The " I support ADSB" thread.

[Frank Arouet]

A statement;

I strongly support the ADSB concept as a natural evolution of radar. Always have, and always will. I think it could be a valuable ATC tool in contemporary areas of debate such as Benalla.

I believe it should enhance safety in high traffic areas such as the "J' curve, indeed, anywhere a transponder is required.

I am unaware of any current move to have non TSO'd equipment approved for use where ADSB is mandated. Similarly I am unaware of any proposed subsidy schemes that may make any future mandated equipment affordable to an already financially stretched aviation industry.

Let me be very clear, I am not anti ADSB, nor is anybody within the industry that I have regular contact with.

People making these claims appear to be trying to focus attention in the wrong direction.

[Jabawocky]

Out of the Blue there Frank........ (no not the flying school in Arlington)

Or has the lack of debate in recent weeks brought this on?

Whats the scoop?

J:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Mia Culpa?

Francis, you are full of surprises. What's the catch?

Does this mean if things are produced cheap enough you will consider fitment in your Tripod?

[Frank Arouet]

Everything I have said here, I, (and others), have said many many many times before.:)

[kalavo]

I strongly support WAAS with APV approaches eight times safer than the current RNAV/GNSS approaches (with RNAV/GNSS considered twenty five times safer than circling VOR/NDB approaches).

ADS-B would be fantastic in high traffic areas without radar.

[Jabawocky]

WAAS and LPV............... way of the future!:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

with RNAV/GNSS considered twenty five times safer than circling VOR/NDB approaches).
Where did you drag up that rubbish? Try 7 times for SI NPA verses a Circling NPA. The current design of our GPS NPAs, with Foxtrot where it is, only marginally improves safety over a VOR SI, only because you don't have to manoeuvre slightly (in most places) to get on to the CL).

I support ADS-B! :D

[kalavo]

http://mooney.org.au/files/GPS-the_WAAS_that_WAS_.pdf

[OZBUSDRIVER]

kalavo, good link. Nothing that hasn't been said here many times over.

The Japanese MTSAT is already fully functional. Post-Hilmer Australia?..Public Good???? I don't think so:suspect:

Financial case for WAAS as a safety mitigator is more compelling than anything else! Including ADS-B. The Feds will say straight up ..Sure, as long as aviation pays for it.

In my day job I can say from first hand experience the benefits of DGPS in civil works. Bulldozers able to carve the side of a hill in the shape of a freeway down to final trim without a survey peg in sight. This facility will be used as the argument AGAINST WAAS. Those who want the accuracy can pay for facilities to provide it.

LRH CFIT as the mitigator? If the CASA or AirServices were MADE to take responsibility for providing a service that would ensure safety...then, just maybe, there could be chance that the receiver of the dividends would have the "penny drop" revelation on "Public Good"

WAAS and affordable safety....what price is a life? Is it different because one is seated in 48D rather than behind the PF in a PA-31 PVT flight.

[Joker 10]

Ah the trick question, diversion into G airspace.

How about the real issue, which has been dragged through the weeds time and again, the cost.

Despite the opinion of others here I am a supporter of emergent technology where that technology can be justified , cost benefit analysed properly, and yes I understand the decreasing value curve on techology as it comes into wide spread use.

The difficulty with ADSB aircraft to aircraft is it requires Transponders that can handle antenna diversity and these are in short supply and are expensive in the +$ USD 5000 range, then there is the cost of the C145/C146 GPS to provide position data, last I looked these were in the +$USD 8000 range and then there is the Car 35 Engineering order to fit, an electrical load analysis and the Avionics Tech time to install wire and test.

There is no relaxation of the Regulaions that allows this process to be circumvented as at today, yes there may be all sorts of kit one can buy that could be fitted to experimental home built aircraft or RAA/SAA aircraft. But no matter what claas of airspace one might fly a General Aviation aircraft on the VH register in, there are the cost implications.

This is and always has been the bogey man in the whole discussion.

A C150 fully fitted out would probably double in value, how about the venerable Auster Aiglet, somewhat over capitalised ????

[PlankBlender]

It works (seen it myself at MB), it's affordable even for GA owners, and it'll get you traffic on your 430/530:

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

[OZBUSDRIVER]

EDIT- Good grief Charlie Brown. If I have got this right you are now confirming(english dude!) there are Rx units out there. Because, and I have to admit I had to go back and learn a thing or three. Diversity is not required for ADS-B Tx as such, nice if you've got it but ...well nice to have it but not neccessary. SELEX in their Rx unit does have two separate receivers that can work from either a top or bottom, diversity or alternating in software.

Just to clarify what you are talking about...how about putting up a link to back your claim of a requirment. Free flight do not seem to think they need it. Just garden variety modeA/C or modeS for transmit. If you've got TCAS the FAA will allow you to use those $15,000US aerials provided they do not degrade TCAS operations.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

either way...good trap Tunes, you almost got me:} I had to go back to a definition of the actual meaning and almost missed the specification for top and bottom aerials....live and learn...but not required

[Joker 10]

If you want aircraft to aircraft the antennas are needed, air to ground different story, but if the game is separation in G then antenna diversity essential, as at today it seems the Garmin 330 mode S transponder top of range model is the only one that has capabilty to address diverse antenna,s

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I say no. I think you are mixing up the need for a TCAS to see a direct signal to ascertain it's position without masking of the fuselage with the ability of receiving a datastream containing that position. Does your aircraft have two VHF aerials (top and bottom) to receive transmissions?

[peuce]

Joker 10,

I don't think any initial "requirement" for ADS-B in G Airspace, or below F290, will be "aircraft to aircraft".

It will more likely be a minimum of ADS-B OUT only... so that ATC, or other IN aircraft, can see you.

Is that an expensive ask?

[Frank Arouet]

Thank you for highlighting that peuce;

The requirement for ADSB above FL 290 is for ADSB OUT only.

As I said earlier it will probably be a future natural evolution of the radar function ATC provide now WHERE radar is needed. And I support that. After all it is an ATC tool, not TCAS.

At present there is no requirement for a transponder in class G airspace.

[Joker 10]

I think there is far too much reliance on brochure ware in the whole debate.

The original premise OCTA was that aircraft would be able to see each other and thus we had "poor mans TCAS"

The concept of ADSB out allowing ATC to see aircraft OCTA is quaint, why would that be important if the aircraft is OCTA and there are no ATC services provided ??? Or are we heading back to full VFR reporting OCTA once ADSB comes in ????

