ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Underfire, you haven't acknowledged the 23bit identifier and it is relationship to security of the transmission.

EDIT- my bad, make that 24Bit!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK, I'll humour this argument for a bit. Say an intrepid "spoofer" has accessed a large number of codes to attempt to flood the system. That means he sets up within line of sight of a receiver station. He starts transmitting his spoof. Does he only put strings of data surrounding the geographic location of said receiver or does he push further afield by transmitting bogus data for the entire continent? In the case of TAAATS...I wonder if there is a filter to remove data that is outside the coverage area of said receiver...is he silly enough to attempt this within the coverage of both SSR and primary radar of a major aerodrome?

I have read ONE account that is plausible re-spoofing GPS signals therefore spoofing navigation data and, conversely, ADS-B data. However, this was within the confines of a football stadium and with the means of drowning out, parroting and then streaming erroneous GNSS signals** within a limited field of view of the horizon. Theatre wide?, Id say Buckley's on repeating that experiment in the real world...and that is the closest I have ever seen anyone actually getting close...not even in the ballpark, if you pardon the pun.

**The vulnerability? The receiver carries an updated almanac of the GNSS constellation. The receiver cannot tell if all the satellites do a sudden left turn. It just measures the time delay of the signal and computes a position.

[underfire]

There is a difference between integrity and security.

This is an important slide from Boeing 2012. Note that while the current state of ADSB is version 2, and that is what the US is mandating for 2020, AUS is mandating Version 0 with no upgrade requirements.

http://i60.tinypic.com/34gn1aq.jpg

What should also be noted is that a ADSB and UAT aircraft cannot 'see' each other. A dual mode ADSB/UAT system?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Underfire, care to explain the difference for us plebs? Maybe, according to Boeing, why version 0 and Boeing is still going to fit version2 from a certain data anyway?

[underfire]

Ask the expert leadsled.

[Old Akro]

If there is airspace where better than procedural standards can be used because you can now 'see' all the aircraft it will lead to significant savings, free up many flight levels, and routing restrictions etc.

These savings only occur if all aircraft are ADS-B equipped. 90% of my flying is under 10,000 ft. So, I am mixing with VFR aircraft which have no timeline for ADS-B and RA(Aus) aircraft which may have no transponder at all.

So, I am forced to pay for an upgrade that will give me zero benefit.

Australia is the only country in the world requiring all IFR GA aircraft to fit ADS-B.

[Hempy]

Zero benefit? VFR is VFR, see and be seen in Class G (cheers Dick!) You are forgetting IMC conditions, when the only other aircraft you are mixing it with are other IFR a/c in IMC. Would you like directed traffic information based simply on pilot estimates, or do you think you might get a 'benefit' out of a DTI service from ATC who can actually 'see' both you and the conflicting aircraft and pass advice accordingly?

This thread should have been titled 'ADS/B Mandate - Axe to Grind', but we all know Dick's penchant for the ersatz dramatic attention seeking one liners..besides, no one else would have posted.

[Creampuff]

How often are IM Conditions so widespread that no VFR are flying (below the rarified atmosphere of FL290?).

For the technical experts, how hard/costly will it be to upgrade from a version 0 system (meeting the DO-260 standard) to a version 2 system (meeting the 260B standard)?

As I recall, one of the reasons for people resisting the proposed subsidy ‘carrot’ was that their aircraft would end up with an ‘orphan’ system.

[underfire]

First off, where are all of the alleged 'experts' on this board?

Creampuff, there is not a simple answer to that. Version 2 1090ES is still in the works, as are the associated parameters.and it is likely that by 2020 it will be version 5 or renamed.

Ver 2 UAT is also in the works. As noted in previous posts, 1090ES and UAT ac cannot 'see' each other. Consider that when the FAA states alt for 1090ES/UAT. I have not heard of a combo 1090ES/UAT system out there, so that should tell you where all of this is going.

What to look for is the parameters and equippage associated with V0 vs V2 et al.

The US mandating V2 (so far) is significant. The ac must have the equippage and redundency to provide the paramters required.

[Jabawocky]

Version 2 1090ES is still in the works

Maybe for Boeing, but not the rest of the world. Most Garmin/Trig either are or can be via software update, when connected to the correct GPS source, i.e. DO 260B.

I think Much Ado about nothing here.

[underfire]

It is in the works for the FAA, not Boeing. By the time it gets settled, who knows. Again, READ the FAA website, the latest and greatest is all right there.

Where will airspeed and all of the other variables come from? The requirements for connections to the ac GPS? What about the IRS?

Do you think that an ATC or other system built on the broadcast of the position , speed, and altitude will not have to have redundancy built in?

It will not be simple, nor should it be. It will be just like other flight systems on the ac... multiple, redundant sources.

[LeadSled]

Ask the expert leadsled. Folks,
Maybe underfire doesn't know himself.

Maybe he thinks he is being helpful in letting us know that UAT and 1090ES don't talk to each other, but he might have added in that VDL-4 ( quite extensively used in US and Scandinavia --- the first ATC certified use of ADS-B was the VDL-4 system)

Actually, he (or is it she) isn't telling us anything we haven't known for many years, 15 at least.

Tootle pip!!

PS: An in depth 0.5 second search revealed the below nor very recent info.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icao.int%2FWACAF%2FDocuments%2FAPIRG%2F SG%2F2011%2FCNS_SG4%2Fdocs%2Fwp20_en.pdf&ei=lFHuUu6dMsmokAXny4DAAQ&usg=AFQjCNFOVYXVU8UkPwk3RlTxU2jAd962RQ&bvm=bv.60444564,d.dGI

[Jabawocky]

Like so many things in life, that slide is technically correct, but potentially misleading in the context in which it has been posted. It would be more correct and less misleading if it showed that Australia (and other countries in Asia Pacific region) support DO 260, DO 260A and DO 260B - all three standards (Boeing's "versions 1, 2, 3") simultaneously. :ouch:

There are plenty of compliant aircraft in each category right now. Through some very good engineering by Airservices Australia, all three standards work here - and are approved by CASA for airworthiness and ATC separation - now, today. Boeing may not yet have a DO 260B US compliant solution for its customers, hence the vertical line on the right running from "Boeing Retrofit" at the bottom.

As usual, discovering anything that anyone with half a brain could get from Google is one thing, care interpreting accurately what it means is entirely another! I call it "Critical Thinking".... a bit like when you read a POH! ;)

There are many non-Boeing types flying, including Airbus, Bombardier, Lear, Beech, Gulfstream, Lockheed, Vans RV's and even Cessna that are already compliant with the Australian rule and have no dependency on Boeing's retrofit solution. Some of these have DO 260A solutions that can be readily upgraded to DO 260B at a later date. ;)

The Australian decision tree is very simple:
1. Does the aircraft fly at or above FL290?
2. If no, no action necessary until 2017.
3. If yes, is there airframe manufacturer data (SL, SB) for ADS-B?
4. If no, pursue an Australian EO.
5. If yes, is the design DO 260B, 260A or 260?
6. If more than one is available, choose the highest spec.
7. If DO 260A or DO 260 and the aircraft flies within US airspace, be prepared to upgrade to DO 260B before 2020.
8. If DO 260, ensure that the aircraft navigator outputs HPL.
9. If DO 260B, just install it and the aircraft will comply with the US 2020 rule NOW.
10. Whichever one you install, the aircraft will comply with the Australian rule with no further upgrades.

Also worth knowing is that the jump from DO 260A to DO 260B will not be significant. In many cases, it will be just software and/or paperwork.

The differences between DO 260, 260A and 260B were well covered in a regional ICAO paper back in 2012 - http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2012_ADS_B_SITF_11/WP18_HKG%20and%20SIN%20Joint%20WP%20on%20DO-260,%20DO-260A%20and%20DO-260B.pdf

Back to the original posters gripe:
Even if the aircraft never goes to the US, it still makes sense to upgrade it now to meet the rules in other Asia Pacific countries. Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam require 1090ES ADS-B within the next 12 months, either in their whole FIRs, or on certain airways, at and above FL290.
If you do the simple SL work now and are therefore ADS-B compliant, wouldn’t the jet be worth that much more and then some when you offer it for sale in the US?!?

Food for thought. :hmm:

[Creampuff]

So if there’s no ‘bandwidth’ issue or ‘orphan system’ issue with 1090ES ADS-B, there is no technical, regulatory or practical constraint or downside (other than cost) in installing the system in an Australian aircraft. :confused:

Dick: Do your engineers know what they are talking about?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From Today's Avweb site ..(USA)...

'Financing at competitive rates to reduce cost to retrofitting...'

Avionics Makers Partner With NextGen Fund to Help Finance GA Modernization

Aspen Avionics and FreeFlight Systems have announced partnerships with the $1.5 billion NextGen Equipage Fund’s financing program to help general aviation aircraft owners obtain inexpensive financing to meet the ADS-B and other mandated avionics retrofits. With over 150,000 aircraft affected, the NextGen Fund will provide financing at competitive rates backed by loan guarantees and will use proven credit management practices that reduce cost and other barriers to retrofitting the general aviation fleet.

Aspen Avionics said that its Memorandum of Understanding with the NextGen Fund provides the framework for Aspen and the NextGen GA Fund to work together to promote the rollout of NextGen to the general aviation community. Together, Aspen and the Fund will help aircraft owners acquire affordable, innovative avionics solutions through attractive financial incentives. FreeFlight Systems said that its high-performance, American-made, FAA-certified avionics are designed for retrofit in general aviation aircraft to meet ADS-B and other NextGen equipage requirements worldwide. FreeFlight Systems is making its avionics available for purchase under the NextGen Equipage Fund’s financing program. This will enable general aviation owners to equip for NextGen without large upfront costs. Loan payments would be deferred until specific NexGen services are delivered to the aircraft operators by the FAA.

Cheers:ok:

[Flying Binghi]

So if there’s no ‘bandwidth’ issue or ‘orphan system’ issue with 1090ES ADS-B, there is no technical, regulatory or practical constraint or downside (other than cost) in installing the system in an Australian aircraft

There is the fact that ASA/CASA don't own the GPS system. Nor do they control the GPS system. Also they have no written guarantee that the GPS system will be available for use at a future time. Apart from that its all happy smokes..:)










.

[Jack Ranga]

Griffo, is your beast fast enough for ADSB? :E:E the receiver might think it's a Morris Minor!

[Hempy]

Oh Binghi...really? US logistics run on GPS...road freight, mail, rail, you name it. They couldn't shut it down now if they wanted to..

[Check_Thrust]

There is the fact that ASA/CASA don't own the GPS system. Nor do they control the GPS system. Also they have no written guarantee that the GPS system will be available for use at a future time.*sigh* you are still flogging that same tired argument....

[le Pingouin]

Until the ABC stops AM broadcasts ;-)

[Frank Arouet]

Nobody can doubt the peculiar atmosphere in Australia caused DME (A). I can't help thinking of the parallels with Australian only ADSB early introduction.


My little aeroplane is aerobatic in The US but as our air has less grip, as I'm led to believe, it's not aerobatic here. Actually there are lots loosing a grip these days. Somebody may be able to explain this to me?

[underfire]

PS: An in depth 0.5 second search revealed the below nor very recent info.

Yes, and this is the very heart of the AUS mandating V0 while the FAA is mandating V2... (and Airbus/ Boeing ac are currently supplied with V1)


http://i59.tinypic.com/j91wkl.jpg

Edit: resized the image

[T28D]

apparently if the font is big it is more credible !!!!!!

[Capn Bloggs]

apparently if the font is big it is more credible !!!!!!
It's an image, and the correct size for Prune. ;)

[Old Akro]

The proposal/Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...leName=jcp.pdf

Cost Benefit Analysis of Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...e=analysis.pdf


Jaba - These are dead links. I tried searching ADSB & analysis without success.

Interestingly, this 2011 CASA paper does not show ADSB as mandatory for IFR aircraft below 10,000ft.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/airspace/download/dp1102as.pdf

Nor does this 2010 paper from CASA

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1006AS (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100228)

See annex D

I'm interested when and how it was decided that we would be the only country in the world to mandate ADSB for GA aircraft under 10,000 ft.

Yesterday climbing out in marginal VFR weather (on an IFR plan) I was separated from a VFR aircraft who did not have functioning mode C by virtue of the controller asking the other aircraft's altitude. On the second of February 2017 after I have spent my $25k the same situation will still exist.

