace where we have airline traffic.

Yes you are. You're confusing opposition to the half @rsed way it's been done without adequate resources, planning or comprehension with opposition to the ideal.

I can see why the bosses are happy to exploit controllers. You may remember with NAS 2b, the airspace above Class D was Class E. It was a number of controllers who vocally led the movement to have this reversed and made Class C – without any extra manning or without even an approach radar facility.Airprox near LT anyone? Yet again you seem to think ATCs can demand as many staff as we want.

Can you imagine this? There was no hope of any more pay for the extra responsibility, but these controllers were saying to their bosses, “Give us the extra responsibility compared to controllers in other countries. We don’t want radar, we don’t want extra staffing and we know we will be paid no more as there is no more income, but we will do it anyway.”What extra responsibility? It was the way we'd been doing it previously with the same number of controllers.

Once the bosses see that controllers are happy to take extra responsibility when there is no potential for any more income – and therefore no potential for any higher pay – the bosses will exploit.And what possible recourse did we have? Go on strike? CASA is just a lapdog.

I spoke to a US controller and union member, and asked if the FAA insisted on changing the Class E above their Class D to Class C, without any extra staffing or radar, would they accept it? He said, “There’s no way we would take on that responsibility as we would not know where all the VFR traffic is, as about 50% of our towers with Class D airspace have no radar coverage to the Class E above. In the USA we will only operate Class C airspace with an approach radar facility and adequate Class C manning.”It's called requiring a clearance in C. So how do they know where all the VFR are off radar now? They don't & are perfectly happy to launch their high capacity IFR jet straight through it all. Airprox near LT anyone?

There you have it. Australian controllers insisting that they have this extra responsibility, and even reversing NAS 2b, whilst US controllers are simply saying they would never take that extra responsibility unless it was properly manned and with proper radar.There you have it. Australian controllers objecting to a half @rsed implementation of a system.

Again I ask why are you still bleating on in here & not bashing the ears of those doing a well less than half @rsed job of introducing a system. They are the problem.

[Jabawocky]

To solve the class G issue then............

You seem to have forgotten that at the present time we have Class G airspace in places like Proserpine – with no transponder requirement at all, so it is certainly “out of sight, out of mind” for the ATCs, even though there is good radar coverage in the area.

Make all CTAF R's a mandatory radio AND Transponder. Which it should be anyway! :rolleyes:

[Frank Arouet]

Make all CTAF R's a mandatory radio

I thought it was already.

[Jabawocky]

You idiot :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Joker 10]

Frank you are right AIP ENR 1.4 6 4.2.2. Aerodromes where carriage and use of radio is required will be designated CTAF <frequency > (R) and will be depicted on charts and in ERSA

[Dick Smith]

Le Pingouin, in relation to controllers having the responsibility for all of Class D, and the Class C above, you state:

And what possible recourse did we have? Go on strike?

No, there was no need to do that. There is a current directive to Airservices Australia, that wherever they have Class C over Class D, they must provide an approach radar facility. All you had to do – as a controller – is to publicly support the directive which came from the Minister.

The directive is still current, and I feel sure that if Civil Air or some individual controllers mentioned that giving one single controller in the tower a responsibility for a vast amount of Class C airspace without radar is simply not on – especially when the Government policy, and a Ministerial directive, states that an approach radar facility should be provided.

For some reason I haven’t heard one controller publicly state that the Government policy should be adhered to. Very strange.

[Jabawocky]

Geez Joker......... did you have to look up AIP for that...... another idiot in our midst.

When you two stop misquoting out of context the rest of the world will start taking you seriously.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

Please educate me Jabawocky. I am only a dumb idiot aparantly.

I was under the impression that CTAF (R) replaced the MBZ.

What now does the "R" stand for in CTAF (R) and Why is there no (R) in other CTAF's? (Monto for example in QLD).

Or did you and your wealthy Capitalist mates who suffer vertigo when you look out the window get this changed so we all need a microchip, digital clock, multiple GPS, and radio to fly there?

Also note I used your correct username as you requested earlier. But just how seriously should the rest of the world treat you when you resort to petty vilification.:( You obviously hang around with people who are a bad influence on you.

You are getting very close to being removed from my Christmas card list.

[Joker 10]

Definitely looked up the AIP make sure the quote was right

[Kangaroo Court]

"Howabout", people start looking out the window...we might even start avoiding the geese as well, they're not transponder equipped either.:D

[Tankengine]

Frank, I presume Jaba is referring to "AND Transponder"!!:E

[Frank Arouet]

Oh, I get it now. Poor comprehension on my part and an "opinion" about having "mandatory" transponders for anyone who wants to operate in a CTAF (R).

So it is already "mandated" that a radio be used in CTAF (R) and one suspects it is also "mandated" that one uses it as "prescribed". Now some expert private VFR pilot/ soon to be, owner bulider, reckons that we should prescribe to the "double condom" theory and be twice as safe. (To be sure to be sure in Ireland). This assumes of course that everyone flying in and out is blind or can't look out the window.

Jabawocky; can you post another photo of your new toy showing us all the TCAS.

[2b2]

groundhog day ....:ugh:

[Quokka]

...especially when the Government policy, and a Ministerial directive, states that an approach radar facility should be provided.

For some reason I haven’t heard one controller publicly state that the Government policy should be adhered to. Very strange.

So, Mr Smith, no controllers are calling for an increase in RADAR coverage... and every controller on here is calling for an increase in ADS-B coverage and participation by General Aviation in ADS-B (with no individual profit incentive for doing so)... and you still don't understand why?

[le Pingouin]

There is a current directive to Airservices Australia, that wherever they have Class C over Class D, they must provide an approach radar facility. All you had to do – as a controller – is to publicly support the directive which came from the Minister.As if that's going to happen any time soon. I wonder how many hundred million it would run to?

Maybe we're a little more concerned about things like providing enough controllers to meet our existing requirements.

[Jabawocky]

Here we go again......:rolleyes:

Oh, I get it now. Poor comprehension on my part and an "opinion" about having "mandatory" transponders for anyone who wants to operate in a CTAF (R).

So it is already "mandated" that a radio be used in CTAF (R) and one suspects it is also "mandated" that one uses it as "prescribed". Now some expert private VFR pilot/ soon to be, owner bulider, reckons that we should prescribe to the "double condom" theory and be twice as safe. (To be sure to be sure in Ireland). This assumes of course that everyone flying in and out is blind or can't look out the window.