[bushy]

Originally ADSB was supposed to do all sorts of "pie in the sky" things that are not yet realistic in Australia.
The airlines have to be "nannied" and ADSB is obviously a way that they can be given traffic etc in those "remote" areas like Ayers Rock. I can see a future requirement for ADSB out, or its' sucessor being mandatory in CTAF(R)s. so centre can see traffic. It may also be used to close some towers and hand the job to centre in areas of low airline traffic.
Capital cities will probably still use radar, because real radar can see aircraft that don't have a transponder or ADSB operating. Some radar can see birds.
It looks as if Australia is going to try to set up a commercial monopoly again (like the old DME(A)) and will have a "unique Australian" system that covers part of the country. (Australia only extends 100 miles from the coast. Beyond that is "Outbackland")
Vertical guidance is needed for approaches in hundreds of places like Lockhart River. We really should be spending money on things that will give us that, and terrain and weather displays.
A wide area system that anyone can use is not what Airservices want, for commercial reasons. There are already instrument approaches that only one company can use, and I see this as a serious problem developing. Will exclusive instrument approaches be sold? Has that already happened?
Cost recovery is one thing, but the major purpose of Airservices is to provide services that aviation needs.
If services are witheld or distorted for commercial reasons then we should look again at the "cost recovery" to see if it is appropriate.

[le Pingouin]

Bushy, how come it's nannying for airlines into Ayers Rock but safety into Lockhart River? Or is that because you use one & not the other?

I presume the single company approaches you mean are RNP? They're still in a trial phase & will be made available to Virgin as well.

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com.au/publications/current/sup/a9-h08.pdf

[le Pingouin]

The concept of ADSB out allowing ATC to see aircraft OCTA is quaint, why would that be important if the aircraft is OCTA and there are no ATC services provided ??? Or are we heading back to full VFR reporting OCTA once ADSB comes in ????Why would we be heading back to VFR full reporting?

No ATC services OCTA? What do you think IFR aircraft or VFR flight following get now? What do I spend half my time at the console doing? Why do you have a transponder now?

[bushy]

The "nannying" I was talking about was collision avoidance at Ayers Rock and other places, and the "safety" at Lockhart River and hundreds of other places referred to approaches with vertical profile guidance.
It appears that the proposed Airservices plan will provide the former, and not the latter.

[peuce]

I don't think it's being a sissy to want as much collision avoidance assistance as is possible and available
I think there are many advantages in ATC being able to "see" every airborne aircraft ... no matter what services it is providing to each of them. I can't see any disadvantages with the concept (except, perhaps, with cluttered radar screens)


Traveling, for a moment, completely outside the square ... how are taxis monitored by their control centres? A bit of GPS kit, I assume. Would there be a place for a similar, presumably low cost, system for equipping the GA fleet ... in lieu of ADSB?

[Joker 10]

Pinguin It is a fact that to be IFR Directed Traffic one has to be operating on an IFR plan no matter which class of airspace one is operating within and likewise for VFR with flight following.

so your comment quote: Why would we be heading back to VFR full reporting?

No ATC services OCTA? What do you think IFR aircraft or VFR flight following get now? What do I spend half my time at the console doing? Why do you have a transponder now?

Seems somewhat disingenuous, if the only benefit of ADSB out is position data to ATC what is the data to be used for just SAR ??

So if there are VFR aircraft out there on no plan the ADSB does precisely what ???

[Joker 10]

Owen,
You are so good, yup it is a requirement to notify known VFR traffic, so what.

Are you saying if ADSB is introduced below FL 290 in all classes of airspace you will be monitoring all traffic and the requirement to notify will extend VFR to VFR.

Or are you in favour of maintaining the status quo, notifying directed traffic of any known VFR traffic in the area and if so what will the boundary of the protection bubble be ?? 10 miles, 15 miles, 8 minutes.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, seeing as we are talking about VFR in class G consider that a non TSO ADS-B Rx unit is quite capable of doing the job in ADVISING you of traffic....after all we still must lookoutandsee! You gotta ask yourself why pilots would fork out nearly $3000.00 for a non TSO GPS to mount on their control column....good place for a screen that depicts that non TSO traffic advisory.:ok:

Provided the aircraft has the certified ADS-B Tx unit for the benefit of AirServices then there is nothing to stop a lowly ppl paying for a little bit more gear to enhance his own awareness:ok:

And that gear all works outside airspace.

ADS-B Tx is to benefit AirServices to allow them to replace en-route SSR gear. Enable 100% coverage ABV FL290 across the continent and the J-Curve as well as airspace in the mineral provinces. That is the minimum requirement to gurantee the savings as promised. Critical mass in aircraft fitment allows future expansion at minimal cost as compared to the prohibitive cost of an SSR facility. Thats how low level rollout will now go ahead in this country.

ANd this argument will go spinning around with the same outcome.

Just remember. A VFR pilot can use NON-TSO gear to advise him/her for his/her own information. An aircraft must have a TSO for fitment in compliance with equipment regs...pilots do not!

[Joker 10]

Bus Driver yes a VFR pilot can use aids to "advise" him/herself , but they cannot use such aids as sole means for any service which includes ATC.

Owen Or are you in favour of maintaining the status quo, notifying directed traffic of any known VFR traffic in the area and if so what will the boundary of the protection bubble be ?? 10 miles, 15 miles, 8 minutes.

So Owen why would you need ADSB???? if your are not going to use it for separation??? How would you know who might be out there if there are no plans in the system ???? Or would you call traffic on unidentified random paints coming from non certified gear.

All sounds somewhat undiscilpined to me.

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

If you read my initial statement it covers everything I support with the concept. If I have not added low level class G airspace it is because I don't see the evolution of ADSB will start there. I do see a possible radar replacement in due course where an ATC presence is required.

Once that is achieved talk to me about day Visual Flight Rules gadgets that may make my life safer, and easier.

If people took what support that is offered it may help in bringing the evolution into play. It would appear that some are either too bloody minded or too eager or too selfish to take this in logical steps and accept what support is offered even if it does not meet with their grand designs.

[le Pingouin]

So if there are VFR aircraft out there on no plan the ADSB does precisely what ???So if there are VFR aircraft out there on no plan squawking 1200 does precisely what ???

Or don't you operate a transponder?

[Joker 10]

Yes I operate a mode S transponder as I operate IFR when I transit G airspace but I am aware of the fact that a significant number of Austers, Chipmunk, Airtourers, C150/152, Country based C172/182, AG aircraft and Glider Tow aircraft don't even carry Transponders.