So, why am I being forced to spend the money for the upgrade when there is no demonstrable benefit for my safety or efficiency of operation?

Tony Abbott & Joe Hockey said it yesterday. Its the end of the age of entitlement. Public servants in airconditioned offices in Canberra should not be entitled to cause me expense without transparent justification.

[Up-into-the-air]

OA:

I did find the file which was recently posted on:

Cost benefit analysis ATLAS Project 2007 - ADS-B (http://vocasupport.com/?p=2877)

I have not yet found the other file Jaba referred to

[Jack Ranga]

Count yourself lucky the VFR was talking to ATC. 90% of them don't.

[Jabawocky]

Akro me old....

They do work (just re-checked them) :ok:

The proposal/Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/newrules/airspace/jcp/,svFileName=jcp.pdf

Cost Benefit Analysis of Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/newrules/airspace/jcp/,svFileName=analysis.pdf

Click and download via a PC not a mobile device. And be patient, they are being dug out of their electronic archives! (buried under too much youtube and pprune)

Re; your below from DP 1102AS – Sept 2011
Interestingly, this 2011 CASA paper does not show ADSB as mandatory for IFR aircraft below 10,000ft.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...d/dp1102as.pdf

It says:
8. ADS-B OUT
8.4 Therefore, CASA has reviewed and revised the four phased proposals in DP 1006AS. The new proposals are outlined below:
CASA’s position
Existing and new IFR capable aircraft: On the basis of the suggestions and support received from industry, CASA has decided on a compliance date of 1 January 2017 for existing IFR capable aircraft that are placed on the Australian aircraft register before 1 January 2014. That compliance timing provides for a period of more than 5 years for completion of the installations. For new IFR capable aircraft placed on the Australian aircraft register on/after 1 January 2014 a mandatory forward fit requirement will apply from that date.
(Proposal 7)
CASA intends to proceed directly to NPRM on this position.
All IFR Akro

The below (DP 1006AS - 14 Dec 2010) predates the aboveNor does this 2010 paper from CASA

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1006AS

See annex D
Being an earlier document it does in part, bottom Left “31/12/13 Forward fitment: ADS-B OUT new installations in existing aircraft and all new registrations”

DP 1102AS (the first of your referred links) was the follow up to the earlier DP 1006AS!

6-7 years lead time running up to 2017!

[Jabawocky]

ooops forgot to answer this bit :ugh: (jaba ya dill)
Why the change??? (don’t shoot the messenger) :uhoh: =jaba

DP 1102AS
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/airspace/download/dp1102as.pdf

Primary Means NAV

5.3 The basic justification for a mandate and the compliance timing is that it obviates the need for AsA to replace a large number of its navigation aids (mostly non-directional beacons and distance measuring equipment installations) which are rapidly approaching or already at end-of-life. AsA has estimated the cost saving of contraction to a backup navaid network to be about $120 million. In addition, advanced navigation applications such as Required Navigation Performance (RNP) navigation, User Preferred Routes, Flexi-Tracks and Area Navigation based Standard Instrument Departures and Standard Terminal Approach Routes are available using the GNSS.

5.4 For the foreseeable future some 180 existing terrestrial navigation aids are to be retained as the contingency means of providing alternative navigation for aircraft that retain ground-based navigation aid capability. The remaining (some 250) navaids are mostly at end-of-life, do not have spares support by manufacturers and are difficult and expensive to maintain and cannot be effectively supported beyond the end of 2015. AsA has informed CASA that, subject to the establishment of the GNSS mandate, it will commence decommissioning of the non-backup navaids from 1 January 2016. GNSS navigation provides safe navigation and greatly improved operational efficiencies in comparison with area navigation using ground navigation aids. CASA is satisfied that during the transition to satellite navigation the back-up terrestrial network will provide a level of alternative navigation in the extremely unlikely unavailability of GNSS. The cost/benefit of the GNSS mandate is clear cut in overall terms.
ADS-B OUT Component

8.5 As stated above, CASA does not intend to mandate for ADS-B OUT carriage by VFR aircraft in Class G airspace at this time. However CASA will maintain the existing requirement for the carriage of a transponder for aircraft operating above A100 in Class G airspace. This long established requirement mandated by CASA Legal Instrument is for the purpose of traffic detection by TCAS II equipped passenger transport aircraft. It does not necessarily require the target aircraft to have a Mode S or ADS-B OUT capable transponder, a Mode A/C transponder remains satisfactory for that purpose.
8.6 CASA will review and remain abreast of developments over the next 3 to 5 years and reconsider the case for a total fleet ADS-B OUT environment beyond year 2020 to support ADS-B IN based air-air surveillance for future air transport operations aircraft.

Hope that helps :ok:

[sunnySA]

Isn't this all about PBN? If you want access to airspace then you need the appropriate kit, be that radio, transponder, altimeter (RVSM), ADSB.
Isn't this all being driven by the ASTRA Council and the big end of town?

ASTRA Council
The ASTRA Council represents a broad cross section of the aviation industry, and is responsible for the development and reporting of industry policy in relation to ATM matters, and for the running of ASTRA.
ASTRA has established a charter that aims to define the role, structure and necessary business rules to enable Council members to fulfil the Government’s and industry’s expectations to provide formal advice on air traffic management directions for the future.
The Council reports to industry through its members. The Council members are individually responsible for reporting and representing their constituents’ views.

Industry Associations
Airports Association of Australia (AAA)
Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia (AAAA)
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Australian Business Aircraft Association (ABAA)
Australian Sport Aviation Confederation (ASAC)
Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA)
Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus)
Board of Airline Representatives of Australia (BARA)
Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia (RFACA)

Individual Companies
Qantas Group
Virgin

Service Providers
Airservices Australia

Permanent Observers
In addition, a number of Permanent Observers have standing invitations to attend meetings of the ASTRA Council, providing expertise and assistance with coordination of ATM related matters within the industry:
Australian Airline Pilots' Association (AusALPA)
Civil Air Traffic Control Australia (CivilAir)
Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (GAPAN)
Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Transport (DoIT)
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Australian Maritime Safety Agency (AMSA)
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Australian Defence Force (ADF)
Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)
Jeppesen Australia
New Zealand Airways Corporation

The ASTRA Council produces an Australian ATM Strategic Plan, providing a common coordinated national strategy to support the ATM community to make investment and other decisions with confidence.

ASTRA plans over the long term and anticipates the development and application of technology and operational practices for the next 20+ years, consistent with ICAO’s Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept but applied to the Australian operational context.

The ASTRA Council aims to provide leadership and direction on the future capabilities and technologies required to deliver an ATM system, that will meet the following needs:
• is responsive to airspace users
• safe and accommodates demand
• is globally interoperable
• environmentally sustainable and
• satisfies national interests including defence and security.

Project planning for the funding, acquisition, introduction and development of Australia’s ATM system is the responsibility of the service providers and user organisations.

[Jabawocky]

One last post, WRT the VFR traffic and Ranga's post Count yourself lucky the VFR was talking to ATC. 90% of them don't.

hmmmm there was almost a deal for you until scuttled by a few who frequent this place :ugh:

Or you could have had it on ya iPad for $100 (ADSB-In) if you wanted too ;) Sadly lost.....horse bolted, gate swinging in the breeze.

I am over it with this thread, not much I can add now. Except to say that even my ADSB DO260B compliant jigger is about to get a very big upgrade by mid year. Unlike some I see value in updating and reinvesting in GA. :ok: (Includes newer txpder and GPS/NAV/COM). Ya want a good deal on some gear? PM me.

[Old Akro]

Isn't this all about PBN? If you want access to airspace then you need the appropriate kit, be that radio, transponder, altimeter (RVSM), ADSB.

My whole point is that AsA are alone in the world in requiring ADS-B for OCTA airspace under 10,000ft. All IFR aircraft will be required to undergo what will frequently be a $25,000 upgrade regardless of the airspace they use. VFR aircraft in the same airspace are not required to do the upgrade. Safety is only as good as the weakest link.

Unlike some I see value in updating and reinvesting in GA

Jaba, I don't actually disagree. But I'm angry at the intellectually sloppy way in which CASA / AsA is implementing this. It looks to me like 406 Mhz ELT's and Part 61 licences all over again.

AND except for the odd transit through a terminal area, I will receive NO safety or efficiency benefit. Because the IFR flights I do are primarily in class G airspace, ATC have zero ability to provide better separation or traffic advice because VFR, RA(Aus) and gliding traffic will not be similarly equipped.

Last year about halfway to Mildura while I was in cloud and solid IMC I was given a traffic warning of a VFR aircraft flying a non ICAO level opposite direction at the same level - 8,000 ft & class G from memory. (how it was VFR, I have no idea). This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.

Also last year in Class E airspace somewhere west of Ballarat while I was cruising in VMC on an IFR plan at 9,000 ft I had a nearish miss (alerted by ATC) with a homebuilt RV with a non functioning (or turned off) transponder once again flying opposite direction at a non ICAO level. This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.

Probably the closest call I have had was some years ago during a MECIR renewal near Latrobe Valley. We were on an IFR plan and starting the descent for the GPSS RNAV. The weather was VFR, but we were in an out of cloud a bit on the descent. We were on an IFR plan and in contact with ATC. Due to some bad luck with timing and a frequency change both the chopper and us we missed each others calls and for reasons unknown we never received an alert from the controller. We passed within metres of the VFR chopper (and yes, the incident was reported). This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.

ADS-B is effectively an additional tax on me flying IFR.


I did find the AsA report "justifying" the costs and I think its laughable.

1. If you add up the costs to industry (presented in a way that scatters them through the document) then you pretty much get the $120m that AsA is saving. Therefore, this is just a way of transferring public expenditure to private aircraft owners.

2. One of my favourite bits is that they have used the 5.5% reported fuel savings they got from airlines and applied it to the GA fleet.

3. There is no distinction between C129a GPS units and C146a units. There is no discussion (or costs included) from the upgrade of C129a GPS units to C146a units required for ADS-B fitment.

4. There is general discussion about the feasibility of using C129a GPS units coupled to Mode S ES transponders to reduce installation cost (used in an abstract manner to mitigate the overall cost), yet this now seems to have been dropped completely from the debate.

5. The IFR fleet size used in the cost calculation of PBN equipment is different than that used for ADS-B upgrade. One of the figures is wrong.

6. There is no genuine discussion of alternatives. Top of this list would be a discussion of the option of implementing ADS-B in a similar manner as Europe or Canada (both using ES without the benefit of UAT) and both of which excluded GA.

7.Unlike the US, there has been no recognition or discussion regarding either the cost of upgrade compared with hull value or the ability of the industry to pay.

8. Unlike the US there has been no discussion about the feasibility or safety benefits of adopting ADS-B IN to allow the provision of traffic information.

9. The whole of the paper focuses on the reduced costs that AsA will incur from the implementation but (unlike the US version) presents virtually no discussion on the impact to industry.

[TBM-Legend]

From todays Avionics News:

Tuesday, February 4, 2014
ADS-B In 'Not Likely' by 2020, IG Says
Woodrow Bellamy III
[Avionics Today February 4, 2014] Avionics that enable pilots to receive real-time information about their position and the airborne location of other aircraft, or Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In, will "not likely be ready" for mandate by 2020 under the FAA's NextGen program, according to a new audit monitoring the program's progress issued by the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

The FAA is mandating that all aircraft flying within the National Airspace System (NAS) are equipped with avionics that outwardly report the real-time position for tracking by air traffic controllers, or ADS-B Out. However, the agency is behind schedule on initiating rulemaking activities requiring the use of ADS-B In, which the OIG claims is a key provision "intended to accelerate NextGen technologies."

Within the latest report, the auditors also note that the FAA missed a February 2013 deadline required by the FAA's 2012 Reauthorization Act to establish rulemaking for issuing ADS-B In guidelines and regulations. OIG also believes it is uncertain when these provisions can be implemented and what the cost will be.

"As a result, FAA will not likely be ready to mandate the use of the technology by 2020, as required by the act," OIG says.

Delays in issuing ADS-B In guidelines and regulations are due in part to the agency's need to finalize requirements for displaying traffic information in aircraft cockpits. Also contributing to the delay is the need for the FAA to modify the systems that controllers rely on to manage traffic, develop and deploy new procedures for separating aircraft using satellite-based technology and assess potential system security vulnerabilities, the report states.