Jabawocky; can you post another photo of your new toy showing us all the TCAS.Gee thats a big call from someone who seems to know very little about me....and whose yearly average flying experience is about my monthly average. := So lets play the ball shall we just this once!

TCAS hey...... well Binghi has it does he not? Ask him?

Just might be that my opinion is formed not on my needs for private flying but all my RPT driving mates who do actually fly into these places telling me what they see and don't or can not see.

Ohh and operating IFR out of Brisbane on Friday in class G, it was very nice of the Radar chap to alert us of a TRANSPONDER fitted a/c that was too damned close for comfort :eek:. So maybe you are right, TCAS should go in! Of course a nice ADSB Out/In system would integrate nicely with the GNS530W;).

Anyway, I suggest you ignore my posts, just listen to the PROFESSIONAL (as in occupation not conduct) pilots and ATC's on here instead.

And now that you finally get something, go back to Dick's post here http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/373872-casa-premature-ads-b-mandate-will-result-even-more-pilots-losing-jobs-6.html#post4973153 and then follow the thread a few more posts. I think you will find my post in response to solving the RPT in Class G like Proserpine etc issue.

[Frank Arouet]

So lets play the ball shall we just this once!

I'll rephrase that last of mine. It was your expression, not my comprehension that was at fault.

was very nice of the Radar chap to alert us

Is that the "Royal" us or you with a mate with an instrument rating?

all my RPT driving mates

So join AFAP, not AOPA.

telling me what they see and don't

Anectdotal ramblings from a few blind people who want "sterile airspace" wherever they fly. See suggestion re AFAP.

I think you will find my post in response to solving the RPT in Class G

I believe Dick was talking about premature introduction of ADSB above FL290, not premature ejactulating about class G airspace around Proserpine.

Of course a nice ADSB Out/In system would integrate nicely with the GNS530W

Which would work just fine as long as everyone else had one which probably needs a mandate below FL290.

Now we know what your agenda is, explain that to all those who just want to fly respoinsibly without unnecessary restrictions and costs.

Oh! and don't come back with that old line about "if you can't afford it get out of GA". We aren't all rich pissants like you, and I'm fkuced if I'm going to spend a wad of cash to make your wet dreams come true.

Opinions are like arseholes and suckholes, depends who you listen to that averts an embarrasing moment. Oh! and most everyone has one or the other telling him something.

[Jabawocky]

Now we are seeing your true colours!

I believe Dick was talking about premature introduction of ADSB above FL290, not premature ejactulating about class G airspace around Proserpine.

No I do believe I gave you the link to Dicks post directly. You really are just a troll and I am afraid I have not the interest nor passion for feeding a troll like you any longer. Go and troll another website would you and stop ruining this one!

And I am not the rich kid like your mates who can afford way more equipment than I can carry...... but I am not too much of a tight ar$e to install a simple transponder and encoder.

[Frank Arouet]

OK, this thread is getting off track anyway. But before anyone takes the high moral ground here and starts calling others trolls, it's you who post on multiple websites not me. I gave up supplying oxygen to trolls a long ago.

Dick has identified what he believes is a premature introduction of ADSB in the thread title.

The only mandate for ADSB at this point in time is for flight above FL290.

I can understand ATCO's input into this subject as can I understand those owners or operators and pilots who regularly fly at those levels.

I can't understand how this effects you or I.

I have said previously that I, and most people I talk to, support ADSB as an evolutionary change for the better where we need radar now. Everyone recognises it as an Air traffic control tool. Few see benefits for it to be mandated this early in the game in the vast areas of class G airspace. Statistics simply don't support it as an anti collision tool in the GAFA. (yes, yes, I know a collision is possible, but I keep asking what is the probability and nobody can supply the answer to justify it).

The arguement about money saved from radar head replacement is bewildering when one reads Flight Safety Australaia May-June 2009 Issue 68, page 41 in part.

"Nothing lasts forever- The Australian mode S terminal radar (AMSTAR) project is replacing ageing terminal radars with solid state primary surveillance radar and mode A/C and S capable secondary surveillance radar (SSR) at eight locations: Coolangatta, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Sydney, Cairns, Canberra and Brisbane. (the J curve?), The new radars can provide substantial system safety improvements operating with both traditional mode A/C only transponders, as well as with newer mode S transponders. These benefits do not rely on introducing any new standards for transponders".

I also understand vast sums of money are allocated for further primary radar for defence purposes. Someone has obviously seen that hostile air threats possibly won't have an operating transponder.

So it would seem that existing radar is being renewed and upgraded. Not removed and replaced with ADSB as an evolutionary thing. Well this is at May- June 2009 anyway.

With due respect, Jabawocky, your opinions about mandating transponders in CTAF (R) seems purely to benefit RPT or aircraft with TCAS. Neither of which would (I am guessing) pertain to you or I.

but I am not too much of a tight ar$e to install a simple transponder and encoder.

All my aircraft had transponders except for current rebuilds and I agree it is a sensible addition to the avionics suite. For some however it is not feasible because of lack of electrics, or weight and space considerations.

So lets agree to disagree without the unpleasant personal attacks. You may get a surprise about my actual character if you spent time to research my side of any story instead of listening to stuff you appear to be fed.

PM me if you care to.:(

[Spodman]

The arguement about money saved from radar head replacement is bewildering when one reads Flight Safety Australaia May-June 2009 Issue 68, page 41 in part.

"Nothing lasts forever- The Australian mode S terminal radar (AMSTAR) project is replacing ageing terminal radars with solid state primary surveillance radar and mode A/C and S capable secondary surveillance radar (SSR) at eight locations: Coolangatta, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Sydney, Cairns, Canberra and Brisbane. We have 21 radar sites. The listed 8 are Terminal Area Radar heads, incorporating primary and secondary (transponder based) radar, and were already scheduled for replacement when the debate you are hinting at commenced. The remaining 13 sites are secondary radar for En-route surveillance and will be due for replacement in a couple of years. They could have been replaced with ADS/B sites with a huge reduction of installation costs, and an order of magnitude less cost in maintenance, but requiring ADS/B out to be fitted as universally as SSR transponders are now throughout the coverage area to achieve the same surveillance protection for the users of the system. The debate was had, everybody had their say, the radars will be replaced with radars.
I also understand vast sums of money are allocated for further primary radar for defence purposes. First I've heard. Your source? Hope it is integrated into the TAAARTS system better than it was in Brazil...With due respect, Jabawocky, your opinions about mandating transponders in CTAF (R) seems purely to benefit RPT or aircraft with TCAS. blah blah wank blah...Try and concentrate the gland you call a brain on this. If your aim is to protect yourself from being rogered by a high performance aircraft, one way is to have a transponder. That way, if see-and-avoid does not protect you, the TCAS advisory the other aircraft will get will. It will be of cold comfort to you, when skewered on the pitot tube of an overtaking Lear Jet, that the other guy SHOULD have seen you!