Let alone the multitude of aircraft registered to the RAA.

As I said way back in this rather stilted attempt at stifling debate by the ADSB proponents, cost is a significant factor in the whole issue.

Can someone for the purposes of rational comparison tell me of a TCAS system approved for IFR aircraft < 5700 kg that is less than $50,000 USD.

[Joker 10]

Pinguin, a direct answer to your question, what does my transponder do in G where I fly.

I can sit and watch the reply light to see if the transponder is being interrogated for hours on end, nada , nothing until I get back into radar coverage or on very occasional days I get a TCAS return from an aircraft that is close and who I am in contact with as directed traffic and can see on my TCAS.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

If people took what support that is offered it may help in bringing the evolution into play

My goodness:eek: That was exactly what the JCP had offered! I am little shocked about that statement, Francis. Anyway, will not dwell on that.

I take it then you are in agreeance with the proposal for SSR radar replacement?

UAP is already a given. Due to the signing of the refurb/maint package I would believe that as part of the actual maintanence visits to each SSR site there will be a little aerial and a couple of boxes extra in the package. (If I was running the show that is what I would attempt to do.) If it went that way ADS-B would then be set up alongside every SSR head.(the network needed to test and approve ADS-B operation as compared to low level SSR?) Now for the tricky bit. Does the CASA mandate fitment of Tx equipment in EVERY aircraft capable of entering a CTAF or do we just wait for an evolutionary process of like minded people fitting the equipment? (remember this, as far as the pilot is concerned it is a transponder, there is no tangiable benefit except for...)

I did find a piece written for an audio visual that stated that airservices would give preferential clearances to aircraft fitted and approved for ADS-B Tx. If that was the case, I am sure the likes of Joker10 and Dick Smith would become "like minded" people

Joker10....you know how good I am at this....my homework is to find you a TCAS replacment that does ADS-B modeS and FLARM or a capability as close as possible to TIS-B without the need for a ground station transmission ...under $50,000US. (TSO approved, of course!)

Do I have a timeframe? Are you planning on avionics refurbishment any time soon?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Joker10....I am getting warmer....Avidyne TAS600 (http://www.avidyne.com/products/tas600a/index.asp)

Click the box and you can have a $2000.00US upgrade to ADS-B Rx by the end of this year. But then again you want it now, don't you?





Ohhhhh....It's got TWO antennas:D:D:D:D

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just to clarify for Owen Stanley. Do not fall for the non-TSO ADS-B "OUT" or Tx ruse. For ADS-B to become active, it must be approved as to the correct messages and equipment TSO BEFORE it's address is released to TAAATS, up until that point it is not recognised.

CASA AC 21-45(0) (http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c45.pdf)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I wish I found this back in 2005. It would have shot huge holes in Dick Smith's ideas of TCAS as a self separation device.

ACAS II Bulletin No6 2005 (http://www.eurocontrol.int/msa/gallery/content/public/documents/Safety/ACAS_Bulletins-BUL6-D-1.1_21Apr2005.pdf)

NOTE- the very last line in the document.
THE TCAS TRAFFIC DISPLAY MUST NOT BE USED FOR SELF-SEPARATION

Funny that, that is exactly what you CAN do with ADS-B Rx...Self-Separate.

Joker10...I do hope you are not incorrectly using your TCAS for something it was never designed to do.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Here is a nice little powerpoint produced by THALES. It may give a bit of understanding of the ground receiver hardware in current use around the planet.

Thales ADS-B ground station deployment. (http://www.atcevents.com/atc09/asp/ktmlpro/files/uploads/ADS-B%20Deployment%20(minimized).pdf)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Here is a nice little powerpoint produced by THALES. It may give a bit of understanding of the ground receiver hardware in current use around the planet.

Thales ADS-B ground station deployment. (http://www.atcevents.com/atc09/asp/ktmlpro/files/uploads/ADS-B%20Deployment%20(minimized).pdf)

AND just to add-

ADS-B/MLAT/WAM (http://www.decea.gov.br/cnsatm/seminario_macae/THALES.pdf)

Note page 4The goal is to gradually introduce on-board aircraft separation

[Frank Arouet]

Re post #42

Your highlight used is very broad when you consider it was written WRT CONTROLLED AIRSPACE. It could actually be construed as "MISINFORMATION" when discussing class G airspace.

The TCAS traffic display does not provide the information necessary for the provision of separation and sequencing.

Therefor pilots must not attampt to self separate nor to challenge an ATC instruction based on the information derived solely from the TCAS traffic display. It is the controllers' responsibility to separate aircraft.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, TCAS cannot, ADS-B Rx CAN! It's as simple as that. Refer to the link ACAS II for more in-depth description as to why you can be fooled by a TCAS display.

As soon as you change airspace from C/E to G...does the TCAS know any different? It is not a self-separation tool.

Owen Stanley:ok: Hope it all helps:cool:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, sorry about the sidetrack on TCAS. Joker10 asked for a TCAS replacement. Now I hope he is refering to TCAS because RA and TA aren't really as necessary with an ADS-B input. A pilot may safely change their trajectory wrt the target aircraft in three dimensions. Speed, height and direction.

I will find one for him. However, he may find that ADS-B Rx will be an addition to his instrument panel rather than replacing TCAS. TCAS still provides that last line of defence. Think of ADS-B in this case to the changing colours on a modern synthetic vision device as an addition to GPWS. One is more useful but one is the last line and always will be. Hope this helps.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

High end equipment "TCAS 3000" (http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/238/2774d2fc-92f0-4ac5-93af-c4cc6ac4a9c0.pdf?LangType=2057) incorporates ADS-B. Third generation TCAS II. Pretty impressive performance but you need ProLine to enjoy it.:{

So, A TCAS replacment is another version of TCAS. Gotta love it:ok:

[Joker 10]

And the cost of Pro Line is ??????

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ah Joker10.....High end equipment

ProLine21, last time I looked went for about a mil for a full suite. just telling you on what I find that's new. For me, that is a pretty cool upgrade for dinosaur technology. With any luck it may actually give you an nice gentle vector to avoid rather than climb/descend command.

However, I'm not finished yet!

[le Pingouin]

Your highlight used is very broad when you consider it was written WRT CONTROLLED AIRSPACE. It could actually be construed as "MISINFORMATION" when discussing class G airspace.Not at all. TCAS is good at indicating target position but not target motion. Totally independent of airsapce classifcation.

