Garmin drops Aussie weather information on GAR56 units

[Dick Smith]

I have two aircraft, each of which carries an Iridium GSR56 Garmin unit. I have just discovered that all the METARs and TAFs for anything other than the major city airports in Australia have disappeared. In contacting Garmin, they have told me:

The Australian BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) does not include the information for the smaller Airports as from 16th October 2012, as part of the information we purchase from Air Services Australia. The reply we have received:

"According to the contractual arrangements relating to aviation funded data held by the Bureau of Meteorology, these data must not be provided by the Bureau of Meteorology to external clients. All operational data for aviation should be received through Australia’s Aviation Information Service (AIS), Airservices Australia at Flight Briefing | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/flight-briefing)


I should point out that until 2012 all of the smaller airports were transmitted by the Iridium GSR56 unit.

This seems extraordinary! Does anyone have any information on this issue? Can you imagine – you pay a huge amount of money for the service and then they drop 95% of the information and don’t even inform anyone!

I also cannot understand why Garmin should be charged some huge amount of money when anyone can go onto NAIPs and get the TAFs and METARs free! This is, of course, a safety issue – more and more aircraft will have this GSR56 Iridium download weather information fitted to their aircraft, but if most of the airports do not appear it is a complete disaster.

I look forward to advice from anyone who has any expertise on this. Possibly someone from Airservices can advise what the charge would be for Garmin to get this extra information, if there is any charge.

[Snakecharma]

Dick, as far as I can tell the issue is the "source" of data used for preflight/inflight operational purposes.

I use an app called aeroweather and it doesn't have Australian BOM radar sites because of the same or similar restriction (can't remember the exact reason).

Perhaps the approach is to declare that the information provided through the garmin device is used only for "informational" purposes and all data used for operational decision making be sourced from AERIS, Volmet or similar.

The rules which describe what can be used for "operational" purposes is quite restrictive and there must be a way of managing it in a sensible way..

Seems the powers to be (whether it is ASA or CASA or BOM I don't know) have a concern about liability if someone uses a data source and then has a prang and the subsequent court of inquiry decides that they used "unofficial" data sources for operational reasons

[greenslopes]

Agreed Dick , I too have experienced a similar issue having paid for the Australian Oxford Dictionary App to find it is no longer supported and therefore no longer exists.
Very frustrating. I wonder if many more Apps etc have all the bells and whistles , sell a heap and then when demand wanes simply stop providing operational support and effectively 'wind it up'. Then move onto the next 'Hot' thing and the cycle repeats.
Back in your day Dick I think they were called Carpetbaggers.

Ooroo

[thorn bird]

"when anyone can go onto NAIPs and get the TAFs and METARs free!"

Often wondered, as its free, why you have to obtain a user name and password to access NAIPS.
Could it be that CAsA require this so when they ramp some unfortunate out in the boonies who says, "yeah got my weather via my Iphone" they can prove he didnt, thereby creating another "criminal" they hadnt caught up until now?
Remember the CAsA creed " Never let "safety" get in the way of a good prosecution!!

[dubbleyew eight]

I have never been able to get a NAIPS login since the change.

I mentioned this to a mate who told me he has always gotten his weather through AOPA.
but I'm not a member.
neither am I he said.

the aopa interface is better than airservices' and it works.

[nitpicker330]

Just mount an external antenna on your Jet/Chopper/Caravan and use the 4G network. My iPhone and iPads can get NAIPS easily using Apps.

Probably wouldn't need an external antenna anyway, mine work ok as is.

[thorn bird]

Now Nitty you havnt been using an electronic device in a aerial vehicle while airborne have you???:=

[Jack Ranga]

Dick,

User pays............have you forgotten the term & who introduced it?

[Dick Smith]

Jack. Don't go on with that misinformation. User pays was introduced by the Henry Bosch Report- before my time.

I was the one who reduced costs so the industry would pay less. Staff numbers down from 7000 to 3500 through the Review of Resources under Frank Baldwin.

I also removed the mandatory full reporting requirements for VFR aircraft. I'm just back from a circumnavigation of PNG in the Longranger. Had to put in a full position flight plan each day and I am waiting for the en-route charges to come in.

They cost the industry a fortune.

[dubbleyew eight]

genuinely glad to see you've been out flying Dick. keep it up.


its a pity you hadnt sacked the whole lot of them actually....