As dick has whimpered once or twice, I cannot understand why the carriage of transponders & TCAS cannot be considered a mitigator for an arrangement of airspace.

[ferris]

Sometimes, Frank, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[Jabawocky]

With due respect, Jabawocky, your opinions about mandating transponders in CTAF (R) seems purely to benefit RPT or aircraft with TCAS. Neither of which would (I am guessing) pertain to you or I.Well unless its your family on a Jet that whacks a bugsmasher at a CTAF R one day..... then you will change your opinion I bet!

I am quite glad you are wise and generous enough to the rest of society to always fit Transponders. I am pleased to hear that. As for those a/c who can not power them, they probably can not power a radio either, unless a handheld, and the chances of them being in a CTAF R are pretty remote, and if they were a battery can be installed.

Just to finish off this banter now you are over the attacking, and my defence of attacks, it was Dick Smith who brought up the issue of RPT in Class G at places like Proserpine, but I see you have again neglected to acknowlege that. So in response to his concern, combined with his and your desire to kill off low level ADSB and the whole JCP offer, the only feasible solution to the threats in Class G to RPT would be to make transponders a requiremnt for CTAF R just like radios are.

Now given you are happy to fit them and see their benefit, and Dick wants (as we all do) more protection for fare paying RPT passengers in CTAF R's would it not be a good idea to just extend the radio requirement to include another radio. they use bugger all current. From memory my ELA shows 1.1amps and most likely uses less!

And It really annoys me when you scoff at anecdotal claims from RPT drining Captains who have flown in excess of 20,000 - 30,000 hours that tell me that their concerns are real. You know some of these folk are RAA members too, and are not anti the grass roots end of aviation, but they do express concerns about the perfectly legal and legitimate flying activity of flying in a CTAF R when a Jet breaks visual with one of the smaller folk dragging their tail in cloud. No see and bee seen is going to work there. and the chance is the jet will survive the hit, the bug smasher will not! You have read plenty of RPT folk here say the same thing. So call it anecdotal if you wish, but understand it is a REAL CONCERN.

Cheers! :ok:

PS:And if you don't want me to fire rockets back at you, don't post personal mistruths about me. Then we can just debate topics and agree to diagree with a level of civil behaviour. I really do not want to be tangled in your anti A##A style of mud slinging.

[werbil]

If a DH-82 without an electrical system can have a radio, transponder and a battery fitted to drive them, what technical reason precludes fitting one to any other aircraft? OK the battery has to be recharged regularly - but there is more than one way to acheive that.

[LeadSled]

The remaining 13 sites are secondary radar for En-route surveillance and will be due for replacement in a couple of years. ,


Spodman,
If you do your homework, I believe you will find it is some or all of the "remote" SSR heads replacement, that were the subject of the much disputed (in terms of claimed savings) trade-off for "mandating" ADS-B OUT. Also the little matter of indirectly mandating C145/146 transponders, thereby hoping to pull out most of the ground navaids.

All nothing to do with modernization of the terminal area primary radars and some more or less co-located SSR, which is a different program altogether.

It is fact (because they have already/are in the process of completing) those the same replacements to identical SSR equipment in NZ, NZ cost being a fraction of the claimed Australian capital cost of replacement of virtually identical equipment in NZ. The claimed capital cost savings in the CASA CBA/JCP, pro rata, are about ten times the cost in NZ, per radar head.

How come, per SSR radar head, in Australia, the same equipment from the same manufacturer was going to be something like ten (10) times, compared to the (known) cost in NZ.

Just to remind everybody, once again, the original CASA cost/benefit analysis found a big saving for airlines, therefor GA was going to have to lump it. When the errors were pointed out (the Mysterious Case of the Floating Decimal) and the airline savings evaporated, the second CASA cost/benefit suddenly discovered "benefits" for GA, in the absence of any benefits to airlines.

So, in the absence of any documented and costed savings to airlines, (just a whole bunch of assertions from enthusiastic proponents and their desciples) and given that the alleged benefits to GA were "indirect" (no savings or other measurable benefits accrued to those who were going to have to fit and maintain ADS-B OUT) and thus the recognition that GA would not fit equipment for which there was no benefit (it's all in the ASTRA papers and JCP)---- came the idea/policy/necessity of a "mandate" made palatable by the "promise" of a subsidy.

"SAFETY", with ADS-B as the answer, was never a significant issue the whole way through.

Folks, this is all documented, most of it is on the CASA web site, or the ASTRA web site.

There are remarkable parallels with the global warming debate, with the "true believers", and the climate change skeptics --- skeptics not that we are in a global warming cycle, but that CO2 is the culprit ----.

Or when we once all "knew" the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe, and anybody who disagreed was likely to get lopped or burned at the stake, being vilified on a web site not yet being an option.

All say after me:

Our Father, who art in Constitution Avenue Canberra or Furzer St. Woden,
haunted by thy name.
Thy clients come,
thy clients will be done,
on earth as hardly like anywhere else, really,
Give us this day our ADS-B
And give us our transponders,
as we forgive those who transpond not against us.
And lead us not into cost savings, the root of all evil
but deliver us from Dick Smith
For thine is the kinghit,
the power without glory,
taking for ever and ever, and ever
or until the next cockup.
Amen

With apologies to King James in about 1611.

Tootle pip

[ferris]

Gees, Leadsled, Spodman's post WAS POINTING OUT TO FRANK exactly what you are saying- that the replacement of en-route radar headswas where costs saving were going to be made. Read the sentence in spod's post immediately after your quote. So I don't think he needs any homework in that regard. Direct that part of your post to Frank, if you really feel the need to re-state what spod said.

Far out, you guys do your arguments no favours when you come across as so thick.

As to cost savings or otherwise- all academic now, really, isn't it? The government WERE GOING TO PAY, regardless if they got their numbers wrong (or deliberately did so in some big conspiracy to 'trick' people into going ahead with the fitout :rolleyes: ). The doubters and naysayers focused their efforts on derailing the whole thing, rather than ensuring certainty of receiving the dough for fitout.

[LeadSled]

Ferris,

Maybe I didn't express it as clearly as I should have, but the claimed savings in capital expenditure, for not replacing (some of) the remote radar heads was based on a cost of about 10 times the NZ cost per head, don't you think that might just possibly make the quantum of claimed savings just a little suss.