[Frank Arouet]

What's an E190?



Embraer 190 (or ERJ 190-100) or Embraer 195 (or ERJ 190-200), 110 to 122 seats.

[Jabawocky]

Its that Red thing that will spear in when it hits your non transponder equipped friends at a CTAF R :eek:

J:suspect:

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/1/7/3/6/98949_1246698637_tb.jpg

[Frank Arouet]

This just in;

<http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao20/2018.pdf>

93.6 is interesting.

[The Chaser]

Add a fourth friend to your circle, Frank – Google it is your friend ;)

Have a stab at Owen's questions, once you have consulted the 'legends' that is!

Re: CASA Civil Aviation Order 20.18 (as amended)9B.8 Note: However, including the effect of subsection 9B.5 above, if compliant ADS-B transmitting equipment is in fact carried, whether voluntarily or in accordance with the obligation under 9B.8, it must be operated continuously in all airspace, at all altitudes. :D and; Appendix XI

Approved equipment configuration — conditions for approval

1 An equipment configuration is approved only if it meets all of the conditions set out in this Appendix.

2 It is a condition of approval that the ADS-B transmitting equipment must be of a type that is:
(a) authorised:

(i) by the FAA in accordance with TSO-C166 as in force on 20 September 2004 or a later version as in force from time to time; or

(ii) by CASA in accordance with ATSO-C1004 as in force on 2 October 2003 or a later version as in force from time to time; or
(iii) by CASA in accordance with ATSO-C1005 as in force on 22 December 2004 or a later version as in force from time to time; or
(b) otherwise authorised by CASA for this purpose.




3 It is a condition of approval that, on and after 28 June 2012, the geographical position transmitted by the ADS-B transmitting equipment must be determined by:
(a) a GNSS receiver of a type that is authorised by the FAA in accordance with TSO-C145a or TSO-C146a as in force on 19 September 2002 or a later version as in force from time to time; or
(b) another system authorised by CASA for this purpose.




4 It is a condition of approval that the pressure altitude transmitted by the ADS-B transmitting equipment must be determined by:
(a) a barometric encoder of a type that is authorised by:
(i) the FAA in accordance with TSO-C88a as in force on 18 August 1983 or a later version as in force from time to time; or
(ii) the EASA in accordance with ETSO-C88a as in force on 24 October 2003 or a later version as in force from time to time; or
(b) another system authorised by CASA for this purpose.




5 It is a condition of approval that, unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, the ADS-B transmitting equipment must:
(a) allow the pilot to activate and deactivate it during flight; and



(b) transmit the current aircraft address.


Note The requirement in paragraph 5 (a) is met if the ADS-B transmitting equipment has a cockpit control that enables the pilot to turn the ADS-B transmissions on and off.

;)

[Joker 10]

The thread is about ADSB not TCAS.

[Frank Arouet]

Chaser;

I was being obtuse and the words "if compliant" keep popping up just like you do in different guises. Read the document properly.

Owen;

You are heading into a drift from thread if I start talking about Benalla. I don't want to go there so ask yourself similar questions from the controllers perspective WRT advisory's and alerts.

[The Chaser]

JokerCan someone for the purposes of rational comparison tell me of a TCAS system approved for IFR aircraft < 5700 kg that is less than $50,000 USD.
and; I can sit and watch the reply light to see if the transponder is being interrogated for hours on end, nada , nothing until I get back into radar coverage or on very occasional days I get a TCAS return from an aircraft that is close and who I am in contact with as directed traffic and can see on my TCAS. YOU raised the subject of ACAS and its relevance to ADS-B and Airspace! So answer Owens questions, and stop ducking and weaving!

Frank I have read it properly, my quotes put the relevance to your selective para quote. Just squaring up the whole story for the readers! As for poping up, and guises, POT CALLS KETTLE! :=

[Joker 10]

Go chase yourself, I asked for a comparision, I have always been concious of the cost implications of the introduction of low level ADSB for "free flight" VFR in uncontrolled air space.

my question was: Can someone for the purposes of rational comparison tell me

And I guess a followup question of the ATC people frequenting this debate is " what services will ATC be providing to VFR traffic OCTA non notified but transmitting ADSB out ?????? "

[OZBUSDRIVER]

9B.5 WOW! Now that spells it out in no uncertain terms.

Francis, thank-you ever so much for that link:ok:

Wonder if the local manufacturers are now taking a more serious look at ramping up to production.

Heard a whisper about new towers too. Seeing as the ministerial directive went along the lines of must also include radar approach facilities. Wonder if "Radar-Like" ADS-B fits the bill now?

[Frank Arouet]

No! you are not lost Owen Stanley, I know where you are.

I don't have a copy of your MOS. VFR day in class G would be different to IFR in controlled airspace. So tell me the answer you want and I'll write that. I don't feel like asking any "legends" today.

What some pilot or ATCO should or would do is not really at issue in this thread. (read the title again). Neither is TCAS nor ADS-"Broadcast" in class G airspace nor ADSB/ IN, or selective quotes from CAO 20.18.

Do you do flight following at Oodnadatta?


Edit for OZBUSDRIVER;

The link again http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao20/2018.pdf


9B.5 If an aircraft carries serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration, the equipment must be operated continuously during the flight in all airspace at all altitudes unless the pilot is directed or approved otherwise by ATC.

and Note On and after 12 December 2013, an aircraft must carry and continuously operate compliant ADS-B transmitting equipment in accordance with paragraph 9B.8. Apart from this, there is no obligation to carry compliant ADS-B transmitting equipment.

However, including the effect of subsection 9B.5 above, if compliant ADS-B transmitting equipment is in fact carried, whether voluntarily or in accordance with the obligation under 9B.8, it must be operated continuously in all airspace, at all altitudes.

What's your point?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, tell me you did pick up the essential piece of information from that reg. No?

the equipment must be operated continuously
during the flight in all airspace at all altitudes

There is no C, there is no G, when things start happening it will be EVERYWHERE you fly. Talk about telegraphing your punch!

[Frank Arouet]

when things start happening Let me know when. (and if I still want anything to do with aviation in this Country), I will re-adress the subject of cost benefit in class G /GAFA. But in the meantime, and until 12 December 2013, If an aircraft carries serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration, And it is not mandated I won't worry about the cost because it doesn't apply to me.