[peterc005]

Dick, I know it's a bit off topic, but where have your food products gone from the supermarket shelves?

Whenever I go to the supermarket I always try to buy a couple of your products.

[thorn bird]

I also remember a Dick mantra "Affordable Safety" no one in their right mind could say what we are facing now is affordable, nor will it do anything to improve safety.

[kellykelpie]

Dick, this must be frustrating. I've just tried to update my Garmin maps for $100 but the update didn't work. Many emails later to Garmin and they can't explain the problem. That's it! Nothing more they can do! I will steer clear of Garmin from now on.

[Dick Smith]

Peter. We have never had better support from the Supermarkets for our Aussie products. Whenever we check a claim of no stock we always find them on the shelf. But hard to see as normally near the floor. The Supermarkets give the best positions for the products they make most money from. These will always be the imported products from the big multinationals.

Thanks for your support. We are plannning to donate over $1 million this year from DSF.

Thorn I got very little support from the industry when I explained to the Aussie public that safety regulations had to be affordable by those who pay- otherwise that part of the industry closes down. - just plain commonsense .

Some dopes even reckoned that I introduced " affordable safety". What rubbish - it's a fact of life otherwise participation levels will drop. As they now are in GA

[thorn bird]

Dick I whole heartedly agree, at least you tried.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Speaking of things of yore....

Who was it who introduced the phrase...(mantra)...
'Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost you Less'..??

It didn't then and it isn't now....

Cheers

[Dick Smith]

I loved Flight Service. Especially how they would loan you a car in Ceduna, book you a hotel room in Charlieville , and phone the local newspaper every time I landed at Dubbo.

Problem was that the CAA Board decided to introduce en - route charges for VFR.

I solved that problem by removing the service.

Sorry Griffo - but many could not afford the duplicated FS/ATC system.

PNG retained the full position mandatory reporting system for VFR and now charge the industry a VFR en route charge for the service..

It's expensive !

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Cast your mind back a few years, and the stoush between Jepp (and others) and Airservices, because Airservices asserted copyright over AIS data that Australia is treaty bound to provide, and which is normally provided free, in the ICAO format ??

Then consider the anal nature of Australian criminal law surrounding the provision of unapproved persons purporting to provide aviation "operational information". ie: for example, the huge crime of ringing someone up at an airfield and asking your mate to have a look out the window at the local weather --- that is, and unapproved observer yada yada yada.

I would hazard a guess that the answer lies somewhere here, aided and abetted by the CASA/Airservices/maybe others aversion to any suggestion of liability, and to hell with any adverse consequences for aviation safety.

[dubbleyew eight]

John Howard knew that there was a problem but didn't know what it was and didnt know how to fix it.
so he removed their immunity from prosecution.
I believe that some of their cases of bastardry have eventually cost them millions.

most definitely a clean out needed.

[LeadSled]

so he removed their immunity from prosecution.
dubblyeue8,
Not so, in the CASA case, and CAA before it, the ability to sue and be sued was in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 from day1. Nothing to do with Howard.
About like the myth of who was responsible for "user pays" ( and it wasn't just aviation, it was "whole of Government") let's get the facts straight.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanks for your response Dick, however I seem to remember that a 2c per litre levy on the price of avgas covered the cost of providing 'Good Ole F.S.'

2c is chicken feed these days.....possibly as much as 48c per hour for the Baron I used to fly then....a 6 hour trip = $3... :ugh:

However, as has been said, it's gone, and now there is nothing to replace it...
Try calling 'Centre' for an update etc, 'when workload permits' they MAY be able to respond / assist....

Happy landings

[Slippery_Pete]

I feel your pain, DS.

But I guess you need to look at the advantages too.

The quality of TAF coming out of the BoM/ASA is an absolute disgrace. In the last three years the standard of forecasting has dropped immensely. Also, the provision of updates for severe weather changes is poor. I don't know if this is a BoM issue or problems relating to ASA getting the information out.

A few controllers I know think that there must have been retirement of some senior forecasters, or that they are relying to heavily on computer modelling for aviation forecasts.

Sorry you are missing this information on smaller strips with your Garmin setup, but you'd be better off just carrying an alternate permanently, than relying on what constitutes a TAF these days.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

CASA....

At a CASA 'Safety Seminar' I attended at JT, some time ago, the CASA rep, in her presentation, made a major point of emphasising that AirServices Australia is the ONLY accredited provider of MET info for flight planning / operational purposes, and therefore, ALL such MET info should be obtained ONLY from AsA!!
Note - NOT even from the BOM 'direct'!