"Moreover, as we reported last year, users are concerned about investing in aircraft avionics for ADS-B and other NextGen initiatives because [the] FAA has not clearly defined what benefits will be achieved and when," OIG says.

FAA officials told the auditors that budgetary issues have had a significant impact on its modernization efforts with NextGen, and that they're still reeling from some of the provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011. Further complicating that was the sequester and 2013 government shutdown, which caused the FAA to further fall behind schedule on several of its modernization efforts.

Despite criticism of the agency's progress with ADS-B In, the FAA is expected to complete the ground infrastructure required to facilitate the use of ADS-B Out this year. Since there is still no mandate requiring ADS-B In, airlines and operators will continue to focus on the 2020 mandate for ADS-B Out.
- See more at: Avionics Magazine :: ADS-B In 'Not Likely' by 2020, IG Says (http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories/ADS-B-In-Not-Likely-by-2020-IG-Says_81194.html#.UvFjayjC7Ip)

[Jack Ranga]

Akro, I work LTV low level, the radar coverage out there is not the best, if I get you at 5000 it would be lucky. We don't have access to the ESL radar, (you may want to ask ASA why not).

Interestingly, I can see ADSB equipped acft in the cct at ESL. Radar coverage O/H ESL is around 8-9000ft. It has it's benefits.

I'm still confused as to how it is going to cost you 25k? My GTX330ES cost about 4.5k from memory. Granted I can install it myself so 20k to stick it in a hole??

P.S. I can guarantee you that if the controller saw the traffic they would have passed it to you. The rules are explicit on this, we don't sit on our arses watching these situations. If something happens, we saw it & did nothing we're in court.

[LeadSled]

Old Akro,
Part of th e "problem" is that CASA and AsA (whether deliberately or otherwise I will leave to you) "confuse" cost/benefit justification and cost/effectiveness analysis, two different animals.

As your figures show, it is very cost effective for AsA, as for cost/benefit --- a joke in very poor taste, this without regard to the very doubtful "savings". Something called "proponent bias" is very evident.

Given the limited IFR traffic below FL 290, it is very difficult to show any cost savings to operators from the theoretically available reduced separation standards available with ADS-B OUT, likewise with reduced vertical separation, it is very hard to show real savings versus ausep standards.

Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

I'm still confused as to how it is going to cost you 25k? My GTX330ES cost about 4.5k from memory.

Mode S ES transponders have only been available for (I think) less than a year and the prices are starting to drop as there becomes competition. At the moment the choice is Garmin or Trig. Soon it will be King as well (and maybe Avidyne?). Which in itself is a good reason to delay.

I think at the moment you can get a mode S ES transponder for about $3.5k. Anyone who has a King KT76A (ie most people) and fits the Garmin unit requires a new tray and a panel relayout (the Garmin is just a bit taller). I would prefer to wait for the King unit which might be available later this year. That requires new pin outs, but not a new tray (I think).

The Mode S transponder requires a new gray code altitude encoder for nearly everyone with a legacy mode C transponder. That will be about $1k

The big hitter is that I cannot use my current C129a GPS. So I need to fit a new C146a (WAAS) GPS. At the moment the only options are a Garmin 430W (while they are still available) GTN 650 or GTN 750. In a year there will be King and Avidyne options also.

The very cheapest option is a secondhand Garmin 430W which will probably be about $7k. A new 430W about $10k and a GTN 650 about $12k (all from memory).

The WAAS GPS needs a new antennae & cabling. So the interior needs to come out for the install.

The WAAS GPS (in my case) will replace a King Nav/com - so I will need a new CDI. That's about $2k.

The new WAAS GPS will also require that radio stack to be relaid. So more labour.

My guess is that 3 separate engineering orders will be required by CASA. At typically $350 each that's another $1k.

Total materials so far : $14.5k using a secondhand 430W.

Plus installation labour??? My guess is 40 hours @ $100 / hour = $4,000

Total $18,500 with a secondhand Garmin 430W or about $23,500 with a new GTN 650.

[Creampuff]

Hey Jabba and Jack

So when CASA repechages the rule requiring that all mandatory flight and navigation equipment and instruments be approved by CASA, will you be as enthusiastic?

Remember, CASA is concerned that “a number of amateur-built aircraft” are flying “under the IFR using non-approved” systems.

Are all the systems in which you are happily “reinvesting” approved by CASA for your aircraft?

[Up-into-the-air]

Have you not Creamie, really put your finger on the actual problem here. There are tso standards that all owners must abide by in order that an aircraft can be used in an ICAO compliant airspace.

The issue is, as you say:

approved by CASA for your aircraft? This is the real problem we all have - this takes our aircraft to become orphaned in terms of re-sale.

Approved by casa does not cut much ice in terms of a sale into the US environment.

Rollon US-FAR's for all

[Jack Ranga]

Creamie, the only non TSO'd stuff in my aircraft is the G3X.
GTN750
GTX330ES
SL40
GI-106A
It has 3 layers of electrical redundancy. It has 3 separate GPS sources. It has backup TSO'd ALT, ASI, AH. It's going on the register IFR.

I had to add stuff to the panel due to ex LAMES at CASA protecting their industry buddy's maintenance income streams.

So, yes Creamie, I'm relatively happy now ;)

Akro, are you complicating things? Why can't you stay with C129a?

[dubbleyew eight]

jack does it fly like a dog with all that weight?

[Jack Ranga]

W8, it's lighter than Jaba's (sorry Jab :E) ;)

[Frank Arouet]

I miss my Bendix T12C. I could listen to the cricket while flying VFR legally above 8/8's cloud. I even had a licence to drive that and a VOR but I don't have one for this new gadgetry. I do have a wireless licence.

[Jabawocky]

Actually, I think I will change my mind.

For Sale: (At todays new prices)
1 x Toyota 86
1 x Toyota 200 Series GXL Landcruiser
1 x Apple Macbook
1 x RV10 with all glass (2014) panels and avionics


Wanted to Buy: ( At the new price of their day)
1 x 1973 HQ Kingswood
1 x 1967 Toyota FJ 40 series L/C (older than me)
1 x Apple......errr case of Granny Smiths and an abacus
1 x 1965 Piper Comanche 260 absolutely original condition (no upgrades at all please - except maybe the AWA DME ;))

Ohhh yeah and 240 ground based nav-aids......

I should have lots of money left over :D

[Hempy]

The guy has an Airprox with an aircraft he is required by law to self separate with (as is the chopper pilot), misses standard CTAF calls, and doesn't know why ATC hasn't passed traffic on the VFR he's almost hit (hint: "3.15.1 In Class G airspace, a traffic information service is provided to IFR flights about other conflicting IFR and observed VFR flights. MLJ flights are considered to be IFR for traffic purposes regardless of flight planned category. Services provided may be based on ATS surveillance system data where coverage exists.") and still can't see how extended surveillance will enhance safety for pilots at all operating levels. It's like immunising children, just about everyone needs to do it or it's a waste of time. You share airspace with users who aren't required to fit the equipment...low level airspace that is intended to be the domain of VFR, given most IFR equipped a/c can climb above A100. Thats your choice. Safety to the majority of IFR a/c will increase. In 10 years every a/c will be fitted and in 20 no one will remember the vocal minority. Save your dollars and fly VFR for the next few years and then take up bowls.

p.s Before you get stuck in, tell me what the Coroner would have concluded..

[Old Akro]

Akro, are you complicating things? Why can't you stay with C129a?

Not permitted. C146a is mandated for ADS-B

[Old Akro]

low level airspace that is intended to be the domain of VFR, given most IFR equipped a/c can climb above A100.

This is the only bit I have trouble with. Most IFR aircraft are not pressurised. So most of the 3,000 odd GA IFR aircraft are below 10,000 ft.

And dear Aunty CASA requires specific approval (& airframe log book entry) for oxygen - even portable systems. Bring back a portable system you buy at Oshkosh, use it here and you are illegal.

[Old Akro]

Jaba

The real analogy is that I have a L/C 100. I've upgraded the radio to include bluetooth for the mobile phone and I (for the sake of the argument) have upgraded it with a DPF (Diesel particulate filter) so that it meets the same emissions standards as the new L/C 200 V8 Turbo diesel.

I'm driving along the freeway and look over and there's a guy weaving over the road in the same year L/C 100, billowing smoke and holding a mobile phone to his ear.

I down and I see a homebuilt clubman sports car in between us. Its open top. It has been built to kit car standards and has not undergone any safety tests and has unknown compliance to emissions standards and is not fully compliant to ADR's (Australian Design Rules) because the law doesn't require it.

Here's the kicker. The clubman pays less registration because its lighter. The front number plate has fallen off the other L/C 100, so its not paying the freeway tolls. I'm the only mug on the highway who has paid money to be compliant with road rules and vehicle certification (once again hypothetical)

So I am paying more for the ability to use the same piece of freeway.

[Jack Ranga]

And dear Aunty CASA requires specific approval (& airframe log book entry) for oxygen - even portable systems. Bring back a portable system you buy at Oshkosh, use it here and you are illegal.


This little black duck will be bring back a system, legal!

And I will guarantee you that my sports car will piss all over any aircraft of it's class in the certified ranks, both build quality & equipment redundancy, guaranteed :ok:

[Jabawocky]

hehehhehehehhe

Can't help but have some fun Akro :ok: I like your analogy Ol mate .. ridiculous, incomprehensible, but entertaining none the less :E

Satirically corrected version of Akro’s analogy:

I have a L/C 100. I've upgraded the radio to include bluetooth for the mobile phone and I (for the sake of the argument) have upgraded it with a DPF (Diesel particulate filter) so that it meets the same emissions standards as the new L/C 200 V8 Turbo diesel. My L/C 100 is also equipped with an all weather guidance system so that I my use designated roads to towns with no/low-vision arrival off ramps, day. night, zero visibility fog etc! In order to ensure I do not hit another L/C 100 in low/no-vis I can pay a fee, and friendly operator from the Roads and Traffic Authority will monitor my drive and advise via Satellite radio when other low/no-vis cars are around me, as well as make sure I don’t miss my off ramp, each of which has its own special guidance beam signals!

I'm driving along the road on a section where the weather is OK, so other drivers not paying for a low/no-vis service are also driving, and look over and there's a guy weaving over the road in the same year L/C 100, billowing smoke and holding a mobile phone to his ear. I shake my head and take care to give ‘Murph’ a wide birth!

I also see a homebuilt clubman sports car in between us. Its open top. It has been built to kit car standards and has not undergone any safety tests that I know of and has unknown compliance to emissions standards and is not fully compliant to ADR's (Australian Design Rules) because the law doesn't require it. But my fears are allayed as the Clubman is obviously compliant as this registered vehicle is also in receipt of a low/no-vis service, and the R.T.A. operator has just advised me of the ‘clubman’ being in the same area on the road. The Clubman is paying the same fee as me for the low/no-vis service. The R.T.A operator has luckily seen ‘Ol Murph’ on an R.T.A camera and advises both myself and the Clubman of his presence even though ‘Ol Murph’ is not self-announcing on the radio, nor paying attention to other road users!

Here's the kicker. The clubman pays less general registration because its lighter. The front number plate has fallen off ‘Ol Murph’s’ L/C 100, so it is not approved nor able to pay a fee and drive in no/low-vis conditions. That's lucky!

Perhaps I should buy a clubman (less rego) and only drive in clear visibility conditions (like ‘Ol Murph’)

Hope ya get a giggle :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

That was farkin' funny Jabman :D

[Frank Arouet]

Seeing as 'Murph' is driving in a controlled freeway, as he does once a year when he comes to town to get the 'rings done', (you know with traffic lights and lanes, parking meters, pedestrian crossings and coppers), he has his transponder on, plus his horn, (which he doesn't need back on the farm), and everyone with a TCAS can see what he's up to, even the coppers, the tax man, the toll booth and security cameras. The only ones who can't see him are those buggas without a TCAS that isn't mandated to be able to see him. Only the coppers can do that. You see they need to see him so they can send him a bill for driving on their roads even though he pays the same for them as they do. Recently the coppers told him he is going to have to get a transponder for his bull as the bell isn't loud enough for the city folk to hear when they are driving on his dirt roads over his grids and through his property.


His missus reckons he should stay out of the city as it's full of wankers.


'Murph' just brought a 36' boat and is gong to piss off to New Zooland with his budgie and 'go native'. (been watching too much of that new fangled TV I reckon).