Of course you blokes who want this, need to have it MANDATED, don't you? Or else it is just an Airservices device that could lead to some Bureaucrat dreaming up air nav charges, (or their equivalant), and it is worthless as an anti collision device after 12 December 2013.

Talk about selfish. (and don't come the "safety clause again, politically speaking, it is a worn out mantra like global warming, red's under the bed, weapons of mass destruction, children overboard, the Brisbane line and a few sex scandals to liven up the story.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ahem-
A statement;

I strongly support the ADSB concept as a natural evolution of radar. Always have, and always will. I think it could be a valuable ATC tool in contemporary areas of debate such as Benalla.

I believe it should enhance safety in high traffic areas such as the "J' curve, indeed, anywhere a transponder is required.

I am unaware of any current move to have non TSO'd equipment approved for use where ADSB is mandated. Similarly I am unaware of any proposed subsidy schemes that may make any future mandated equipment affordable to an already financially stretched aviation industry.

Let me be very clear, I am not anti ADSB, nor is anybody within the industry that I have regular contact with.

People making these claims appear to be trying to focus attention in the wrong direction.

Is this the same guy?
Of course you blokes who want this, need to have it MANDATED, don't you? Or else it is just an Airservices device that could lead to some Bureaucrat dreaming up air nav charges, (or their equivalant), and it is worthless as an anti collision device after 12 December 2013.
My bolds...that sounds more like Leadsled talking.

Is this the same person who started this thread?

If this was a fishing trip you better tell leadie and Joker10-the bait is off, you hooked yourselves in the net again. Anyway, have fun...I know where this thread is going now.

Bye:hmm:

By the way, The Brisbane line did exist...and when you see it in the flesh it will make you cringe at the military prowess of our wartime leaders. An embarassment!

[The Chaser]

Frankcoit, you 2 (and a 1/2) men have shown (you eventually blurted it out in your last post) yet again what your real agenda is on this subject.

SGT SHULTZ would be proud :D. As you said Talk about selfish. your views on this subject are a living example of your quote :hmm:

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

anywhere a transponder is required

Should I add the word "NOW" as I have repeatedly said. If and when is the problem for you, not me. Give me a yell when it happens.

(I keep hearing this "white howling noise" in the background. (Sounds like a dingo). Someone should shoot it before it eats your baby.

[Joker 10]

So now we know the ATC guru's say VFR will get Flight Following OCTA low level, which means there must be a plan in the system or no Flight Following.

So ergo full reporting VFR OCTA is on the cards.

Whooopee

[Jabawocky]

Sorry to Bust the Myth Joker......... but a plan in the system is nice for a VFR flight following, but its not essential.

And in times of high traffic density many ATC would rather a pop up VFR with very little info required to assign a code and "tracking A to B at A045........

It often makes their life easier when mixing IFR Jets around them. At least they are known and verified for altitude and are semi predictable.

I think you have missed the point on this and a few other traffic management points. One being surveillence, and not so they can increase charges.

J:ok:

PS ATC's please feel free to comment and criticises my post if I am out of order.

[le Pingouin]

So now we know the ATC guru's say VFR will get Flight Following OCTA low level, which means there must be a plan in the system or no Flight Following.

So ergo full reporting VFR OCTA is on the cards.Eh, no. We have a lovely function called RADTAG which allows us to attach a label to any radar paint we want, even primaries, no plan required. Pop up, request flight following, tell us where you're going & we'll either get you to squawk ident or a discreet code. The discreet code is better in case your radar return drops out temporarily.

A flight plan is handy in that it provides functions like automated conflict alerts, route & level monitoring - great for your protection, but it's not a requirement for flight following.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, read the reg 9B.5 again. It IS quite clear. Can you please direct me to the particular subpart that 9B.5 refers to that says "anywhere a transponder is required"??

[Gear-down]

I recently got back from spending most of last year in the UK. Having flown ADS-B equipped aircraft, I think its bloody great, however in the UK, with flight levels starting at 3,000', it can look a bit crowded on the display! I was flying out of an airport just 15Nm South of Gatwick.

It's also interesting walking into the local flying club or the aviation supplies store and seeing a computer screen showing all the aircraft in the vicinity and by clicking on any of them, showing full description including pictures! :ooh:

GD.

[Joker 10]

So Airservices is going to resource such that all VFR traffic OCTA is going to be tagged with RADTAG and then what ???

I will be interesting at the first Coroners Inquest when someone goes missing in the GAFA.

I can hear the Coroner already, so if the aircraft was tagged why was there no flight plan and what services were being given to the tagged aircraft by Air Services. How did Air Services know where the aircraft was going and who was in it ?? Should be an interesting answer.

The current Flight Note system is smarter than that.

The comment from the U.K. is really interesting , a cluttered screen, go figure.

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

You quote my initial post on this thread at post #64 A statement;

I strongly support the ADSB concept as a natural evolution of radar. Always have, and always will. I think it could be a valuable ATC tool in contemporary areas of debate such as Benalla.

I believe it should enhance safety in high traffic areas such as the "J' curve, indeed, anywhere a transponder is required.


And then you ask, post #72, where "anywhere a transponder is required" is referred to in 9B.5.

I know you are too intelligent to be "ignorantly obtuse" so I can only assume you are creating mischief to confuse the "plebs".

You have until 12 December 2013 to get your low level ADSB mandate wish up. In the meantime, as I don't fly above FL290, I can fly along with my radio on and my transponder squarking 1200 knowing I am safe and legal in all airspace. If I happen to get my antique flying before I fall off the perch, I will carry a handheld radio, (as the aircraft doesn't have electrics), if and when I want to fly into a CTAF (R).

I hope this meets with your approval.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

So, now we have another attempt at diversion.

Joker, that is one very old argument. Now you want to link it to AirServices staffing problems? Methinks you are mixing up the requirments of CAO 20.18.9B5 as somehow meaning that AIrServices wants to see you EVERYWHERE. Could it also be that the CAO is directed at the idea of ADS-B Rx equipped aircraft being able to see those ADS-B Tx equipped aircraft when they are far outside the range of AIrServices provided DTI?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, you have kindly provided a link to a CAO which completely changes the argument as proferred within the JCP for ADS-B implimentation.

I am sorry but that CAO changes the thrust of even my argument. I expected the requirments only to go as far as "where transponder is required" as well. It makes no difference, I leave my transponder on (When prompted after T/O compliments of many reminders by Chief Galah and his mates:}) even when outside radar coverage....why would that be? TCAS equipped aircraft in vicinity heading into nearby CTAF?