This, despite the fact that AsA get it DIRECT from the BOM, and I can tell you that, as an ex FSO, it was transmitted by us, decoded of course, as it came, straight off the printer or whatever....

However, despite a lot of following questions about 'AWIS' and 'other' sources, the response from CASA was the same - the ONLY approved service provider is AsA - despite the fact that on the bottom of Area Forecasts, is the advice to ring the BOM on 'this' phone number for any elaboration / explanation....

" REMARKS:
FOR MORE INFORMATION RING THE AVIATION FORECASTER ON [08] 9263 2255."

Go figure....as they say...:}:hmm:

Would this perhaps be the answer to your original question Dick..??
Garmin are not AsA....

[Dick Smith]

So how come Garmin supplies ASA/BOM wx of all the capital city airports?

[Snakecharma]

I reckon they can probably get that data from a foreign approved source such as the NOAA

But just guessing

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, either wittingly or un...you were the stalking horse for Hawke/Keating to perform a hostile takeover of the CAA. User pays was the mantra. Asset stripping was the game. Your crusade to reduce costs played right into aviation hating ALP hands.

Sorry to say...reap what you sow!

[Shagpile]

It could just be a technical reason. AsA changed their web interface last Dec requiring a complete rewrite of client interfaces.

[Jack Ranga]

I'm sorry Dick, but this all started on your watch mate. User Pays & Affordable Safety. All yours.

[Bevan666]

So how come Garmin supplies ASA/BOM wx of all the capital city airports?

Simple reason - this is available from the FAA for free. All WX data (opmet) is distributed via the AFTN to anyone who wants to listen (other ANSP's etc).

'Official' forecasts need to be provided by AsA (our 'ANSP') and these are then distributed over that network.

If anyone else in the globe wants to 'listen' and then make available these forecasts they are free to do so. However it does come with added overhead - filtering the messages and ensuring they actually meet the required ICAO standards for example.

Garmin are quite free (and more than capable) of getting this data through an official means (either from AsA or another ANSP), however it will come at a cost, and they have obviously chosen not to do this.

Contact me directly if you want more info.

Bevan..

[Dick Smith]

But why would Garmin want to pay when anyone can get from NAIPS for free?

Do you have any idea on how the charging is done. Is it the number of airports or the number of downloads? What type of money is involved. Is there a published price list? I hope not kept secret.

Also I understand the the AsA act says primacy must be given to safety. Looks here that they are putting profits in front of safety.

[Dick Smith]

Oze. I am actually proud of the reforms I brought in that saved the industry a fortune

Notice you don't even have the guts to post under your real name . You are a coward. If you are going to say inaccurate defamatory things about named individuals at least have the guts to post under your own name .

This also refers to you Ranga. What you are saying is a lie. Affordable safety has always been a fact of life. User pays is no more mine than it is yours. And you must know this in your heart , that's why you have to defame annonomously . Pathetic!

[Bevan666]

But why would Garmin want to pay when anyone can get from NAIPS for free?

NAIPS is free for end users (pilots), but not free when you pass data from it to other users.

The costs are not insignificant, but if we can afford it, I am sure garmin sure can too!

[LeadSled]

Dick, either wittingly or un...you were the stalking horse for Hawke/Keating to perform a hostile takeover of the CAA. User pays was the mantra. Asset stripping was the game. Your crusade to reduce costs played right into aviation hating ALP hands.

Sorry to say...reap what you sow! Oz,
What utter rubbish --- Have you got two, you couldn't get that silly playing with just one. The Bosh Report was a "whole of Government" report, adopted as policy by Keating as treasurer, aviation was not singled out. Nor was aviation singled out in the application of the change to "user pays", instead of "taxpayer pays". Part of the justification for the theory of user pays is that it will result in increased economic efficiency, because "users" will buck about unjustified costs, and soon work out the services they don't really need, but were happy to accept, as long as someone else paid.

I'm sorry Dick, but this all started on your watch mate. User Pays & Affordable Safety. All yours.
Jack,
You seem to have the same configuration as Oz, or is it a matter of inconvenient facts, that don't coincide with your prejudices, are just ignored.