[Jack Ranga]

Yours is funny too Frank, but Jaba's is funnier :ok:

[Jabawocky]

You take things too personally ;)......the name Murph to me means a true Kiwi Legend. And driving cars....nothin to do with boats. :confused:

And he has his transponder on.... 2m 06.859s :ok:

Greg Murphy's Bathurst Lap Record HD - YouTube

[Old Akro]

true Kiwi Legend

I thought we had claimed him! Along with Sam Neil, Russell Crowe, The Finn Bros and pineapple lumps

[CaptainMidnight]

<yawn>

Is this thread done yet?

[Jabawocky]

No.....and who asked you! We are just getting onto something far more interesting.

Akro....but what about CL's lap.....took a long time to break Murphs. :ok:

[Old Akro]

Does anyone know where there is a list of specifically which navaids are being decommissioned? I saw a list years ago, but now I can't find anything.

Why do I ask? Because CASA are forcing me to plan a complete panel relay to fit a new C146a GPS and Mode S transponder, I thought it would be appropriate to reconsider what navaids I need. I'd really like to be able to consider what Navaids will be available at my common destinations over the likely life of the new panel. Unreasonable??

Secondly, I have read many times about how these aids are old and uneconomic. I've read how upgrade will cost vaguely $120m, but I have seen nothing that actually looks like someone has built up a number from real costs. If the $120m relates to the 200-odd navaids that will be shutdown, then this averages at $600,000 per unit. However it appears that a brand new Nautel or Thales NDB installation (using an existing building with existing power) might be as little as AUD$50,000.

Does anyone at all get to see real figures and scrutinise them?

Here is an interesting presentation from Nautel:

http://www.nautelnav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Nautel-Land-based-NDB-Systems.pdf

I like the line that NDB's are the navigation aid of last resort and therefore mission critical.

Here is the Thales product:

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/ndb_436_datasheet.pdf

Thales boast 35,000 hours between failures. That's inferring 4 years between maintenance. Combined with a running cost less than that to light the average AsA bureaucrat's office the AsA's bleats that its too expensive don't smell right.

But going back to my original question, it would be nice to have some guidelines for (say) the next 10 years before I spend my money.

For GA, ILS is now basically worthless. We have less runways with ILS than Malaysia (do I need to say... Mildura?). This is a country we have just donated 2 customs ships to! VOR's are uncommon outside the J curve. NDB's are the lifeline in remote Australia. But which ones will remain? Does AsA have a plan or are they making it up as they go?

[Frank Arouet]

Your last sentence probably sums it up.


There is no such thing, (any more), as routine or preventative maintenance so I would wager they will just let them become redundant as they fail and call it natural attrition. Then revert to above sentence.

[Old Akro]

Looking through the AsA website.

I can find in great detail its plan and progress to plan for " equity and diversity" of its employees:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/progress_report_2009-10.pdf

But I can find NOTHING detailing exactly what airservices will be provided or how that is performing compared with plan.

Is this a dysfunctional organisation or what?

[Old Akro]

Found a tender to demolish old Navaid buildings, but still nothing on the forward plan.

Tender Detail for DEMOLITION OF NAVIGATION AIDS (http://www.tendersonline.com.au/TenderDetails.aspx?uid=cctol303444)

The interesting thing, is that some of this morning's reading found that overseas, the NDB buildings, power supplies, etc are being re-tasked as GBAS transmitters. Are we prejudicing our ability to roll out a WAS system??

[alphacentauri]

Akro, search the CASA website for NPRM 1105 AS. When you find it, click the link to an 'Annex G'

That is a list of navaids due to be retained, if a navaid is not on that list, then it is due to go.

The only change that I know of is the Sydney VOR, its going.

Alpha

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NPRM 1105AS (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100829)

[Old Akro]

AlphaCentauri

Exactly what I was looking for, although the totals are a bit different from the AsA figures I found.

Interestingly, it basically removes all the AsA navaids used for training in the Melbourne basin. How does this fulfil their charter of promoting safety?

For currency or training if one wants to do an NDB approach the choice will be Moorabbin (too busy for training) or the private one at Latrobe Valley. Full stop. The gone list includes: Essendon, Ballarat, Yarrowee, Cowes, Wonthaggi, Mangalore, Strathbogie,Bendigo, Echuca, Wangaratta, Horsham, Nhill, Bairnsdale

For currency or training if one wants to do a VOR approach the choice will be:
Mangalore or Avalon (Private). Full stop. The gone list includes Cowes, Wonthaggi, Yarrowee, Eildon Weir, Nhill

Getting or maintaining a MECIR is about to get a whole lot more expensive and Lindsay Fox is about to make more money at Avalon.

There might be a business in someone like Leongatha buying a couple of old units from AsA and installing them to charge for training!

Seriously, we are a first world country that prides itself on education & training. Why wouldn't we leave Yarrowee, Phillip Is or Wonthaggi with its NDB / VOR for training??

[Sarcs]

OA for you..

Drop-in ADS-B Out (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/February/07/avidyne-axp340.aspx)

Cheers

Sarcs

[Old Akro]

clearedtoenter

Correct!!

The C146a (WAAS) GPS is the expensive part.

Plus, it needs a grey code altitude transponder. And the WAAS GPS needs a new antennae & cabling, so its not a simple upgrade - even from GNS 430 to GNS430W

Any IFR aircraft with a Garmin 155, 300, 430/ 530 (non waas), King 89 / 94 or heaven forbid an Apollo or Trimble unit will require a new C146a GPS. If you browse through Aviation trader it feels like that will be 80% of all existing IFR aircraft.

AND frequently, when Avioincs say drop in they mean physically, not electrically. There is a very large chance that the rear connector on the rack will need to be replaced.

Reading NPRM 1105 yesterday, its pretty clear that IFR enroute navigation after the start turning off navaids and de-rating the power of many of the remaining ones in early 2016, that only GPS will be acceptable for en-route navigation for any IFR flight.

A question that has been glossed over is whether this will also apply to aircraft on NVMC plans.

[underfire]

not to mention that WAAS coverage is not avail in AUS.

[Old Akro]

not to mention that WAAS coverage is not avail in AUS.

But could be available cheaply by using ground based beacons in old NDB facilities (building power supply, antennae structure).

Oops, wait, we are demolishing them all. Doh!

[underfire]

Sorry my friend, but you would need at least 2 if not 3 geostationary sats..they are a bit pricey (note the cost of the US WAAS is $3 Billion)

[Old Akro]

My understanding is that WAAS is just a form of differential GPS (DGPS). An additional beacon is used to improve the accuracy (especially altitude accuracy) of GPS. Surveyors, farmers and crop dusters have been doing this for about 15 years.

GBAS is another form of DGPS, but uses ground based ones instead of geo stationary satellites. I have read that some countries use ADF infrastructure (buildings, power supplies and antennae) for GBAS beacon installation and that if you already have all the bricks & mortar parts, the electronic box for GBAS is relatively cheap.

I had always thought that a network of beacons would be an alternative for Australia to launching a satellite. Its basically what AMSA has done for marine GPS. AMSA have 16 land based DGPS beacons that I always thought provided WAAS type accuracy for the marine equivalent of the aviation J routes.

However, some browsing I just did on the FAA GBAS office site suggests that GBAS requires different GPS units in the aircraft. So, now I'm unsure.

[LeadSled]

Old Akro,

WAAS requires specific satellite signals.
WAAS requires aircraft GPS receivers that are WAAS capable.
WAAS requires a small network of ground stations to broadcast correction signal to achieve "WAAS" accuracy, the aircraft does not need to "see" any ground station.

Japanese satellites cover Australia with a WAAS signal, this is a different satellite system to the original over the central Pacific, which was moved when the Australian policy decision to not deploy WAAS was made public.

The value of WAAS, for other than aviation, is rapidly declining, as Generation 3 GPS goes into place, providing positioning accuracy equivalent to WAAS, without the ground based infrastructure.

In the aviation field, for any aircraft with a modern IRS/FMCS system, baro-VNav eliminates the need for WAAS --- the update is about the same as updating an older GPS system to a WAAS capable system.

In summary, the part of the Australian GA fleet that could benefit from WAAS is quite small. - so the benefits of PVG to an ILS like minima, given Australia's overall weather record, is quite small, far smaller than when the WAAS policy decision was made.

Forget WAAS in Australia, it ain't gunna happen. If for no other reason than the fact that AsA couldn't figure out a way to charge for it!!

Tootle pip!!

[underfire]

Leadsled said it pretty well.

WAAS requires at least 2 different geosats for coverage, and at least 2 centers.

The ground stations gather the data from the GPS sats. This is all fed to the centers. In the US, there is a center on each coast.

The centers broadcast a hyper-corrected signal up to the 2 geosats, which then broadcast to the coverage area.

You reciever still uses all of the GPS sats, and the WAAS part applies the correction factor.

GBAS is completely different.

A GBAS system is per airport, with at least 3 ant, spaced as far aprt as possible. The GBAS continuously monitors all of the sats avail. The GBAS creates its own correction factor for that location only.
The system broadcasts this correction factor, as well as the code for the final approach for the ac to use. It is a signal broadcast which the ac uses with much the same look alike system as an ILS.

With GBAS, the ac still uses the GPS sats, the GBAS is the correction factor.

Hope that clears it up a bit more.

As noted, there is little hope for WAAS in AUS, but GBAS is a much different story. A typical GBAS unit, installed, is about $3Million per airport. With this you get a max 26 runway ends, and currently cert to Cat I. The signal is accurate enough for CAT III, but it is not cert for it yet. When it does get cert, the system, nor ac will need any mod.

Both Boeing and Airbus offer GBAS at no cost difference on a new ac.

[LeadSled]

The system broadcasts this correction factor, as well as the code for the final approach for the ac to use

And, I am told, AsA can code it so that it is only available to subscribers.
Likewise Galileo, the most accurate signals will only be available to subscribers.

The US Gen 3 GPS is free to users.

Tootle pip!!

[Hempy]

And, I am told, AsA can code it so that it is only available to subscribers.

Really???? Please do tell!!!

[LeadSled]

Hempy,
I do not profess to k now the technicalities, either for how you can limit access to either GBAS (LAAS) signals or the precision Galileo signals, only that it can be done.

A significant factor in financing Galileo apparently revolves around this feature, and much $$$$ argument amongst European governments about what happens if the revenue is not up to expectations --- this is part of the reason for the long delays in getting Galileo satellites up.

I am not certain even whether the arguments about which signals will be freely available, or whether all will be available free is yet settled. Galileo is way behind schedule.

At least third Generation GPS only involves the politics of one single government.

Tootle pip!!

[underfire]

Hang on now.

This is a complicated issue in some respects.

When the US turned off SA, it meant that the GPS signal to a certain accuracy would not be blocked. ie the key code to the algorithm that a civilian GPS uses, would not be blocked.
So, actually, all of the GPS broadcasts have been encoded, it is your receivers algorithm that can decode the signal to a certain level.
The GPS signals have always had higher levels of accuracy.

Given that,,

There is no way for ASA to limit any GPS broadcast, because first off, they do not own the broadcast, nor do they have any way to add a restriction in the equipment.

Next, the GBAS system is a worldwide standard, the broadcast uses ARINC 424 standards, there is no specific encoding in the signal that is available for restriction.

As far as a subscriber base, the ability to use GBAS, if they wanted funding for it, would be based on the clearance to use the procedure, not the ability to receive a signal.
The GBAS procedure itself could be subscriber limited, much the same as tailored RNP is now, you dont pay for the procedure, or are not cert, it is not in your box...there are plenty of RNP, and RNP to GBAS final approach procedures that are not in the public realm, but are used by the airlines/entities that have paid for them.
As an example, I have designed many tailored RNP-AR procedures ARR and DEP, for YMML and others airports in AUS, that are not avail as public charts, but are used on a daily basis by the airlines that have paid for them.

[Old Akro]

Meanwhile on another thread, the US "WAAS of the future" might eclipse the whole thing.

[URL=www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/mobileAll/WAASoftheFuture.pdf[/URL]

Read this briefing from the FAA and ask yourself when the last time was that you read something this cogent or this far sighted from CASA

[LeadSled]

Underfire,\
I am not referring to GNSS/RNP procedures that are proprietary to a company.

Google a few articles on the funding models for Galileo, that may help.
The technicalities are beyond the level of my knowledge of Galileo, but I have seen enough articles on the subject over many years.