Cripes, I use the same paragraph in a different reply...I am turning into DICK SMITH:eek::eek::eek:

Seriously Francis, think hard! What does and ADS-B transponder do as well as squit on 1090Mhz?

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

You are very wittly posting here and giving a running jaundiced commentary on that other forum for your cronies to diseminate. It would appear that you are not interested in any support for the ADSB concept unless that support is unconditional to your agenda which includes the whole industry being subjected to an immediate cost impost so a dozen or so PPL "enthusiasts" can feel warm and fuzzy about some perceived threat to their safety in class G airspace.

That other forum deserves you.

Gear-down;

Out of interest, and please take this as a genuine question, is there any class G airspace in the UK and if so, what proportion is "freeflight".

[peuce]

I can't work out whether the anti-ADSB brigade (although they say they are for it) have a problem with:


Being "surveilled"
The cost of the kit


If it's the surveillance philosophy, then lets debate that ... as it doesn't really matter if its done by radar, ADS-B, transponder, X-Box, Wiii or Commodore64 ....

If it's the money, then let's stop debating ADS-B ... and start debating who and how surveillance, and it's accompanying black boxes, will be paid for.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

You're not a very deep thinker, Francis.

What bothered me about the rollout of equipment was the potential costs. AirServices had offered $10,000 for VFR and $15,000 for IFR aircraft for fitment of ADS-B Tx equipment. Now, I am not singling out any manufacturer and indeed no manufacturer that I know of had done this but, business being business would set their prices at just a little more than what AirServices would stump up. That way they would get the maximum return for a product without any competition. AirServices would have set the floor price...being a bushie you would understand my fear when compared to the wool industry. no competition, no innovation...that was my fear of any cross-industry funding model.

Thanks to you guys and your lill frien, methinks the "subsidy" is dead. This is a good thing. Competition being competition will lead to more innovation at a more affordable price. The Europeans are already delivering equipment that is competitive with old technology prices...a good thing for those who must stump up...the owners.

If you just look at this a bit more dispassionately, the costs are much closer to what anyone would consider quite affordable. The price point for a Rx outfit is closer to $5,000AU than even your mob would begrudgingly conseed as cheap enough.

UAP, J-curve and ten regionals plus the mineral provinces as about as far as I am willing to bet 1090ES will penetrate. However, because of that little ability to communicate aircraft to aircraft projects ADS-B to where ever an aeroplane flies.....you could say along the same lines as the Qld Police used to define a road when chasing me and my mates on our off-road bikes...anywhere you can get a wheeled vehicle...and as far as the police was concerned that included a shopping trolley! ENJOY:}

That's the game, Francis. Stop trying to play the man. I am just wondering if my poor layman description is actually getting any traction with you.

Peuce, would I be very correct if I said you would have prefered to keep the old fuel levy based charging regime and remove the neccessity of paying a dividend to the sole shareholder?

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

methinks the "subsidy" is dead

Suffer the little children! There was never a subsidy and nobody offered anybody anything. The JCP was was the meandering thinking of a bunch of vested interests.

If it was never there in the first place how could "anybody" be blamed for killing it. The tooth fairy is not real. Everybody told you so.

Stop trying to play the man

What hypocrisy. I'd expect that from your very own "legend in his own lunchbox" the multi identity fraudster Mr James Michael.

good thing for those who must stump up...the owners

And that sums up your agenda. (deliberately quoted out of text).

I have a good working relationship with sharks. They don't drink in my pub and I don't swim in their ocean. Why don't you play with your own kind in their sandpit? :( End of discussion with you. Report that back.

[peuce]

Geez ... James Michael ... there's a name I haven't heard for a while ...

Anyway, back to the question ...

OZBUSDRIVER ... I'm not quite sure what I prefer, but I do believe that:


In general, the more surveillance the better ... for everyone
The dividend back to the Government is, at best a tax, at worst a rort
The User should pay ... however, being able to define the "User" in aviation, is the biggest challenge

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thanks for that, Peuce. I was hoping that was what you were thinking.

Right, Francis. Would you still support ADS-B ground receiver roll-out in the areas I have pointed out. EDIT to clarify...UAP, J-Curve, The ten major regional aerodromes and the mineral provinces.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, awaiting your reply:}

[le Pingouin]

So Airservices is going to resource such that all VFR traffic OCTA is going to be tagged with RADTAG and then what ??? Guess what Joker? The system I described is what we currently use. We don't RADTAG every VFR OCTA - only those who request flight following. I will be interesting at the first Coroners Inquest when someone goes missing in the GAFA. I can hear the Coroner already, so if the aircraft was tagged why was there no flight plan and what services were being given to the tagged aircraft by Air Services. How did Air Services know where the aircraft was going and who was in it ?? Should be an interesting answer. The pilot tells us where he's going when he requests flight following & it's his responsibility to advise when it changes. Other than I have no idea what you're going on about. The current Flight Note system is smarter than that. How exactly does that provide a traffic service? Joker, pay attention. Flight following is an on request service. We don't RADTAG every 1200 paint we see.

[Joker 10]

Pinguin,

So just how will ADSB out benefit VFR traffic OCTA if this is the level of service you say ATC are going to provide.

How exactly does that provide a traffic service? Joker, pay attention. Flight following is an on request service. We don't RADTAG every 1200 paint we see.

So if I an VFR at the edge of the Strezleki Desert, no note, no plan what benefit will ADSB out provide ??

[Jabawocky]

Depends which edge and where the radio receivers were to be based, but Birdsville, Innamincka, Willy Ck, Leigh Ck, Coober............. lots of places that may well have a ground station. They have ATC radio there now in the GAFA (mostly) so why not!

Cheers! :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky;

It was a question to which he already knows the answer and that is written at permalink #1 of this thread. I don't feel like responding to loaded questions that can and are be used on other forums to vilify and ridicule.

On another twist to the VFR "MK1 eyeball" being the first and last line of defence in the circuit, I note confirmation via another source;

John McCormick has cancelled the NFRM, which proposes changes to the CTAF system. (it's now a NOTAM). He believes mandating radio procedures as had been proposed would not improve safety. He felt there was too much reliance on radio at the expense of actively looking outside the cockpit. He prefers to place the responsibility and judgment back on to the pilot. He said, however, if safety became compromised he would have no hesitation in mandating procedures.