As for affordable safety, all regulation has a cost, far too much regulation in Australia is over regulation, with cost impositions that have no possible cost /benefit justification, and in aviation, all too often no justification at all, let alone cost/benefit justification ---- just look at Part 135 & Part 145 applied to light charter, and Part 61 applying to all of us.

All Dick was ever on about is that Safety is not "priceless", and he always emphasized spending the finite safety dollars where they would do most good.

What we are getting now from CASA is "safety" without regard to cost --- completely unaffordable safety ---- and it is driving business offshore or in to the dirt.

The AHIA estimates that the new Part 61/141/142 will put 40% of helicopter schools out of business, it will eliminate most small fixed wing flying schools --- Australian unaffordable safety at its pristine best.

Unfortunately, with the honourable exception of AMROBA, all the alphabet soup organisations have done nothing effective about stopping the CASA regulatory overkill.

Tootle pip!!!

[thorn bird]

Leadie,
never a truer word was spoken.
and Dick, as I said before, at least you tried to bring the "Iron Ring" under control, the industry should at least thank you for that.

[Dick Smith]

Thanks. I am amazed. I am told that the situation is now worse than it was in the "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" days.

I started the Regulatory Reform process for one prime reason - to remove every unnecessary cost. This is now completely forgotten .

Those in the industry who criticise me for mentioning that safety regulations must be affordable by those who pay are simply playing into the hands of those who want to deny this.

[dubbleyew eight]

in the biscuit barrel of aviation dick you are a good cookie.
W8

[thorn bird]

"Thanks. I am amazed. I am told that the situation is now worse than it was in the "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" days."

Dick it has gone way past worst, it has entered the end game, on Dec 4th this year.
There are more foreign students enrolled at one flying school in New Zealand than there are in the whole of Australia, reason? CAsA have priced Australia out of the market. Looked at your maintenance bills lately? Its two thirds cheaper to maintain the same aircraft in the USA as here.You would be far better off putting your aircraft on the US register than trying to comply with the dogs breakfast we have for maintenance rules.
Check out the AMROBA website.
I'm prepared to make a bet with you that within ten years GA in australia will cease to exist other than heavily subsidised entities that politically CAsA will not be able to shutdown. I dont blame you for walking away after the denigration you endured, its sad but many in the industry chose to shoot the messenger, rather than heed the message, or warning, however you want to look at it.

[Dick Smith]

Thorny. Your claims are staggering. Do you have a link to information on the flying school numbers. Australia versus New Zealand?

The election before last the Coalition said it was going to ensure Australia became a world leader in flying training - what happened to that. Seems to have been removed from current policy.

Has training of overseas students increased in the last few years here? Should have.

[triadic]

Dick, talk to some of your contacts at major flying schools and you will hear a tail of terror in that the new part 61 will be so difficult to comply with they will choose to close down. Heli schools will be worse. I have heard that some schools will be faced with costs approaching $100k pa to stay alive. Many instructors will have numerous tests pa, some perhaps as many as 70 !! There are many holes in this change and only the Minister has the power to change or delay it and as it has already passed in Parliament then it is there that the changes should be pushed. With the new maint requirements it is indeed possible that GA will die over the next decade unless something is done to help make it work. Take a recent change in 100.5 in regard to transponder checks... the easy way to comply is to remove the transponder and keep flying. As we all know, TCAS does not work too well if the target does not have an operating transponder!! And CASA say it is all about safety - what rubbish!

:mad::mad:

[tail wheel]

Do you realise Australia no longer has a Minister for Transport and a Dept of Transport, responsible for civil aviation?

Aviation now comes under the Dept of Infrastructure and Regional Development with Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development and Jamie Briggs MP Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.

[Paragraph377]

Do you realise Australia no longer has a Minister for Transport and a Dept of Transport, responsible for civil aviation?
Aviation now comes under the Dept of Infrastructure and Regional Development with Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development and Jamie Briggs MP Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.

Tailwheel, at least there is some consistency in this. It shows that successive governments of whatever creed simply don't understand aviation or the implications of what a lack of safety in general, and safety oversight, may have on the countries balance sheet, especially if a 380 or a new Carbonliner end up at the bottom of a smoking impact crater. And GA is a critical revenue earner and your governments have been pissing away potential income by buggerising GA for years. Your international passenger and air freight components are critical revenue streams for your incompetent governments, yet they are prepared to piss that all away by allowing regulatory oversight to diminish to such a poor state that the FAA has considered downgrading Australia's safety rating. Not even the risk of a ban with the subsequent palpable flow on affect which would rob Australia of billions of dollars is enough to motivate any government in recent years to take the axe to CASA and the ATSB, and then restructure and repair the decades of destruction????
Is there something in the water down under that destroys brain cells in politicians? Are these bureaucratic imbeciles really that stupid?? Really??