It (and GBAS charging) was discussed in the early days of ASTRA.

Tootle pip!!

[FO Cokebottle]

Here is an interesting web page:

<http://www.flightradar24.com/free-ads-b-equipment>

[underfire]

Leadsled,

There are typically 3 ways to fund this.
The first is thru the cert process.
Second is paying to have the procedure in the box.
Third is to charge when cleared to use the procedure.

In reality, the first option is what has to happen anyways, cert the airline to use the procedures.

Paying to have it in the box is tough, partly because of the third, getting clearance to use it.

Of course, #3, getting clearance. Unless everyone is on the procedure, ATC has a tough time managing those that are with those that are not, so in a multi-variant tight queue, you are not going to get clearance.

The best bang for the buck is when the conditions or vis are challenged, and those without the procedure and capability are in a hold, while you are free to land.

As far as restrictions on the GPS signal, while that may have been talked about, I really cant see a viable method to do that. The aircraft has a tough enough time with the signal as it is!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
From AW&ST Feb 3/10, p43.
I have edited out references to non-aviation uses of Galileo :

"Like GPS, Europe's planned 30 satellite constellation will feature an open service available free of charge. With a budget of E6.3 billion through 2020, it is expected to allow users to know their exact position in time and space, but with greater precision and reliability than the GPS system of today.
However, unlike other timing and navigation constellations, Galileo will deliver commercial services to key sectors, notably to airlines for positioning and navigation ------- .
In exchange for encrypted and guaranteed signals that deliver a higher data throughput rate and accuracy, users will be charged a fee."

Further on, in typical EU fashion, it is reported that there are EU plans to "imbed" requirements in other EU legislation to mandate the use of Galileo , thus guaranteeing a revenue stream. Example given were train control and other transport positioning. I do hope the 4m by 2m demonstrated accuracy of Galileo does not become a critical issue in control of high speed trains, wouldn't the 10M MPP of current GPS be good enough for "where is the 19.23 from Paddington?"

Tootle pip!!

[dubbleyew eight]

wouldn't the 10M MPP of current GPS be good enough for "where is the 19.23 from Paddington?"

are you sure that is what it is used for?

a train typically works with a platform clearance of 15mm so they are a tad more precise nowadays than back in the steam era.

on mine sites they use augmentation to give half millimetre precision I'm told which allows for all sorts of automated positioning.

automated braking to stops would be facilitated by really precise position information. (of course not in underground stations.)
anti collision systems would be another use I would think.
power supply switching on electric rail another.

[LeadSled]

are you sure that is what it is used for?

W8,
Don't you recognise "tongue in cheek" when you see it.

a train typically works with a platform clearance of 15mm so they are a tad more precise nowadays than back in the steam era.


What clearance are you referring to?? Clearance between the carriage and platform --- if that is the case, I would love to see it --- 15mm??? Certainly Eurostar, or the RP China CRH trains do not achieve that.

on mine sites they use augmentation to give half millimetre precision

We do that now, have been for years, with differential GPS, we don't need Galileo for that.

There are plenty of precision uses of GPS already, GPS Generation 3 will be a big improvement, except if the receiver is moving, ie: aircraft or high speed trains.

I hope I am around long enough to see whether the Galileo subscription model gets any customers, except customers compelled by EU law to use it ---- just another disguised tax.

Tootle pip!!

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Heard that CZ302 went through Aust airspace last night at FL280 SYD-CAN trying to dodge the weather it should have been able to clear at cruise level. ADS-B failed on inbound flight. I'm sure attending to malfunctioning ADS-B equipment was high on their list when trying to turn the aircraft around in SYD and get out before the curfew. How accessible is the unit? Can it just be unplugged and replaced in a jiffy? Is there a component that is the most likely cause that can easily be fixed?

[thorn bird]

Two fifty, Mate OZ is the first in the world!! U think Mc Comic & Co give a tinkers toss how many get killed, as long as we are the first.

[Dick Smith]

Now we have had a couple of months since this regulation came in could a friendly ATC advise if there have been any aircraft flying above FL290 in the non radar airspace without transmitting the correct ADSB signal?

That is military aircraft or airline aircraft with a faulty unit?

If so was it a huge safety issue?

[Wizofoz]

Why would any ATCer want to talk to you, Dick, when you started this with such a stupid and incendiary thread title?

[Dick Smith]

If I was a professional ATC I would not want to be told I had to force some aircraft to operate at low levels in more adverse wx conditions when I knew I could give a safer service if I was allowed to.

And history shows that some of the blame for any resultant accident will be placed on the ATC .

[Nautilus Blue]

Well I can say I have aircraft operating in "adverse weather conditions" because they were too heavy to climb above, (so Airlines Responsible for Deaths?) and others because the aircraft was incapable of climbing above (so Aircraft Manufacturers Responsible for Deaths?).

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, you are in the wrong battle....advocate for FAA reg alignment...advocate for a lifetime security check(my passport lasts ten years what not ASIC?)...do something other than push for what suits you and you will find quite rapidly that you have support.

Stop the name calling and false accusations.

[Wizofoz]

You blew it Dick.

By choosing such a silly thread title, then being too egotistical to admit it was a mistake, you torpedoed any chance you had of support here.

Man up and admit it was a mistake.

[Dick Smith]

The thread title was created to ensure some controversy

It worked!

It was clearly half tongue in cheek .

So how about an answer to the question. If Canadian controllers can cope with non ADSB aircraft in their mandatory ADSB non radar airspace why can't Aussie controllers?

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

I dare say they could, but their hands are tied

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A very serious question...Has any other corporate non ADS-B equipped driver complained about or even questioned these procedures?

[Dick Smith]

Yes. Three companies have contacted me as well as private messages listing others which are being effected.

All have said to go public will risk action by CASA .

[Sarcs]

Not wanting to enter into this debate (above my payscale..:E), however the following short article from Phearless Phelan (ProAviation) is somewhat related to this subject..:rolleyes::World first or world’s worst?
(http://proaviation.com.au/2014/03/26/world-first-or-worlds-worst/)
ADS-B capability was mandated from 12 December last year for IFR operations in Australia for all aircraft flying at or above flight level 290.

What happens if your system stops working, or if you’re from one of the other nations, where it’s not yet mandatory? A discussion with an average pilot the other day touched on the subject and we got a bit of an earful on how “black letter law” is working out in practice.

Here’s his commentary:

Case 1

I was sitting in the FBO in Perth last Saturday having a coffee before heading to Karratha when a neat -looking N-registered Gulfstream V taxied past. The FBO manager said it was foreign-owned and heading back to the USA, but had to taxi to the international terminal to clear Customs.

I thought ‘that’s Australia for you; you have to start and taxi a $50 million jet full of VIP’s’ – four engine cycles instead of two, a whole lot of extra kero fumes pumped into Perth’s pollution haze as well. Cart your passengers across the whole airport where they have to disembark into the heat or rain, walk across the tarmac and dodge through the bowels of the baggage handling area to front some officious Customs person for their passports to be stamped, then retrace the obstacle course, reboard their aircraft and depart.

Is it just me? Wouldn’t it be simpler, cheaper and more customer-aware to get Customs to come to the FBO? And just think of the lawsuits if some global mining magnate got flattened by a baggage trolley! Do some of these Customs blokes get a buzz from buggering VIPs around?

Wonderful image we projected to those VIP’s; how up to date and sophisticated Australia is…NOT!

But it didn’t end there. We taxied out and met the Gulfstream at the end of the departure runway; he was headed to LA, which is quite a long a long way, especially if you have to do the first few hours at FL280. He departed ahead of us and later we both transferred to area frequency. Then we heard ATC ask him if he had ADSB exemption. UH-OH! I thought. But this guy’s on the ball; he came back with a “yes, it was arranged through your office in Queensland.”

The poor sod hadn’t allowed for CAsA bureaucracy, ATC came back with, “That exemption only covers your arrival into Australia; you need one to depart, therefore you will have to maintain flight level 280 until leaving Australian airspace” (which was about three thousand miles away!)

Poor pilot: “You’re kidding me!” Nope; they were adamant. He now has to consider if he will make tech stop in Australia and run the whole scenario again, or try and reach an offshore one which has graduated beyond the sailing ship days.

Another voice cut across the VHF, “Welcome to Australia mate, the only third world country where you can drink the water!”

Now in my imagination I see a rather pissed-off VIP in the back dialling his sat phone and saying “Tony, that billion dollars I was going to invest in Australia, changed my mind, you people are just too backward!!”

That couldn’t have happened in the time available but maybe there was a flash of common sense somewhere because the ATC guy came back on the radio and said his management had decided to waive the requirement and gave them a climb clearance.

Case two

I’m operating a Cessna Ultra on an emergency medevac from Karratha to Perth with a critical seven year old on the “life port.”

Our primary aircraft, which the company spent a couple of hundred thousand on to make ADSB compliant was unserviceable, so we were using the back-up that’s yet to equipped with ADSB (which will nearly double its value.) So we were stuck at flight level 280 when we entered moderate turbulence. This was very late at night, with not another aircraft within 500 miles of us.

The Doctor was getting a little perturbed that the patient was being upset so I asked for a higher level, which was denied unless I wanted to declare an emergency. Nobody will declare a mercy flight in Australia now, because it opens you up to the whole gamut of CAsA bastardry. There are people who have lost their licences and businesses because CAsA disagreed with their assessment of what constituted a mercy flight.

Fortunately we flew out of that area of turbulence after a while, but if that child had died, I couldn’t help wondering would Mr McCormick have accepted that his desperate desire to big-note himself at Montreal had contributed to ADS-B’s first fatality?

I somehow doubt it.
Some colourful language in that lot...:E

[ozbiggles]

So you think the title is a bit tongue in cheek?
I think closer to slander.
People have been known to take legal action over slander....

[Liklik balus]

Ozbiggles,

I believe the correct term is libel!

[Dick Smith]

Reads the Sarcs post again. It is outrageous.

I will guarantee you that the bastards who mandated these unique requirements will make the ATC liable to some extent - as per the mid air at Bankstown years ago

And who was it who decided to waive the ADSB requirement in the first example.?

Please post more examples of what is going on
Did anyone see the Ben Sandilands blog on China Southern ? Interesting

[LeadSled]

If Canadian controllers can cope with non ADSB aircraft in their mandatory ADSB non radar airspace why can't Aussie controllers?

Folks,
AsA copes alright with military aircraft above FL290, in the "original" rules for operation above FL290, controllers were able, at their discretion, clear non-ADS-B aircraft above FL290, applying "appropriate" separation standards.
I wonder who in CASA is responsible for eliminating that provision, or is it a an AsA "policy" decision??.
Does anybody know with certainty??
Who knows Greg Hood well enough to give him a call and ask??
Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

I do thanks. But I suggest you write to them instead. :ok:

[40years]

Sarcs, Ben has removed his post, quote "...because it was wrong":eek:

[Dick Smith]

Can anyone verify if Phelans story about the G5 is correct?

That is someone in ATC management decided that the non ADSB aircraft could fly in the mandatory airspace?

Does this happen often? Can anyone give some examples!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Understand the barra are still biting at Cunners....

[cbradio]

Hang on! Can we just go back a bit and get a clarification on the "disappearance" of Ben's story.

Why was it wrong?

[ozbiggles]

In regards to Sarcs repost

1.the 7 Ps. Operators mistake
2. If the pic given the stated scenario didn't want to declare a mercy flight or emergency to get a climb out of turbulence for the welfare of his medical passenger because he was scared of what CASA would say...well the problem was in the cockpit. You are a PIC to make a good decision.

And it would be interesting to know why the China Southern story was pulled. Probably because it was wrong.

As for the military having a exemption. I agree that is 100 percent wrong. It's not the first time the military has got an exemption for having things like EGPWS and even weather radar when it was mandatory for fare paying passengers in civil ops.

[Capn Bloggs]

It's not the first time the military has got an exemption for having things like EGPWS and even weather radar when it was mandatory for fare paying passengers in civil ops.
To be fair, the military don't have to be subject to civil requirements which, let's face it, are only there to protect fare-paying pax.

[ozbiggles]

I can see that point of view, I think the ADF just used it as a excuse because it was all too hard to organise to do it for older aircraft...despite the fact the civil world had to find a way.
I think if you're a grunt down the back of an ADF aircraft, it should be fitted with best safety equipment around. We have seen plenty of military transport aircraft hits hills around the world.