It would appear he does not recognise any present safety issue that needs addressing by looking at anything inside the cockpit while in the circuit.

[le Pingouin]

So if I an VFR at the edge of the Strezleki Desert, no note, no plan what benefit will ADSB out provide ??About as much use as radio, ADF, omni, transponder & ELT. But you still carry those.

[KittyKatKaper]

F.A. You obviously don't like anything that will produce an 'alerted see and avoid' environment.
My MkI eyeballs are not capable of seeing a mozzies' proboscis at 1nm range (unlike yours), so I'm not proud to accept any assistance that'll help me... I don't care from what source that assistance comes from, it can be ADSB-IN or an ATCO or a tower or a CAGRO or radio calls., I don't care.. What I do care about, is being alerted when someone is in my near neighbourhood and ADSB-IN is a very nice way of doing that, but it will need at least the same level of fitment ala mode-C/S transponders.

[The Chaser]

Joker 10So if I an VFR at the edge of the Strezleki Desert, no note, no plan what benefit will ADSB out provide ?? Other equipped aircraft (including IN and/or ACAS) will be able to see you (traffic alerted), know specifically who you are (aircraft address) so they can call you by your rego/callsign, and if ADS-B enabled ACAS equipped, they will have accurate azimuth and trajectory information making ACAS calculated resolutions that much better. All of that completely independent of ATS surveillance!

FrankcoitOn another twist to the VFR "MK1 eyeball" being the first and last line of defence in the circuit, I note confirmation := via another source Is not what Mr McCormick said. He said:-He believes mandating radio procedures as had been proposed would not improve safety. Not that radio has no safety benefit! :ugh: The last sentence makes that quite clear:-He said, however, if safety became compromised he would have no hesitation in mandating procedures You do understand the difference between what he said, and what you want to suggest he said - don't you? :hmm:


All of that is separate from and implies no negative realtionship regarding the safety enhansements available through ADS-B OUT, onboard ADS-B IN, and/or, inside or outside ATS surveillance veils := no matter how much you would like it to sound so! :yuk:

My bolding, underlining and in quote emoticons

[En-Rooter]

Other equipped aircraft (including IN and/or ACAS) will be able to see you (traffic alerted), know specifically who you are (aircraft address) so they can call you by your rego/callsign, and if ADS-B enabled ACAS equipped, they will have accurate azimuth and trajectory information making ACAS calculated resolutions that much better. All of that completely independent of ATS surveillance!

You look like a bit of d!ckhead after that one Joker, eh, eh? ;)

[En-Rooter]

It was a question to which he already knows the answer

Well why did you ask the question then Frank? eh, eh? ;)

[En-Rooter]

It's also interesting walking into the local flying club or the aviation supplies store and seeing a computer screen showing all the aircraft in the vicinity and by clicking on any of them, showing full description including pictures!

Stone the bloody crows the government is watchin' their every move :cool: Not bloody movin' over there if they're gunna watch my every move :ugh: (wonder if the government has a camera in the cockpit to see if I'm pickin' my ar$e and tax me for it?)

They're coming to take me away uh-huh, uh-huh :ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

Oh dear, the cargo culture continues...never ending GPS 'signals' to feed our ADS-B system, ...and fatten our wallets......:rolleyes:

Can somebody show me the signed guarantee that the GPS constellation, that Oz does not own, will continue to give free and uninterrupted for ever more ?.....:hmm:


...then there's the little terrorist 'miss-use' problem.......:ooh:

[The Chaser]

Oh dear, the 'we'll all be ruinned said Hanrahan' culture continues, never ending GPS 'signals' that continue to feed our existing GNSS navigation systems across most transport sectors, with 3 additional GNSS constellations in the making as we speak, all guaranteed to be free (by worldwide government decree) to end users ;)

Somebody has already shown us the signed guarantee that the US GNSS constellation, that Oz does not own, will continue to give free and uninterrupted for ever more ! and that in the event of a significant military need, signal jamming in the theatre area is the only interruption that could be considered, and only after HoGD and the Oval sign off ;)

And there's the tiresome regurgitation of the little terrorist 'miss-use' red herring. Were GNSS lost, the loss of Navigable ability (except for the back-up ground based aids), and the retention of PRIM and SSR radar (150nm radius around the head) at capital cities would mean, at worst, a partial loss of regional surveillance to ATS, which will be known immediately (in real time) to both pilots and, where applicable, the affected ATS. The degraded mode would in fact be, the ATS system we have today! :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

Oh dear, the 'we'll all be ruinned said Hanrahan' culture continues, never ending GPS 'signals' that continue to feed our existing GNSS navigation systems across most transport sectors, with 3 additional GNSS constellations in the making as we speak, all guaranteed to be free (by worldwide government decree) to end users http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Somebody has already shown us the signed guarantee that the US GNSS constellation, that Oz does not own, will continue to give free and uninterrupted for ever more ! and that in the event of a significant military need, signal jamming in the theatre area is the only interruption that could be considered, and only after HoGD and the Oval sign off http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

And there's the tiresome regurgitation of the little terrorist 'miss-use' red herring. Were GNSS lost, the loss of Navigable ability (except for the back-up ground based aids), and the retention of PRIM and SSR radar (150nm radius around the head) at capital cities makes, at worst, a partial loss in regional surveillance areas, which will be known immediately (in real time) to both pilots and, where applicable, ATS. The degraded mode would in fact be, the ATS system we have today!

Try again 'call-sign' The Chaser...:hmm: ...terrorist 'miss-use' will mean permanent shutdown of the civy GPS system.

...all this and more has been covered in previous threads....:)

[Jabawocky]

The degraded mode would in fact be, the ATS system we have today! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Quote of the Year!!! goes to you Mr Chaser. :D:D:D

And why the :mad: do some of the guys not understand this.........Just proves how thick naive and unwilling to think some folk are. Of course if we all thought like that, we would still have morse code for coms, telex machines...... or worse be even further back and have a string and two jam tins! :eek:

Not to mention that these same knockers are using a PC and the internet to post their outdated and irrelevant views.:ugh:

[The Chaser]

...terrorist 'miss-use' will mean permanent shutdown of the civy GPS system. A link to a US government site the that says that please. Whilst you are at it, a link to ...all this and more has been covered in previous threads Then I'll dig out the formal agreement (with link) that disproves your claim. Thankyou

[Joker 10]

No they won't

Other equipped aircraft (including IN and/or ACAS) will be able to see you (traffic alerted), know specifically who you are (aircraft address) so they can call you by your rego/callsign, and if ADS-B enabled ACAS equipped, they will have accurate azimuth and trajectory information making ACAS calculated resolutions that much better. All of that completely independent of ATS surveillance!