As Dick Smith has also pointed out, the ADS-B RIS is now a complete and utter nonsense -- see a few pages back.

As I recall, the old SSR heads, here and NZ, were Cossor (Thomson) but somebody will correct me if otherwise, the point is that NZ have had the same replacement, because AU and NZ had the same gear.

"--- the Government was going to pay"?? ??? Mmmaaate!!, where have you been since about 1984?? Remember Hawke's mate Henry Bosch --- of user pays fame.

The ASTRA/JCP magic mantra was: "cross industry subsidy" ----- the airlines, in reality, Qantas and Virgin, were supposedly going to part with somewhere between $100-200M ---- and pigs might fly.

I have actually heard the former QF Director of Finance on the subject, at an informal meeting of AIPA members at a well known Macquarie St watering hole, I can assure you that his view was exactly the same as Dickson, but perhaps expressed in somewhat less colourful terms ---- and this was when the airlines were booming.

Folks, nobody killed any subsidy, it died of natural causes, a spontaneous abortion. The subsidy is, and was always a dead parrot, not just resting.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Still no information on the wonderful Australian ADS-B gear that is available, so we are told, and all within the mythical subsidy levels. Funny thing, that, such wonderful claims, but so little documented fact. The story of the JCP, really.

[peuce]

Just supposing all these conspiracy theories are correct ... what was the real motive for CASA/ASA pushing for low level ADS-B? What was in it for them? There has to be a motive in any action.

I can't see any money motive ... they weren't going to receive any big cash windfall.

So, why did they want to "pull the wool over the Industry's eyes"?

Unless anyone can provide a different answer, I can only assume they believed that it would truly be a "safer" system. If so, then how did they get it so wrong?

[Joker 10]

CASA were blinded by Advancing Technology following the successful introduction of GPS over the past 20 years any complementary technology looked GOOD and was thus supportable, the Improved data capability of Mode S transponders coupled with GPS positioning was a "COMPELLING" argument to pursue.

That is until the cost of wide scale implementation entered the picture, oops.

As for the so called subsidy, it was a dream, as with the way our indigenous people preserve history in the "Dreaming" so goes low level ADSB in today's investment environment.

Will some form of low level Satellite based reporting system ever come to pass, the ultimate answer must be yes ! as an evolutionery change just as EFIS has come down into smaller aircraft, but that cycle of expenidute is yet to start and it will be a decade or more in the evolution.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

LeadSled

Opinion on the subject of ADS-B funding was along the line of airlines forgoing SAVINGS over radar replacment costs. The government's bit was forgoing collecting the DIVIDEND of those savings if the airlines didn't take them.

AFAIK thats how the wheels on this bus went round. No money was going to be injected by any airline or government. The funding of the rollout was by the savings on fitment and maintenance of the radar heads.

GOD wanted the money from the savings as did the new government. So much procastination made AirServices sign a maintenance contract to keep the issue alive. The ADS-B issue that is.

There was never any subsidy!

EDIT- looks like re-iterating Spod and Ferris in another way.

[Frank Arouet]

There was never any subsidy!

So perhaps blaming those who had nothing to do with "scuttling" something that was never there, we should be attacking the snake oil salesmen who promised all and delivered nothing.:confused:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ahhhh, school must be out!

Francis, go back and read the JCP. It was there in black and white how the roll-out was going to be payed for. LeadSlead et al, regardless of what the estimates on the change over costs may have been....the end result would have been payed for by the ACTUAL savings.

More to follow.

[Joker 10]

Oz Bus Driver, School is definitely out,

would have been payed I suspect your teacher would really enjoyed your use of the word paid rather than payed which is simply not English
expression in this context.

Maybe if you had not payed out on Frank life would be better

[Frank Arouet]

The Sacred Coranical JCP- Praise Allah!

Was it written in stone something like the Commandments?

No, thought not, just a handful of dreamers who reckon we all should be microchipped at birth and have our wages garnished for the greater good which obviously us mere mortals can't comprehend.

Lets all say it, JCP, JCP, JCP. (The World according to MARP).

LeadSled's classic: Give us this day our ADS-B
And give us our transponders, as we forgive those who transpond not against us.

School is out. It's Sunday school for the true believers and zealots. Don't forget to get Mum to tie sixpence in the corner of your hanky for the plate.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis. Compliments! That was one of your funnier ones.

Regardless! In the absence of any further plan or direction from AirServices, that paper is all anyone, including you, can comment about.

Smith profers the opinion that staying with an expensive antiquated post war technology is more beneficial to employment prospects than changing to another type of transponder. I prefer to believe he is wrong.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

You still haven't bitten yet, joker10 and Francis. You grammatic frogs!

Do you understand the difference between Cross-Industry Funding and Subsidy?

Do you need an definition?


Oooops, Joker10 is the grammatic frog. Francis can still show some humour

[Howabout]

Do you need an definition?

And they're 'grammatic frogs?'

Spare me! Don't point the finger unless you are perfect.

[Joker 10]

The simple point I was making is , be Australian, play the ball, not the man.

Hang in there Frank

[Frank Arouet]

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."

BTW my name is Francois. You may all call me Frank to aid in simplicity of expression.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

howabout???? Do you refer to me, or the other two frogs?

Yes, Joker10. Please play the ball, the difference between Cross-Industry Funding and Subsidy, when you're ready.


Ahhhh Crikey! Howabout, talk about finger trouble:ugh: A DEFINITION arghhh.

[LeadSled]

Ozbusdriver

Opinion on the subject of ADS-B funding was along the line of airlines forgoing SAVINGS over radar replacment costs.

Fact - airlines senior management never agreed to forgo saving - I assume you have some idea of the way AA and their two major customers do business??

The government's bit was forgoing collecting the DIVIDEND of those savings

Fact --- Treasury and Finance never agreed to forgo any demand for dividends from Airservices --- and are quite careful about GBE accounting, quite apart from any attention by the Australian National Audit Office, ANAO.

The funding of the rollout was by the savings on fitment and maintenance of the radar heads.

Quite apart from the very high probability that the alleged "savings" were somewhat overstated, see above, neither major airlines nor the Government, then or now, agreed to a major variation in the status quo, to make any cross industry funding/subsidy/underwriting/financial support/description of choice available to fit ADS-B to aircraft.

At the level the JCP and preparatory work was done, it all sounded so simple, but that is far, far from airlines and the Government forgoing cold hard cash, by whatever name.