[CaptainMidnight]

Storm in a teacup.

80% of the military fleet are compliant, and most of the ones that aren't are types not being able to get that high anyway eg. choppers.

[ozbiggles]

Yes now 80 percent compliant...not so long ago different story.
It was hard fatal lessons that developed the need for continued improvement in cockpit technology.
The ADF got better at teaching safety and CRM but dropped the ball badly in terms of keeping their older aircraft up to date. Not so relevant now due to the next gen of aircraft I concur but that doesn't excuse the lack of action before hand. If there is a relevant tactical reason not to have stuff fine, but that isn't the reason the military keeps excusing itself from what the government regulates for the civilian world...anyway I'm drifting.

[Sarcs]

cbradio: Hang on! Can we just go back a bit and get a clarification on the "disappearance" of Ben's story.

Why was it wrong? Don't know if the original was wrong...:confused: Maybe Ben had a thought bubble then decided to check the facts?? :rolleyes: Either way here is the revised version..:E Australia forces Chinese A330 to fly across continent at low altitude (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/03/29/australia-forces-chinese-a330-to-fly-across-continent-at-low-altitude/)

When a very senior Qantas captain was asked for an opinion about Australia’s air traffic control forcing a 300 passenger foreign jet to fly across the country at an altitude of less than 29,000 feet he said “That would be insane.”

“It would be one of the most dangerous things you could ask of an airliner, and it certainly wouldn’t happen here, ever.”

But it did. And how and why it did demands a high level inquiry into institutional stupidity and recklessness in AirServices Australia.
This is how it happened, on the evidence admitted in official on the record contacts with CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the office of the responsible Minister, Warren Truss.

Last Sunday 23 March someone in AirServices Australia, the air navigation provider, required a China Southern A330-200 to fly all the way across Australia at an abnormally low altitude, because it had a faulty transponder, called an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast or ADS-B device which this country requires for flight in private jets and airliners operating above 29,000 feet.

As noted in a story in The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/safety-issue-on-china-flight/story-e6frg95x-1226865762715) during the week:

The high-altitude transponder on Flight CZ302, Sydney to Guangzhou, which lets aircraft be tracked above 29,000ft, failed on the flight into Sydney on Saturday and could not be fixed before the plane returned to Guangzhou on Sunday.
Under Australian air traffic rules introduced last year, all aircraft flying above 29,000ft must be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast equipment.
Flight CZ302 was given permission to return to China but was ordered to fly at 28,000ft while in Australian air space and had to weave around bad weather rather than fly over it. When the flight reached Indonesian air space, it climbed above 29,000ft. The federal government has confirmed the events but denied there was any safety issue for the flight.

Under Australia’s regulations China Southern was entitled to fly out of this country without a working ADS-B device if it did so within 72 hours, having made prior notification to AirServices Australia of its unserviceability (which it had) and sought approval to avail itself of the exemption provided for in the rules, which it hadn’t.

This is where institutional stupidity and recklessness, if not bloody mindedness enters the picture.

A modern, large, fast airliner rocketing across Australia at altitudes used by smaller, slower, turbo-props and even piston engined aircraft, who of themselves might not be visible to its own TCAS collision avoidance equipment, and might not aware of its passage, in skies full of tropical wet season storms and turbulence, and often beyond the reach of ATC radar, is something too ridiculous and dangerous to take seriously in Australia.

Yet China Southern CZ302 was given such conditional approval to depart. Technically this appears to have been within the rules, but in practical terms, this was not an action that could have ever been deemed safe or prudent.

The appropriate course of action would have been for AirServices Australia to notify CASA of the situation of a large jet airliner with an inoperative ADS-B unit proposing to depart from Australia through air space normally populated by smaller, slower and potentially ‘invisible’ aircraft in stormy skies.

There is no doubt among pilots spoken to for advice on this story that the paperwork would have been adjusted pronto, and that CZ302 would have flown, as intended, through the smoother, higher and decidedly safer higher altitude skies between Sydney and Guangzhou.

It does seem that the airline should have been more ‘on the ball’.
But bloody minded stupidity that put its flight at unacceptable risk also put other Australian aircraft at risk.

Why a supposedly professionally trained and knowledgeable person in authority thought that mixing an A330-200 with the much slower and lower flying aircraft that inhabit the airspace it had to fly through was a safe and proper course of action defies explanation.
It’s just plain dumb.

[Dick Smith]

Is my memory correct re the Norfolk Island ditching.

Was the aircraft forced to operate at a lower level because not RVSM compliant - therefore using more fuel - therefore could not get to an alternate?

Couldn't the same thing happen re forcing non ADSB compliant aircraft to lower levels and using more fuel?

Especially if the crew have not planned for the lower level operations before departure.

How long before an accident or serious incident?

[LeadSled]

How long before an accident or serious incident? Dick,
At the present rate of progress, sadly probably not long.
The greater stupidity is that, since RVSM, except possibly for the J-curve, there is not really enough traffic to need the reduced separation possible with ADS-B over most of the Australian FIRs.
Just another example of mindless compliance ---- it's "The Australian Way".
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Leads led, I will guarantee you it's not "mindless compliance".

It is someone or a group who believe that they can ensure future career advancements on the basis of being "ADS-B International Experts" by experimenting on us.

To put that another way, we are the guinea pigs. they will write the research papers; "ADS-B Lessons learnt - the Australian Experience" and suchlike for presentation at international conferences etc.

Seen this stuff before, like the IT guys who wired up a State government building with optical fibre, at stratospheric expense, in the late 1980's just because it would look good on their resumes. The technology was so new U.S. government defence approval was needed before the gear could be exported to Australia.

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
Agreed, and in this case I can name the names.
Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

I was told today that an AsA employee was actually bragging that they forced the China Southern Airbus to fly across Australia at FL280 with its 200+ unsuspecting passengers.

That is, they don't just stuff up business aviation operators - they will do the same to the Airlines!

I ask again- can someone confirm Phelans story in post 350- that is a non ADSB equipped G5 was allowed to fly in the mandatory airspace?

Is there any other info of ATC's and their managers acting responsibly on this issue ?

It's clearly just shear barstardry so AsA can get an award for being first in the world as previously stated on this thread.

Let's hope an accident is not caused by an aircraft running out of fuel on approach in Asia.

[Dick Smith]

Can someone advise me of what military aircraft would require the dispensation to fly above FL290 ?

I presume the fact the dispensations are available ( or more to the point, there is no requirement ) means some military aircraft that fly above FL 290 require are not fitted.

Any ideas?

[ozbiggles]

Dick
For years I have put up with your self indulgent rants on here about things that don't suit you.
Put up or shut up. Who told you it was deliberate? Have YOU reported that to ASA, ATSB or CASA or to the minister for transport? If it was a deliberate action it requires reporting.
Put up or shut up
PS - I'm not even an ATC, nor do I have anything to do with ASA in fact I do battle with them all the time but your rants painting everyone with the same brush are just ridiculous IMHO.

[Up-into-the-air]

Yes Dick -

Is my memory correct re the Norfolk Island ditching.

Was the aircraft forced to operate at a lower level because not RVSM compliant - therefore using more fuel - therefore could not get to an alternate?

Couldn't the same thing happen re forcing non ADSB compliant aircraft to lower levels and using more fuel?

Especially if the crew have not planned for the lower level operations before departure.

How long before an accident or serious incident?

[Dick Smith]

Ozbikkies, you are totally wrong.

There is no self interest in this particular case. If I was to be forced to fly lower and use more fuel ( hasn't happened yet) I would simple donate less that year to particular causes I support so my total outgoings would be the same.

Now I know this probably makes you mad - but it's the fact.

But this is not the case with a number of business jet charter operators. A couple I know are really hurting financially from this unique requirement .

Safety will then suffer.

Also I can make a personal decision on whether or not I wish to fly at the lower levels- the airline passenger is not even informed.

You ask. " who told you it is deliberate". What is "it" I don't know what you are actually referring to.

[ozbiggles]

I have to explain your own post to you? I know I don't, you know what you think you are doing
You said in your first paragraph you had been told an ASA employees was bragging they had forced the China Southern Flight to fly outside the ADSB levels thus inferring that he was happily endangering the unsuspecting passengers...that was the intent of your post...do you deny that was the case, if so please clarify that. Then you inferred that all the ASA employes are happy about it...in fact have a look back at your title for this topic, it has been your intent to wind people up.
Now if you believe that was the case you should report it, rather than post the old someone unnamed told me something, it could have been the kid who was shovelling Fries in McDonalds for all we know.
Would it make me mad to hear you got forced to fly lower? No, I wouldn't care.
You say business jet charter operators are suffering financially? Really, the ones who can afford to operate shiny business jets around for the rich and famous...must be rough after forking out a few million for your Biz Jet.
Now you may have a case regarding ADSB, you may not. But you discredit yourself the way you try to prosecute your argument.
It does take me back however when you start talking about affordable safety

[Dick Smith]

I can't believe this. Do you think we can have " unaffordable safety"

Or don't you like people being told the truth?

I can see why you don't post under your real name.

Why do you reckon the plane had to fly across Australia at FL 280?

Why wasn't the crew offered a higher level compliant with the current ADSB regulation?

Oh. I know. They should have been familiar with our rules and applied!

Nothing to do with the ATC's who kept them at that level- they were just following orders from clearly incompetent managers

[Trent 972]

Unfortunately 'Affordable Safety' seems to be just like 'Worlds Best Practice'.
In the hands of dictators who won't spend a cent more than they are forced to, it leads to the lowest possible standard.
Are we there yet?

[Dick Smith]

Most australian GA operators would say just the opposite. That the standards are the most expensive to comply with because there is a one way ratchet of putting "safety" in front of cost considerations.


Come on does anyone know what military aircraft fly above FL290 that are not ADSB equipped . Orion's ?

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Dick, E737s (Wedgetails), F/A-18s and BAe Hawks are not ADS-B equipped.
Any visiting foreign Military or Head-of-State carrying aircraft are also allowed in ADS-B airspace without the equipment.

I can tell you that the ATCs concerned, far from "bragging about forcing the aircraft to fly at FL280" were embarrassed and concerned about having to enforce this, and pleaded with the supervisor to make sure that this did absolutely have to be applied (and I believe he fully investigated any work-arounds).

The controllers have been issued directives to say they have no leniency or interpretive allowances in the application of these instructions. It is law, and they break the law at the peril of their continued employment.

The controllers involved wished they could have coached the crew in the declaration of a "Mercy Flight" to get the restriction waived

[Dick Smith]

Two fifty
Thanks. That's what I would have thought. By the way It was not an ATC who did the bragging It was a person from middle management at AsA who was trying to show that it wasn't just business aircraft that were being refused entry into the airspace. ie - AsA were being consistent in applying the ban.

However there is one mystery. The ADSB regulation clearly allows for up to three days of operation in the airspace if the equipment is faulty. Why wasn't China Southern allowed this dispensation? Surely your ATCs know this dispensation is approved by CASA - or am I mistaken!

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

I believe that approval needs to be sought ( by the airline or the crew) and granted before operating the flight.
I'm wondering if the outbound crew even knew about the condition of the equipment (if it was brought to their attention), seeing as it was inconsequential to the inbound crew who continued operating above F280 when either the equipment failed, or it was realized that it wasn't working ... that is to say, perhaps it was only within range of Australian equipment it became apparent it was not working

[ozbiggles]

I'm sorry Dick that you don't realise that this is an anonymous rumour internet site.
But you did get one thing right, the company involved should have known the rules and applied for the dispensation.
I really don't have time to find all the examples here of you blaming ATCs for this, not just the mangers as you now claim ( doesn't sort of suggest that in the title now does it ) but I guess I will find some time.
I think 250 puts it all in print nicely.
And I do like the truth, not wrongly directed half donkey campaigns.
And if you are so big into names...name your source...and have you reported this to anyone yet other than an anonymous internet web site?

[le Pingouin]

C'mon Dick, are you seriously expecting ATCs to apply for a legal dispensation on behalf of an airline? Why would we know anything about that? It's not just a verbal approval or something we can approve ourselves.

Haven't you got your head around the fact that it's all part of CAOs so is law? The politicians and CASA are the ones you need to be badgering not ATCs. I think the rigidity is stupid as well, but the law says that's the way it is so we have no leeway.