With out antenna diversity , mode S transponder able to handle diversity and C145/146 GPS and a multi function screen to see enabled returns on as a basic requirement.

[Flying Binghi]

"...terrorist 'miss-use' will mean permanent shutdown of the civy GPS system."

A link to a US government site the that says that please. Whilst you are at it, a link to

" ...all this and more has been covered in previous threads "



As ah said, covered in other threads - do some basic background research The Chaser...or are you just here to waste time ?...:hmm:


Then I'll dig out the formal agreement (with link) that disproves your claim. Thankyou

As ah say...time waster.....:hmm:

[Frank Arouet]

En-Rooter;

Re #94, why did you ask me why I asked a question that I didn't ask? Perhaps you meant to ask why OZBUSDRIVER asked the question that he already had the answer to?

Or are you just dumb?

[Frank Arouet]

KittyKatKaper;

F.A. You obviously don't like anything that will produce an 'alerted see and avoid' environment.

Don't you mean The Director of Aviation Safety-Australia "obviously" doesn't like anything that will produce an alerted see and avoid environment"?

I simply quoted him, noting, that it appeared his focus was to get people to look out the window in the CTAF while using correct radio proceedure. HIS WORDS NOT MINE.

Is that not the basis of alerted see and avoid?

[En-Rooter]

I'm dumb Frank, maybe that's why I understand you so well :ok:

[En-Rooter]

As ah said, covered in other threads - do some basic background research The Chaser...or are you just here to waste time ?...


As ah say...time waster.....

Perhaps Mr Chaser would like the posts in this thread so they can be answered. (for about the 700th time)

[The Chaser]

JokerNo they won't With out antenna diversity , mode S transponder able to handle diversity and C145/146 GPS and a multi function screen to see enabled returns on as a basic requirement. Yes they will, without antenna diversity (top and bottom aerials), as per the standards, (and as contained within) the required output (watts) caters for this. Mode S is not required as per previous sentence, and as per the standard/s. ADS-B Out GNSS driver needs to be C145a or b (blind or non/IFR source), and 146a or b IFR NAV source, or as approved by the CASA (provided the GNSS output includes the required signal integrity and accuracy fields), which is of course a separate issue from the IN story.

The output data stream from ADS-B IN can be fed in to most all MFD’s (fixed and Plug in), that is not the end of the IN story though. More than one manufacturer is bringing to market ADS-B IN derived autonomous audio traffic alerting (synthetic voice) that will be wired to audio panels (fixed) as part of the installation. Further, existing TCAD and ACAS equipped GA aircraft can have ADS-B IN integrated and display both sets of target traffic, with both audio traffic (scheduled) alerting. The only difference between the two is that ADS-B IN data will be providing a clock reference (azimuth) accuracy above that currently employed.

You know who to contact locally, directly to confirm the above, assuming you really want cold hard facts. Go on, ring them, one such number is +61 (0)3 83190968 (taken from the web), located at YMMB, or; you could print off the freely availabe install manuals most manufacturers provide on the web, note carefully pin allocations, if you need help with the decoding, ask an avionics LAME. In fact, with your phone plan :E, I'm sure you could also afford to ask the same questions of the O/S manufacturers directly! Go on, you know you want to, dial now (as many others have) after all, it is only 10.49am in the UK, you could start with the manufacturers already mentioned in this place (numerous times) such as TRIG, VOLKSLOGGER, FUNKWERK, there are others as well, and, be sure to check up on GNSS drivers whilst you are at it!

Bingshi Thank you, predictably, no factual support, nor answers. Playing the man rather than the ball? I’ll be waiting with that factual reference should you decide to include something, anything to support your scribblings!

Frank Don't you mean The Director of Aviation Safety-Australia "obviously" doesn't like anything that will produce an alerted see and avoid environment"? What’s your game? I am sure the DoAS is quite sure alerted-see-and-avoid is a must, otherwise he would not have made the jump to Class D vice GAAP, particularly considering that Class D requires Alerting IFR to VFR, and VFR to VFR (Directed Traffic Information) which is of course alerted-see-and-avoid, further the DoAS has not removed radio calls at CTAF, in fact nor has he removed the current CTAF (R) requirements, a less robust form of alerted-see-and-avoid procedure than CTA D! You do see the difference between actual reality, and your interpretation/s as written here?

[En-Rooter]

Mr Chaser, thankyou :ok::D

Mr Joker, well?

Mr Frank, well?

Mr Binghi, well?

............................................................ ................?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Joker10, this one should do the job for you....available as of July 4th, 2009
SELEX 1090ES LARX (http://www.selex-comms.com/internet/media/docs/1090_Light_EN_LR1.pdf)

and for larger aircraft-
SELEX 1090ES RX (http://www.selex-comms.com/internet/media/docs/1090_Receiver_EN_LR1.pdf)(they both do "Diversity")

Binghi???

Francis, it is a lot easier just looking at the facts and stop trying to twist them to suit your own arguments. Either you are all for ADS-B fitment or just shut up and if you do see a hard problem against fitment then say something!

You know where we are different, I can argue both sides of this argument as easily as one.....because I have looked very hard at both sides of this argument! Believe it, there are more pros than cons.

Think what you like.

[Frank Arouet]

Well, I have stated my position at post #1 and you have chosen not to accept my offer of support for the interim until the radar becomes redundant. Every other clown from the other sandpit has had his say and remains the same boring repetitious ridicule and thread drifting opposition to anything but blind obedience to your agenda.

So, I guess we have said it all.

See Ya.:p

[Flying Binghi]

Bingshi Thank you, predictably, no factual support, nor answers. Playing the man rather than the ball? I’ll be waiting with that factual reference should you decide to include something, anything to support your scribblings!


Hmmm, new callsign The Chaser seems familiar....:hmm:



Binghi???

OZBUSDRIVER, after yesterdays events i'll be staying quiet on this subject for a few weeks...:(

[tail wheel]

Hmmm, new callsign The Chaser seems familiar....:hmm:

Yes it is. An old friend has returned to the fold! :ok:

The Chaser - check your PM's for our welcome back message! :E

Yes Frank, I think this thread has well and truly passed it's use by date and is now a haven for those in love with the sound of their own keyboards!

Tail Wheel