Where did it all spring from ----- the totally unrealistic vision thing --- a vision from a bunch of ATC techos, of a brave new world of complete control (hilariously called Freeflight --- despite being the complete antithesis of the original Freeflight concept) of just about everything flying ----- again, it's all in the public records, if you want to dig them out ----

---- at one stage "pilotless aeroplanes" even got a run, in this brave new world of ATC supercomputers, seamless datalinks and perfect knowledge, all operating without fault in hardware, firmware and software, making pilots redundant ---

----- those of us who have been there, all know just how perfect and faultless all this wonderful technology actually is --- don't we???don't we???don't we???don't we???

Just like the faultless hardware, firmware and software called A330/AF447, really.

Hardly a week goes by, in the popular media, without some expert telling us how modern technology has made pilots redundant ----- presumably leaving only a need for ATC "systems monitors" ---- but no controllers, of course, because "the computer" is going to do all that?? Right???

It can't be stated too often, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the high level ADS-B proposal, as long as the airline pay the freight, but the low level program never really had legs --- no matter how fanatically devoted the cheer squad.

Tootle pip!!

PS: There is nothing particularly innovative about ADS -B, nothing technologically new or unique, and to tie it to a transponder, essentially WWII technology, is really dumb. My oppo. mates and I demonstrated our first ADS-B IN/OUT ACAS more than 10 years ago --- but not using a transponder.

Maybe, just maybe, the GFC will force a rethink, and we might, after all, get ADS-B/C/next iteration carried on a broadband datalink, which was the original ICAO intention about 15 years ago --- not to keep a very bandwidth restricted and ancient piece of technology, IFF, as in parrot (hence Squawk) on life support.

At least "Squawk Standby" sounds a little more aeronautical than "strangle the parrot".

As we now know, in the retrofit market, it is much cheaper to fit UAT/VDL-4, than retrofit 1090ES/ADS-B --- if a decision on UAT or VDL-4 could be forced, maybe sense might prevail ---- but I'm not holding my breath.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled, thanks for the reply. Everything I could trawl off the net had senior managment of both DJ and QF backing the technology to the government during a white paper enquiry last year....and that was to THIS government.

That was posted months ago, chapter and verse.

I read between the lines on the ownership issue to see that the government were not interested in missing out on EXTRA dividend from any savings on radar to ADS-B replacment.....see GREED! or rather funds to spend on government handouts to the unwashed. So what really did scuttle the ADS-B rowboat?

Note earlier post...paid from real savings, not projected. Government departments are much loved on using extraordinary figures to boost a project or destroy it.

The rest of your post has been done to death. UAT lost out as did VDL-4 regardless of Marines opting for VDL-4 and GA in the US (Now there is THE ultimate "someone else paying for a system for GA to use for free" argument) for UAT roll-out. Rest of the planet is going for ES.

Dilemma, how do you interface with the hard paint requirment of primary radar terminal airspace with SSR?...has to be a modeS...other iterations require two transponders to be carried. ModeS and whatever flavour you fancy. Not very cost effective.

What chance do you think there is of ever meeting the ministerial requirment for regional approach radar services into those ten towered airports around the country with hard iron radar, Leadsled? ADS-B would make it a doddle.

So, what would you say if the CASA mandates for safety reasons that a new transponder must be carried within that airspace?

Sorry to say, The Parrot has no comparison to ADS-B. ADS-B doesn't require an interrogation to do it's thing. ADS-B supplies an update twice a second compared to once every eight to twelve seconds that it takes for that iron to spin around. ADS-B doesn't require a ground station of any flavour to do its thing aircraft to aircraft.(UAT loses out!)

Primary radar will always have a place around terminal and defence airspace. ADS-B and WAMLAT for close in and ADS-B for regionals and en-route.

Now before you go crazy with the C word....you better tell the plebs what you need to run ADS-C and not very likely to happen in a bugsmasher 172.

Datalinks cost money, the more bandwidth the more cost. If you want bandwidth, just piggyback on the back of NextG and see how much it costs.

As we now know, in the retrofit market, it is much cheaper to fit UAT/VDL-4, than retrofit 1090ES/ADS-B --- if a decision on UAT or VDL-4 could be forced, maybe sense might prevail ---- but I'm not holding my breath.


Stay tuned! Howabout ES/UAT Rx/Tx in the one box. The yanks would have to go for that!

Please tell me how VDL-4 is a cheap fit. I am yet to see any version available as cheap as the European ModeS ES units.

[Joker 10]

Owen I see you are back to playing the man not the ball, why not stick to the debate at hand.

[Frank Arouet]

I think we have been through this before, but to speed things up I'll post the link below. Is this what you are talking about Owen Stanley?

Perhps an update about accurate price, futment, conformality to standard, availability, etc would help?

It would also help if you can catagorize the price into fitting within a "subsidy" or "cross industry funding" or a free handout by The Salvo's.


Products Enigma Avionics (http://enigmaavionics.com.au/main/?page_id=11)

[LeadSled]

OZBUSDRIVER,

Agreed, the 1090ES versus the rest had been done to death, but US based "little birds" tell me there is a possible "re-evaluation" in the wind, seeing that the ATA/NBAA have jacked up at the cost of retrofitting 1090ES/ADS-B, compared to the much cheaper ( for airlines, at least) of UAT or VDL-4 ---- and given most will have to fit VDL-2 for most North America/Europe operations, anyway.

Stay tuned! Howabout ES/UAT Rx/Tx in the one box

For the ground stations, that is already the case, same manufacturer as the ground stations for AA. From ground station to ATC computers, the "system" is agnostic as to whether the airborne end was/is UAT or VDL-4.

If you buy the currently (or almost about to be) available GARMIN GTX 330 with ADS-B option, including antenna diversity, the GPS feed comes from a GDL 90, which currently has a TSO 145A/DO229C gps sensor, but it is Garmin's UAT box, so you are carrying around (in Australia) a dead UAT --- So you have virtually the hardware, at least, to have dual 1090ES/UAT.

All priced accordingly, plus, if you want ADS-B IN, add $$$$ for a compatible box, Garmin 430 up. For reason I do not know, Garmin don't seem to offer a feed from the C146A gps in a 43W/530W.

I haven't checked the latest prices, but last time I did, if you wanted ADS-B IN/OUT, including the 430, as above, you were looking at not a lot of change from AUD$40,000.

The UAT boxes can talk to each other, and we are stuck with having a full function A/C transponder (and in US) so TCAS aircraft can still see "most" aircraft.