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Sorry, to my list of ADF aircraft negative-ADS-B add the C130J. And what levels do they like? F290-F310!

[peuce]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Is there that much "safety" difference between F280 and F350?
I've been on plenty of domestic and international flights that have chosen to fly at that level, presumably because of favourable winds.
Is it that more difficult to avoid CBs at that level?
The point about dodging other aircraft is a bit rich, as I thought you'd be in CTA at that level.

I understand it's economically nasty, but using extra fuel is only a safety issue if you haven't planned for it.

Where's the safety issue?

[Dick Smith]

Quite often you can fly above an embedded line of thunderstorms when above FL 410 but right in them at FL280.

Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.

I don't blame the ATCs for this- they would like to be able to handle the small number of non ADSB compliant aircraft in the safest way but are not allowed to.

But wait and see who will be given part of the responsibility when an accident occurs. Suggest you look up the Navair mid air at Bankstown many decades ago.

[Capn Bloggs]

Quite often you can fly above an embedded line of thunderstorms when above FL 410
Good luck with that.

Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.
You know you're not allowed above 280; plan that way. If you do get above, it's a bonus.

[Nautilus Blue]

I've been trying hard to keep away from this, but I can't let this one go

Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.


The flight departed Samoa at 0545, and initially climbed to flight level 350 (FL350) in airspace that was controlled from New Zealand. High frequency (HF) radio was used for long distance radio communication between the aircraft and air traffic control (ATC) and very high frequency (VHF) radio for line of sight radio communications with airport service providers.

At 0628, when the aircraft was approaching the intended cruising level of FL350, ATC instructed the flight crew to descend to FL270 by time 0650 in order to maintain separation with crossing traffic. The flight crew later reported to ATC that a descent to that altitude would have increased the aircraft’s fuel consumption and requested a climb to a higher flight level. At 0633, ATC issued an amended clearance for the flight crew to climb to FL390 and the aircraft was established at this level at 0644.The flight continued at FL390 until the descent into Norfolk Island.

[Sarcs]

Hansard from AAI inquiry 22/10/12 (my bold):


Senator FAWCETT: In your opinion, given that the aircraft was not RVSM equipped, was the pressure to get above the 41,000 feet a significant factor in your thinking for the fuel load that you took out of the origin that day?

Mr James : It was a factor and had been an issue that I had had difficulties with in the past, and I was mindful of it.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Just for the committee, RVSM is airspace where air traffic control can apply reduced separation minima vertically between aircraft, but the aircraft has to be calibrated, if you like, with appropriate equipment to be able to fly there. If you have to go below that you have to use a lot more fuel, which is why it is a consideration operationally. So if you were flying below the RVSM airspace, what flight level would that be—280 or 290, or something around there?

Mr James : I believe it is 280.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Given the all-up weight considerations of the aircraft with a medical kit on board, can you uplift sufficient fuel to fly below RVSM airspace and hold fuel for your abnormal operations or, if required, an alternative for Norfolk Island?

Mr James : I do not believe you can. I believe you can nearly do so, but, from my understanding, I do not think it can be done.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Did you ever reflect that back to the company—that, essentially, what you were being asked to do was not actually technically possible?

Mr James : I had two opportunities with the company where they sought my feedback. The first time they simply wanted an account of what took place, and, on the second occasion, it was apparent to me that they had formed a very strong opinion as to who was responsible for the accident, and I did not think that an involved discussion about detail was going to achieve anything.

Senator NASH: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe5g%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) On that, what made you think that? That second meeting, you were just saying, led you to form that view—that they had formed the view, obviously, that it was your responsibility. What led you to believe that?

Mr James : They said that. They said as much. Mick was present at that meeting. I was told that—

Senator EDWARDS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F225307%22;quer ytype=;rec=0) In what role were you present at that meeting, Mr Quinn?

CHAIR: And is there anything you would like to add about the capacity in which you appear today?

Mr Quinn : I appear in a private capacity and also as representative of Captain James. My role was: as Dominic was not a member of the union at that stage, he had contacted me and asked me if I would advise him, and Pel-Air allowed me to represent Captain James as an advocate, from a technical point of view, in the Pel-Air committee.

Senator NASH: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe5g%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) When they said they had formed that view, what evidence did they give you that led them to form that view?

CHAIR: Could I also raise a procedural matter: at some stage soon, we will go in camera with you as the witness; if you feel you want to give us answers in camera that you do not want to give in public, you may take that—

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Can I ask one question before we go in camera?
Sorry, Senator Nash; were you still—

Senator NASH: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe5g%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) It was just that one that I had.

Mr James : I am happy to proceed with these questions. The comment was made to me, 'Are you not aware that, at all times, Pel-Air aircraft carry full fuel?' I replied, 'No, I'm not.' And then I asked, 'Where exactly is that set down in a document?' They were not able to point me in the direction of any such reference. They also said that, had I carried this additional fuel, I would have been able to arrive above Norfolk Island and divert to Noumea. In an email exchange that followed—I thought about what had been said and I wanted to add something on my behalf—they said the fuel would have got me there. I then said, 'What you are considering is the flight fuel, and if you add the reserve fuel and other required contingency fuels to that it can't be done.' My email was not responded to by the company.

That should clear it up for you Dick...:ok:

[underfire]

ADSB in the US.

Just got back from a conference on ADSB implementation in the US. There is still quite a bit of work to be done, especially with all of the additional features such as Wx.

The bad part.

There is NO funding set for 2015 and 2016 for ADSB implementation in the latest FAA budget. :eek:

This will likely have an impact on the projected 2020 timeframe (remember when it was 2015 in 2010?)

[thorn bird]

Why don't they get the industry to pay for it?

[7478ti]

Industry won't pay because FAA's ADS-B plan and rule are seriously flawed, and virtually no one outside FAA agrees with FAA.

For example, not all airspace users can see each other in critical airspace because of the absurd UAT, Mode S, and ADS-R Rube Goldberg schema. UAT and ADS-R are an abomination that will not work now, or ever, and will never be global,

UAVs are critical to be seen by other aircraft, as well as gliders, and other air vehicles, ...and FAA's present ADS-B is inappropriately designed, and far too expensive, and won't even work for those kinds of users, for many reasons.

91.227 and the related TSOs and MOPS are massively overspecified, and fail to address some key issues,with the present criteria requiring an excessive NIC and NAC, implying a required use of unnecessary and obsolete WAAS for all but the highest end users, unnecessarily driving costs out of sight,

Airlines are not equipping with ADS-B at any needed rate, and already going to get relief to at least 2026 for any compliance, if even the rule is sustained at all. GA is not equipping at any rate that will come anywhere near compliance in 2020.

NextGen itself is heading toward a massive $40B failure, for a variety of reasons,... for example, the FAA's proposed use of ADS-B, as pseudo-radar, is a ridiculous extension of a long obsolete and dysfunctional 1950s 1:1 hand carried separation process that no one can afford any more, with vastly better, safer, and less expensive (RNP based) dynamic trajectory separation methods now possible for ATS, ...and finally

FAA itself looks like it will finally be busted up by Congress in the fall budget hearings, with ATS split out as a separate ANSP, and hopefully a more competent set of aviation and technically experienced executives and specialists brought in to both ATS and Flight Standards and Certification functions. Don't believe a word from any current FAA officials about any deadlines, at least not any more than their earlier counterparts pronouncements on deadlines for MLS or IFR Loran C.

:O

[Frank Arouet]

ADS-B is the most impressive tool put toward for air traffic control safety in modern times.
It has only two inherit demonstrated flaws and they revolve around basic human gullibility and entrenched corporate psychosis.
Nobody should put a bucket of money between an air safety outcome and a business entity. It's made worse when the entity is a government QANGO.

[7478ti]

While ADS-A, ADS-B, and ADS-C each have their useful roles, as well as pros and cons, clearly sir, you have either substantially overstated the role and worth of ADS-B, ...or perhaps still have limited knowledge of Air Traffic Service separation provision fundamental concepts and requirements. Many elements profoundly affect separation safety, ranging from basic flight planning information for strategic trajectory definition, to real time trajectory definition related to modern inertial systems, ILS, FMS, RNP, and GPS, ...to COM processes, to ATM tools of independent position fixing via radar and transponders, with backup airborne systems such as modern TCAS (which has specifically been responsible for countless saves and lives). So it is important to distinguish between fundamental ATS principles, operating concepts, and what was important to the past, and will be important to the future, while differentiating between primary methods, and backup methods for providing separation assurance. When viewed in that context, ADS is but one tool, but not the only tool, and certainly not the most important tool, for helping optimize the C-N-S triad, and ATM. In fact that FAA "ADS supremacy" fallacy and flaw is a root factor why FAA NextGen is heading directly toward a massive $40B failure at this point.

[LeadSled]

UAT and ADS-R are an abomination that will not work now, or ever, and will never be global,7478ti,
The only part of that statement that is correct is that UAT will never be global.

It is 1090ES that is the "abomination", the ADS-B system should have been carried on either VDL-4 or UAT broadband data links, something 1090ES can never be. This was the outcome of the ICAO planning for future broadband data links.

It was sunk by airline lobbying.

In the US choice of UAT (CDMA) over VDL (TDMA) the FAA made the right technical choice, but ATA/IATA members were seduced into believing the spiel that 1090ES would be "cheap and cheerful", when it has proven to be neither, and the Mitre Corp. forecasts of channel saturation with 1090S/ES in US are being realised.

Meantime, airlines generally, and in some cases by mandate, are having to fit a broadband datalink anyway, and that is VDL (specifically VDL-2) and being operated world wide by ARINC and SITA, replacing ACARS.

As the experience (ongoing) has taught us, the optimum outcome, both operationally and in cost, would have been UAT as the international standard, with widespread use, well beyond just carrying ADS-x data. VDL-4 would also have worked, but CDMA signal formats are ultimately better for data than TDMA, as mobile phone/data development has so comprehensively proved.

One last point, by and large ADS-B will play no part in TCAS operations. Although a standard exists to import such data, I am not aware of any airline that has bought the option, because there is no increase in functionality of TCAS by so doing. Forget all the "could be", thems the facts.

Tootle pip!!

PS:
the related TSOs and MOPS are massively overspecified

Are you implying that the Australia equivalent and mandate are not?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Although, sadly, the old and mangy steed has long since bolted down the paddock, consider the following:

1090ES is about the equivalent of the old analogue mobile phones, except that 1090ES data capacity is less - seriously narrow band.
VDL (as in VDL-4 ADS.x) is the equivalent of the original digital phone system, TDMA, Time Division Multiplex Access, the Ericsson system broadband.
UAT, Universal Access Transceiver, is CDMA, Code Division Multiplex Access, is the Qualcomm system, and is the system used on generation 3 mobile phones and for many other broadband datalinks, with virtually unlimited capacity due the basic characteristics of CDMA.

After the ICAO competition gave us VDL and UAT, what a brilliant idea it was to go back to equivalent of analogue phones for an international system to carry ADS.x.

The great thing about the FAA UAT system is its communications capabilities, with all the services (in addition to ATC comms-ADS-B) that are already available is US/Canada. And that we will never see in Australia as a result of the short term thinking that gave us 1090ES. It is not good enough to say there is and never will be a demand in Australia for real time weather, live Notams or whatever, the choice of 1090ES precludes that for all time.

AND!!!! UAT based ADS-B has proved to be far and away the cheapest system for ADS-B, if you are the one paying the bills, even without regard to all the other potentials. Can be done for around US$2000, all up, maybe even less if you already have a suitable C145/146 GPS source, in a small GA aircraft.

In the day and age of "Big Data", aviation goes for "little data", and Australia boasts about what a big contribution we made to the decisions that gave us this piece of technological vandalism.

Tootle pip!!

[7478ti]

Not so LeadSled. With all due respect, to understand why UAT and ADS-R are bad ideas, one needs to understand the very role of ADS-A, ADS-B, and ADS-C in the broader context of C-N-S optimization, safe dynamic trajectory based separation, primary versus backup mechanisms, and normal, rare-normal, and non-normal ATS and aircraft operations. When that fundamental conceptual set of considerations is addressed properly (and not as presently in either SESAR or NextGen), UAT fails miserably, conceptually, and practically, as being any useful idea, and by a wide margin. Even Mode S and ES and ELS are only interim steps, in a constantly evolving set of Data links ranging from ARINC622/745, FANS, Link16, VDL M2, Link2000, Mode S and others.