Oh well, Dick, you may have had good intentions with regulatory reform but it has morphed into a quarter of a billion dollar bastard child of Frankenstein, and the beast continues to grow. And Dick, hate to tell you this but one of the key problems at CASA was also around during your tenure and was stitching you up behind your back way back then, so really what hope do new incumbents at CASA have of making real change when the the old problems still remain?
Hell, before long even YOU won't be able to afford to fly, comply and maintain your whirlybird! And that's saying something mate :eek:

[Jack Ranga]

Dick, (and Leady), apologies, what I meant to say was this happened on our watch. In some ways we've let all of the government departments get away with...........

[triadic]

Tailwheel said:
Do you realise Australia no longer has a Minister for Transport and a Dept of Transport, responsible for civil aviation?

Too right I do and it is a disgrace. The last Aviation Minister, I recall was a pilot and now fly's his own chopper. Pity he lost his post due to expense claims etc.

Truss is the man whatever the title of the Dept and he must be lobbied to have these part 61 changes at least postponed until all of the anomalies are sorted out and we can see some benefit from the proposed changes.:suspect:

Can't wait to see what the Libs do with their review of CASA. I trust the leadership and the Board get the boot. Can't be much worse. The Board should have more aviators on it so at least they know what is being passed across the table!!:ugh:

[tail wheel]

Truss is the man whatever the title of the Dept and he must be lobbied to have these part 61 changes at least postponed until all of the anomalies are sorted out and we can see some benefit from the proposed changes.

Truss has been in that position before. I think he was trained by John Anderson! :{

[Creampuff]

You obviously have a very short memory, triadic. :=

CASA had a Board,

Then it didn’t have Board.

Then the Board was reinstated.

It has had Board members who claimed to have expertise in aviation.

No matter who’s on the Board, a bunch of people will claim that someone else would be better.

But the key point is this: Having a Board and not having a Board has made zero difference, no matter who’s on it.

[Frank Arouet]

Having a board which has the incumbent Director of Aviation Safety on board, (beating his chest), and having that board report to the Minister seems like a waste if the Director of Aviation Safety can report to the Minister himself.

The only board that made any difference to operational matters was the one Dick chaired. He was faced with a directive from (Gareth Evans I think), to bring in user pays which was to be implemented across all the government regulatory institutions. He simply tried to make that transition as painless for us in the industry as possible.

Since then boards have been useless and a waste of money.

The Director of Aviation Safety should report to an independent ministerial appointed Industry Commissioner who reports directly to the Minister.

Any nominations?

[Dick Smith]

Frank. If I remember correctly Allan Wood was the Chairman of CAA when the labor Government introduced so called user pays.

Nearly two years later I said to The then Prime Minister Bob Hawke that the rate they were going we would not have a General Aviation Industry in Australia.

Hawke told me to fix it and made me Chairman.. A number a major changes were made and I introduced a Regulatory Reform programme under the very capable Ron Cooper. Within about six months reforms were introduced that saved tens of millions in costs.. The instruction was simple. - remove every uneccessary cost.

Before I finished my term the then Minister Bob Collins asked me if I would re new

I said no way as I was completely fed up with dopes in the industry - that I was actually helping - attaching me . I also wanted a real life where I was not dreading every day an Airline crash.

I also had quite a capable team in place.

Within months of my retirement Ron Cooper had a serious medical issue and left and CEO Frank Baldwin was forced to resign under trumped up charges because he would not cow tow to the ATCs who demanded Hughes equipment for TAAATS

It was all downhill from that time.

Can you believe it. There are still people who deny that the cost of Aviation Safety regulations must be affordable by those who pay. This has allowed the Canberra Bureaucracy to be completely un accountable and costs to increase and increase.

My time as Chairman with CASA was pretty much a waste of time because Minister John Anderson would not support any reform which could have him in the newspapers. This in practice meant no reform so I quickly left and got on with my life.

What has happened with the regulatory reforms process is nothing short of criminal. Instead of concentrating on removing unnecessary costs they have done the opposite.