Owen Stanley,

Grow up, and learn to read.

Please advise me what ENIGMA equipment I can buy now, at what price, and what are the certification standards, and what guarantees will I have of long term maintenance support.

Not some time in futureland.

All the relevant stuff is all going to be certified and available some time in the future ----- maybe ----- but given my direct experience in this area, maybe not.

Talk is cheap, but certification costs for any kind of avionics is anything but.

Microair have been developing a Mode S transponder for a long time, years so far, with lots of external $$ support, it is still not certified.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

Owen Stanley;

The link has been posted before but, Perhps an update about accurate price, fitment, conformality to standard, availability, etc would help?, and what LeadSled said in elaboration of my unanswered questions.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Our mate Owen Stanley's last post, in my opinion, just about says it all, about Owen Stanley: Bluff, Bluster and Bile, but nary a fact.

All you will find on the Enigma (what a great name for this exercise) site are forecasts for a truly impressive range of equipment, all to the relevant standards ----- some time in the future. ADS-GunnaB, maybe??

Nothing concrete, no prices, nothing to cause heartburn around the ACCC.

For their US "technology partner", a single page web site, suggesting a rather more corporeal, rather than a corporate existence of serious substance.

Where uncertified/non-TSO equipment is acceptable, there is an impressive array of wonderful electronic equipment available, mouthwatering prices, as we all know, but!!

When it come to Transponders of any type, and ADS-B (and Australia is no exception) TSO'd is the requirement, "approved" installations and "approved" maintenance are the order of the day.

FLARM is easy, various passive "traffic SA" devices (in the technological sense) are easy, certification or making a $$$ to stay in business, not so easy.

In addition to the uncertainties in time and cost, of achieving certification, production certification etc., there are no "economies of scale" in avionics manufacturing, it's "cottage industry" scale, when the cost of marketing and after sales support in a market easily defined, are added, it is all to easy to see why many wonderful ideas fall by the wayside.

Best of luck to Enigma, and the various European based startups with all sorts of you beaut gear, but commercial history is not on their side.

Tootle pip!!

[Joker 10]

Geez Owen you are doing well, you destroyed the other forum no posts there for a week dead as a dodo, now you are working on this one.

Got to agree with Leadsled, lots of bile in your ramblings, too much red maybe ??????

[peuce]

What about them Broncos ... ?

[bushy]

This has been a very informative thread which has lots of information about the magic electronics that are available (or nearly available) and what we can expect them to do. And who is doing what.
But it is deteriorating into a slanging match by a few.
Please try to keep it sensible so that this forum can maintain it's value. It can be a valuable resource, or a hopeless worthless ego boosting competition.
It's up to you.

(no, I am not a moderator)

[Joker 10]

Bushy well said, seems the Air Traffic Controller has difficulty controlling his outbursts.

Back to the rational discussion.

BTW Lead Sled is right on the money, without starting a slanging match the nigger in the wood pile for ADSB in any useable form will be TSO approval, not something that comes easily.

[Joker 10]

Moderators this has become silly, now we are into political correctness, long gone the technical debate, methinks it is padlock time.

[le Pingouin]

It is not political correctness. It's offensive & racist. We need the moderators alright, but not for the reason you mention.

[Joker 10]

For the less educated, the saying "Nigger in the wood pile" refers to a preburt log and was used politically to refer to people in the political arena who were generically being challenged as pre experienced in some matter under discussion.

It has absolutely nothing to do with race, colour or creed.

[KittyKatKaper]

Really ? Joker 10, really ??
That phrase may have that meaning to you, but most other people would intepret it very differently.

and what the heck is a 'breburt log' ?. is it an enabler to make my old 430 work with ADSB ?

[Joker 10]

Back to sensible debate, will ADSB ultimately devolve into a General Aviation tool.

If one is a student of history the answer most probably lies in an evolutionary process, sort of Aviation Darwinism rather than the messianistic approach of Aviation Fundamentalism.

VAR became VOR it took some 20 years to evolve and was only in general use after the evolution of the transistor made equipment light enough for General Aviation aircaft to carry the more complex design aids.

The evolution of position reporting on board navigation aids moved through the Dead Reckoning Ground position indicator MK1 in the lincoln to the GPI MK 4 in the Canberra to the CDC (Computing Devices of Canada ) in the Mirage and ultimately the Litton INS Suite of Carousel (and Military variants) that graced the B52, F 111 and Early B747.

Evolution that was based on the developing power of microprocessors and reliability of controller based micro electronics.

Along the way we saw some sideways aberrations DME Van 5 as one, great system but not in the mainstream.

The military use of TACAN still in use today and various other forms of coming home to base aids.

Today we have courtesy of the U.S. Military the GPS system and its marriage to various data transmission systems which make the top end of Commercial Aviation much safer SITA, ADSB > FL 290 and various satellite based on board reporting systems back to base systems data.

All of these systems ( and many more ) relied on evolution to become widely used, it is hard to find any system that was legislated into place at its early development, the aviation community is conservative by its nature.

Fundamentalism has not ever found a place in Aviation for good reason, systems and awareness need time to prove themselves.

Will ADSB make it below 5000 ft in small aircraft, the answer must be yes, will it be in the form we see today in the Air Carrier Fleet, maybe.

Just as EFIS has become a viable cost effective tool for General Aviation replaving aged electromechanical and Vacuum operated instruments so will a wide area reporting tool evolve.

[Frank Arouet]

Can we summarize this whole ADSB thread with these immortal words from a “peak” GA aviation body. The front men and some principal’s being no less than those past and present still, who have most vehemently and courageously pursued the pro ADSB stance on this and other forums;


“A better system, sure, but it meant every aeroplane owner would have to fork out up to $25,000 for the equipment. Naturally we kicked up a fuss. It all got too hard. The government went ahead and bought its new radars anyway and the issue was quietly shelved”

Hypocrisy?

As I, and many others, have said many, many times before, as an evolutionary thing ADSB has my full support, but I cannot subscribe to being forced to use it when at this early stage it shows no appreciable or quantifiable benefits.

[bushy]

I think there are some systems being developed with vertical profile (glideslope) guidance for approaches. Maybe some non certified systems available now?
I see this as the next, very important developement, and probably more important than ADSB.
Also terrain in either map or 3d form can be done now. It's been around for a long time. This will prevent many future CFITs.
And on board realtime weather information.
These things would probably have prevented a few of our recent prangs.
Surely this is more important than the economics of our major airlines, or ASA. I think it is for the 10,000 or so non airline group.

[Jabawocky]

I am with you there bushy, Chimbu Chuckles and I have discussed the value a few times of WAAS and the LPV, especially for the regional and bush ports, and the huge safety as well as operational benefits. It was not until we had these discussions that I fully apreciated what value there is.

Will we see it any time soon....I am not sure.:rolleyes:

XM weather would be a hoot, the Dr might get some value of that 496:}!

You are correct, it may have saved a few prangs, of course it may also take some closer to them!:ooh:

[Frank Arouet]

the huge safety as well as operational benefits

Hmmm, you keep saying that. But can you quantify "HUGE" in light of the $25K estimate admitted by that "peak GA aviation group.

[Jabawocky]

I refer you to bushy's post above and what is done in the USA and go do some research there.

I think you are confusing the thread drift we are talking about with the original argument, the one I am over debating with you.

I am sure the LPV's in the USA were not an expensive and unwarranted programme, especially with so many ILS's already installed. As Dick would say, follow the lead of the USA, especially when its a proven thing.

Thread drift OFF!:oh:

[Quokka]

Agree with bushy on real-life toys for the boys in the lighties... too many pilots become airbourne without reading their NOTAMS and after nothing more than a cursory glance at the weather...

ADS-B in a whole-of-industry, all-in, total replacement of enroute SSR implementation, pays for it's own installation, pays for the Government's annual dividend, pays for a reduction in charges to the aviation industry ... and could also, very easily, pay for this...

Also terrain in either map or 3d form can be done now. It's been around for a long time. This will prevent many future CFITs.

...and this...

And on board realtime weather information.


...if AOPA and Dick's friends can think beyond the square, use your collective intellect and influence, see and sieze the opportunity... and make it happen.

[Frank Arouet]

Bad case of open mic?

they will have to help out

Have you bothered to tell "them" instead of having a fissing spit here.

Sometimes a visionary such as yourself can sway those with the purse strings. Why not try that approach instead of a tantrum?

I again quote that most visionary organisation;

A couple of years ago the government realised it had to replace the ageing radar system. But it didn’t want to spend the money. Instead, they came up with an idea to force all of us into ADS-B.
A better system, sure, but it meant every aeroplane owner would have to fork out up to $25,000 for the equipment. Naturally we kicked up a fuss. It all got too hard. The government went ahead and bought its new radars anyway and the issue was quietly shelved.

Jabawocky: in response to your earlier abrasive comment WAAS went!

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm,...who has their finger on the GPS satellite constellation off switch ?...:hmm:






.

[Frank Arouet]

Owen Stanley;

I'm unsure who you direct your first quote to. Not me obviously.

Link? Get real. I refuse to even mention the name on this forum. They are whom you should be directing your bile at for not delivering on the "promised" "subsidy". All I said was it was a "dream by dreamers". I was right.

Binghi;

Not the bloke with the open mic.

[Frank Arouet]

I say again. I did not post that quote you attribute to me. Do some simple research. you misquote me sir.

And the ATCO people bowed and prayed
To the electronic God they made.
And the sign flashed out its ADSB warning,
In the alerts that were so frightening,
And the signs said, the words of the prophets
Are written on the $hithouse walls
And Canberra halls.
And whisperd in the sounds of silence.

White noise...............sssssssssssss

[Joker 10]

It would be a great day if a certified ADSB set up could be purchased for less than $20K.

Right now that is unfortunately fairy dust, the real figure is on the + side of $50K

And don't kid yourselves that any kit tied to the Transponder will be allowed uncertified.

The Transponder has to be certified, so does the encoder and indeed any other kit that is transponder dependent or controls the transponder.

[Joker 10]

Two quite different certification standards required , recent enquiry to upgrade Garmin suite top of range latest series in small executive Jet quoted at $100 K USD +

Set up in Piper LS 400 excluding TCAS and EGPWS $70K USD.

[Frank Arouet]

Are you thick as a brick mate?

There is no mandate for ADSB below FL 290 in this country. Why would you spend up to $70K USD to be the first kid on the block with a gadget nobody else has, and probably don't want or need, and correct me as you will,:( what good is transmitting white noise to nobody who is not listening and how do you prevent mid air collisions or become less of a burden to you and your AsA mates?

Look out World. Owen Stanley is coming so get out of his way.:mad:

In the meantime I am here, a fact of life, so if you fly VFR below 10,000ft and near me, (I could be anywhere), take care to look out the window. I'm probably not qualified to see and interpret the closing speed of your pocket rocket jet powered pressurised thrusting phallic wankmobile. (BTW I could be flying anything from a J3 Cub to a 58 TC).:cool:

This thread is as dead as the ADSB debate which has concluded.

As for what I'm on, (if you remember the 60's you weren't there), It is my personal observation that most in your trade (lets not call it a profession), suffer from the same narcissistic personality disorder that gives rise to the belief that we all should be "controlled" by some sort of pommie /Stasi screw with a small dick and a big microphone.

[Jabawocky]

(BTW I could be flying anything from a J3 Cub to a 58 TC).http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/cool.gif


But the Auster does not have a very high closing speed with much, if anything!:E

So how is your project coming along? Maybe it would be better to spend more time on that than this topic. Would be far more fun anyway. this topic is getting tiresome.

J:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky;

I don't always agree with you, but on this occasion I do.

I would hate to see the thread binned because it has some useful comment, but it is like flogging a dead horse when there is nothing to argue about except a wish list by some that happen to impinge on my rights to fly without someone breathing down my neck.

I've had a gutful of vilifying hate and innuendo anyway, so seeya.:(

[Jabawocky]

argue about except a wish list by some that happen to impinge on my rights to fly without someone breathing down my neck.
Sorry, but I think this is the whole point of the arguement against. There is a fear amongst some folk that Big Brother is going to be breathing down their neck.

If that was the case, it would be happening already. The low level ADSB arguement seems based from your side of the fence (your meaning you and anyone who has fiercely opposed it) on a negative on this basis. It seems this point keeps coming out whether it be from RAAus or whoever. Yet many of the opposing team seem to acknowlege that its the way of the future and it will happen.

The antics of whether there was a subsidy or not is purely antics, it was proposed, the costs of hardware were not all as posted above, I saw stuff that I am not at liberty to broadcast, so just trust me for fitting to your project a device fitted to a standard instrumet hole and a TSO146 GPS engine was well under $10K Ozzie, so at the end of the day its all about who can see your snail trail across a screen and would you get billed for the privilege? You should be less worried about this and more worried about the greenie morons wanting carbon taxes etc, that will be a bigger killer to you and every other Australian.

Nobody ever intended impinging on your privilege to fly, Nobody. And just like driving and your drivers licence, your pilot licence is a privilege not a right. When you view it from that perspective life changes a little.

Glad we agreed on something.

Cheers Frank!:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

It amazes me to believe that Airservices would allow one of their employees to act unrestrained as an ADSB agent provacteur and interfere with any nomination in the ongoing Federal elections of a self administrating aviation body that just happens to oppose the concept. These elections have not closed, therefor the results are not in.

Any truce you envisaged evaporated when you misused PPRune personal mail information between us.

[le Pingouin]

It is my personal observation that most in your trade (lets not call it a profession), suffer from the same narcissistic personality disorder that gives rise to the belief that we all should be "controlled" by some sort of pommie /Stasi screw with a small dick and a big microphone.Sorry?!? And you don't suffer equally from a totally self centred "I'm the only aircraft in the sky" sydndrome? Perhaps you're the one with the big donk sublimation.....

Why would anyone want to watch you? I've got better things to do with my time at work. The only time I give a toss is if I'm providing you with a service you have requested or if I see you about to do something dangerous like fly into a live firing area, into another aircraft or penetrate CTA. Other than that I couldn't give a toss.


impinge on my rights to fly without someone breathing down my neck.
What "rights"? You've been listening your American bretheren a little too closely - we don't have a Bill of Rights or anything similar here.

[Jabawocky]

Federal election :confused: What the??????
Last federal election KRUDD won, and last I knew he was not on this forum:uhoh:

Are we talking about the CWA or something..........I am lost!

but please..... in hindsight do not answer these rhetorical questions, none of us need the answers!

[Blockla]

It is my personal observation that most in your trade (lets not call it a profession), suffer from the same narcissistic personality disorder that gives rise to the belief that we all should be "controlled" by some sort of pommie /Stasi screw with a small dick and a big microphone. No need to worry Frank, your tin foil hat spoils the signal from the ADS-B squitter as equally well as it spoils your transponder returns... Keep it on...

[Frank Arouet]

Apologies for not responding earlier, but I am not normally in need of having the last say but I'll make this exception.

I am also not accustomed to apologising for remarks made in the heat of the moment because it highlights my exact feelings at the time. However I do apologise for saying;

It is my personal observation that most in your trade (lets not call it a profession), suffer from the same narcissistic personality disorder that gives rise to the belief that we all should be "controlled" by some sort of pommie /Stasi screw with a small dick and a big microphone.

I meant to say, "a few" and not "most".

To those real professionals whom I have the greatest respect for, I also apologise for including you in with the "rabbits", but as I have I been found guilty and sentenced by association within the industry you can probably see where I got confused.

Back to facts;

There is no mandate for ADSB below FL290.

There is no subsidy for ADSB below FL 290..

There is no offered "QUANTIFIABLE" evidence that there is any mid air collision risk that ADSB would address in class G airspace.

It is "POSSIBLE" to have a mid air collision in class G airspace.

At best, to make it a viable anti collission tool everyone would have to be equipped with ADSB "OUT" so those financially and fanatically able could see them with ADSB "IN". TCAS?

A lot of people object to this cost impost.

There is no cost benefit analysis to support any mandate of ADSB below the Flight Levels at this stage.

ADSB is an ATC "tool".

ADSB is a recognised and accepted evolutionary development of radar in places where radar is now required.

It will cost in excess of $10,000, (as a conservative estimate, not mine) to install some equipment).

There is a difference between CTAF R and CTAF for requirements of communication.

There is NO requirement to have a transponder in a CTAF.

Some people were writing out cheques when there was no money in the bank. There was no subsidy as promised by some enthisiastic salesmen. (zealots).

These people making the promise of free installation belong to the above paragraph. They are now making apologies and blaming CASA.

The sceptics who said it was improbable that any subsidy would come to fruition are now also blamed with "scuttling" something that wasn't there in the first place to be "scuttled".

Obviously -CASA "stooges".

Jabawocky;

The Federal elections I refer to, have had candidates compromised. The NSW chapter now should be uncontested with a worthy candidate. Refer my PM.

[cbradio]

It is my personal observation that most in your trade (lets not call it a profession), suffer from the same narcissistic personality disorder that gives rise to the belief that we all should be "controlled" by some sort of pommie /Stasi screw with a small dick and a big microphone.

to impinge on my rights to fly without someone breathing down my neck


the thing I like about Pprune (and the reason I'd never want certain "personalities" to get banned) is that eventually people say what they really think - and can't deny it later ("I never said that").

whether it is few or most, a trade or a profession, whatever.

No wonder no-one takes certain segments of this industry seriously (just don't tell 'em everyone is laughing at them!).

[Frank Arouet]

Owen Stanley;

A measured and acceptable response. I am as guilty as many for going off when I should be more circumspect. I guess we are both passionate in our own ways. I hope things work out so we are both satisfied.

cbradio;

Don't know who you are mate, but newbies need to be given a voice. I wouldn't like to see threads binned when there is some good scribblings that can be dissected later.

With regard to rights, I should mention an opinion I have always had, and that is, when you are granted a privelege you have a right to exercise that privelege within the parameters granted. Goes for aviating and, more broadly, posting.

There are some moderate moderators on PPRune.

[le Pingouin]

With regard to rights, I should mention an opinion I have always had, and that is, when you are granted a privelege you have a right to exercise that privelege within the parameters granted. Goes for aviating and, more broadly, posting. With rights come responsibilities & the rights of other people.

[Frank Arouet]

le Pinouin;

With rights come responsibilities & the rights of other people.

Your point is? I hope you are not implying I am irresponsible if I fly, as I do, within the parameters of the law.

ACROBATIC;

And we all know who you are, you bitter little vice president. And your point other than to make mischief is exactly what? BTW how did your boy go in those elections.

[Frank Arouet]

I would guess the sum total of votes he didn't get is more important to many who threw their hat in the ring just to keep him out.

I think you are minus 20% out in your "rounding off". Something you learnt from "sworn" statements to the JCPAA of 2006 perhaps?:yuk:

[peuce]

Enough ... enough already !!

Would someone please put this thread out of its misery :(

[Frank Arouet]

Well I'm out of here.

[tail wheel]

If the drift in this thread drifts into other PPRuNe threads, there will be a few that will permanently drift out of PPRuNe!

This is not the Flat Earth Society bitching forum!

:mad: :mad:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/Closed.gif