The basic long term issue is timely adequate properly specified "State Vector" exchange of relevant parameters, among vehicles, and with ANSPs.

UAT and ADS-R fail badly by any set of relevant measures needed to effectively exchange relevant RNP based trajectory state vector data needed for effective, timely, and affordable global separation assurance for all air vehicles. Both UAT and ADS-R fail to pass muster for serving as ANY useful component of any functional and affordable, and capacity capable, and readily airspace accessible future global ATS schema. UAT should never have been accepted within the US, or allowed by ICAO. UAT should now be phased out, and relegated to the dust bin of aviation history, along with MLS, REGAL, DECCA, and GCA/PAR, and eventually even banned globally as any useful component of ATS.

So for the time being, until we better solve the C part of C-N-S (via using RCP methods like we do for NAV with RNP) with a family of COM DL systems suited for vehicles from tiny UAVs to C172s to CJ3s to B777s to SpaceX and F22s, our least bad option for ADS-B is just using Mode S (TCAS, ES, and ELS,...), along with FANS for ADS-C, and VDL M2.

Both UAT and ADS-R are a very bad ideas, and are but a dead end on an already dying branch of the avionics evolutionary path. Neither should be promoted beyond the damage they are already doing to avionics and the INAS, and both should be phased out of aviation at the earliest opportunity. In fact even the idea of ADS-B itself is simply a data exchange of a particular set of parameters, of the broader needed state vector exchange, via an evolving family of data links, that will continue to evolve as we move toward a much more affordable, safer, and more effective automated dynamic RNP based trajectory exchange system for global ATS.

[Quoll]

:ok: 7478ti

The trajectory/state data will make ACAS TA, RA, and ATCS RAAM , STCA parameters that much more accurate, which of course is needed to expand the capacities of the Airways system globally a traffic congestion grows.

Multiband patchworks won't/don't help Leadsled

Regards

Q

[Capn Bloggs]

Interesting it see the mighty Leddie brought to earth… :)

Oh and Leddie, it's "Multiple" access, not "Multiplex"…:ok:

[LeadSled]

Bloggsie,
Go find definitions of TDMA and CDMA, nothing to to with aviation as such. Multiplex means the same thing as multiple access, and nothing to do with a big building company.

7478t1,
With the very greatest of respect, UAT is a broadband communications system, VDL is a broadband communications system.

Whatever system is used for a particular purpose, if the implementation for that purpose is seriously flawed, that is not the fault of the basic system.

If the basic system was seriously flawed, we would have no Generation 3 mobile phones, and the vast array of communications dependent on modern data transmission systems.

If 1900ES ( which you must admit is hardly "new" technology, dating back to the early 1940's) remains, which sadly it will, you are stuck with a seriously narrow band system, hence the FAA and Eurocontrol mandates for fitting of broadband transceivers for a number of other ATC functions, the main one being transferring much routine voice comms. to datalinks, which, in part, we have been doing for 25 years or more --- it is that long ago that I got my first airways clearance on the ACARS.

Go reads the Mitre Corp. studies, if all the traffic in US that is expected to use UAT based ADS-B transferred to 1090ES, chaos. Even now, the projected channel saturation is happening.

Further, are you suggesting that all the UAT ADS-B equipped smaller aircraft in US have to retrofit with 1909ES, as well as maintaining their UAT equipment of all the other uses to which UAT transceivers are put in US.

I suggest you do some serious reading on the political lobbying that overturned the ICAO choice of either VDL-4 or UAT as what was to be the "for the future" international standard for aviation broadband.

That lobbying had nothing to do with the technical "superiority" of 1090ES and everything to do with who held which patents (none of the traditional airline avionics manufacturers) and the financial state of many airline --- who were sold the idea that 1090ES would be "cheap" -- a bit like the CASA figures, and nothing like the rather more realistic figures for the FAA Cost/Benefit analysis.

All you have done by referring to FANS-1 and successors is obfuscate the issue, they were never anything to do with 1090ES as a datalink. I would assume you are aware that ACARS is/was pretty limited, essentially VHF analogue, and FANS data went out over ACARS or by satellite comes.

By and large, VDL-2 has succeeded VHF analogue for successors to ACARS. As I recall, VDL-4 was also being quite widely used for ground traffic separation on some US airports, and also by the US military on some of their practice ranges. As already mentioned, the first use of ADS-B in day to day ATC was VDL-4 in northern Europe.

As for re-broadcast using ADS.x, I have always thought that somewhat questionable, but I fail to see why that has anything to do with the basic datalink being used.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I am NOT getting back into this old argument!
I am NOT going to direct Plumbum to reassess his statements re ICAO standards, origins of UAT and why, TDMA, CDMA, VDL 1 thru 4 and what they mean, where and who uses them, orphaned technology, sour grapes....and etc etc...
I am NOT getting back into this old argument!
I am NOT......

THIS ARGUMENT IS SO BLOODY OLD...IT SHOULD BE IT'S OWN STRAWMAN.

You lost the argument last time, why drag it all up again? The yanks are about to get a rude shock re-atc and who will get access and who will pay once the FAA is divested. We have been there before them.

1090ES is the standard...get used to it, Plumbum. UAT , whilst it can be fitted into the receiver...what cannot be fitted is the transmitter network that produces all the free bandwidth that you so crave....SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT! Leadie, you cannot even set up your own network because AirServices refuses to allow access to its secure network.

No argument from eight years ago at the finish and from twelve years ago at the start has changed...why try again? What has changed?

......I've said too much.....coming nurse:}

[Sunfish]

Well that's it then. Why try and implement a failed system? For me it will be the cheapest, smallest compliant transponder with no integration with anything, definitely no ads-b out, no TSO'd GPS, plus a FLARM core talking to the Dynon to keep track of gliders and anybody unfortunate enough to be using ADS-B out.

I will add One approved radio, for the sake of regulations, Two would be overkill since no one understands the current broadcast requirements at uncontrolled ALA's anyway so what's the point of listening let alone transmitting beyond the absolute legal bare minimum?

Thank you pprune for this and other threads that demonstrate the complete incapacity of CASA and AsA to design and implement in clear english a comprehensive and efficient set of operational safety standards for anyone. You have saved me at least $10,000.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ha..away again...Sunny, on the money. All you need is the transponder and a tso'd gps source. All this guff is because a couple of people have twenty year old bizjets that are going to cost a motza to upgrade....should you feel sorry for them if you can comply for as little as $4000.00?....



........pills? Yes, of course I took the blue one!

[Frank Arouet]

I don't want to rewrite history but the cost was never going to be a problem for anybody as AsA were going to fund it all.


Four thousand Dollars?? No, I was definitely told it would all be free.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Believe me, Frank is correct, we sat in enough meetings where we were told not to worry about the cost ---- the subsidy would cover all or most of it, and the rates of $$$ subsidy for each type of operation was actually published in the propaganda blurbs.

Those of us who volunteered that it was just that, propaganda, that GA would never see the money, were howled down by those who wanted to believe.

Frank will well remember several "identities" in "representative bodies" who had a major conflict of interest, that did most of the howling down, and to hell with the interests of their members.

OZ,
My sincerest apologies if you have popped a fooffle valve, I know as well as you do that we are stuck with 1090ES, that doesn't make dumbxxx technological decisions any less dumbxxx, and doesn't make political strong-arming respectable.

Those of us who attended a major conference in US , on the subject, in 1996 (my org. was an ICAO Observer status attendee, and supporting VDL-4) simply were absolutely astounded when the 1090ES "solution" that had been consigned to the dustbin by FAA and most EU authorities (that had given it any thought at that time), were subsequently confronted with 1090ES being adopted as the "international standard".

Remember the UPS/Tennessee Valley trial, the Mediterranean trial, the Scandinavian trials and implementation ----- all VDL-4. And, of course, all the FAA work in Alaska, UAT.

A case of "money isn't everything, but it is sure a hell way ahead of whatever is in second place" --- just like real estate or coal mine development in NSW.

Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

Explanations of what happened in the past that caused where we are today are fine, but dwelling on the past, what the environment was and what happened 10-20 years ago and talking about what might have been isn't particularly productive.

The focus now needs to be on what needs to be done to improve the current environment moving into the future, taking into account the technologies currently available and in place (e.g. Australia's extensive ADS-B coverage above 10,000 and SSR coverage in the "J" curve)), and where we should be heading for the future.

And as is prevalent on these forums now, criticising people who have a different opinion or point of view also isn't helpful, and just serves to discourage commenting.

[no_one]

If you are an experimental aircraft or LSA then you can now get a garmin GPS position source for ABS-B for less than a grand US.

Garmin Team X Introduces Three New Products and Adds New Capabilities » Garmin Blog (http://garmin.blogs.com/my_weblog/2015/07/garmin-team-x-introduces-three-new-products-and-adds-new-capabilities.html#.Vaik-_mqpBc)

US $ 845 for the box or
US $ 1225 box install kit and antenna.

[Frank Arouet]

Captain;


You say..."dwelling on the past, what the environment was and what happened 10-20 years ago and talking about what might have been isn't particularly productive".


It is if one can learn from the past.


I have a bridge in Sydney for sale... interested?

[LeadSled]

According to FAA installation data, 297 U.S. air carrier aircraft and 97 international airlines’ aircraft had been equipped with rule-compliant ADS-B as of the end of May. By contrast there were 10,902 GA aircraft outfitted with the technology at that time as well as 28 U.S. military aircraft. Folks,
The above from this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology.

I know that US carriers have been very reluctant to fit ADS-B, because they don't see any benefit for the capital expenditure, but even so, the 297 looks very low.

The GA figure is about 6% of the fleet, but doesn't mean much, given the far more relaxed mandate, compared to Australia.

Re. the Garmin announcement, check to see if it complies with CASA certification requirements, I had a quick look at the spec., I don't think it does.

There is a rather interesting piece of new GA gear from L3 Corp., which is certified, ADS-B out is either 1090ES or UAT, owner choice, but it has dual ADS-B IN for traffic display --- only relevant to the US setup, but still interesting. Price, no idea, not in the advert.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Captain Midnight,

George Santayana:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Just as applicable to aviation in Australia in this day and age as ever.

Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

The GA figure is about 6% of the fleet, but doesn't mean much, given the far more relaxed mandate, compared to Australia.

Actually not much of that post "means much". How about giving us numbers right up close to the mandate date? Then they will be meaningful.

[Sunfish]

The new Garmin GPS 20A meets FAA rules for ADS-B but it is not TSO'd. Therefore I wouldn't think it meets Australia's extra special requirements

[CaptainMidnight]

Frank/Leady: Gammy thanks you for the eggs.

I did prefix my comment that explanations of what happened in the past that caused where we are today are fine, but some seem to love focussing on past wrongs, now the sky is falling and all's going to Hell, instead of offering constructive suggestions on how to move forward i.e.

The focus now needs to be on what needs to be done to improve the current environment moving into the future, taking into account the technologies currently available and in place (e.g. Australia's extensive ADS-B coverage above 10,000 and SSR coverage in the "J" curve)), and where we should be heading for the future.

Eldridge Cleaver: “If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.” Move on, or get out of the way.

[LeadSled]

How about giving us numbers right up close to the mandate date? Then they will be meaningful. Bloggsie,
I may claim to be many things, but a clairvoyant is not one of them.

Undoubtedly, FAA would also like to know, as well. What is reasonably clear is that the fitment rate for the relevant number of aircraft between now and 2020 is probably not attainable, even the capacity of avionics manufacturers to get equipment out is being questioned in Congressional investigations.

The new Garmin GPS 20A meets FAA rules for ADS-B but it is not TSO'd. Therefore I wouldn't think it meets Australia's extra special requirements
Sunfish,
I think that is probably right, just as several other superficially attractive cheap 1090ES transponder/GPS combinations do not comply with CASA specifications, often, but not always, because the GPS source does not comply with Australian specifications.

---- instead of offering constructive suggestions on how to move forward i.e.

Midnight,

Clearly, either you haven't read, or if you have, you have not understood many of my "contributions" to this issue. Last time I added them up, there were about nineteen substantive papers to various inter-related subjects on airspace management, with my name on the bottom, contributing on behalf of several bodies over the time, and more recently as an individual.

If, collectively, we had any brains, we should do a complete re-analysis of the Australian ADS-B mandate, a proper risk analysis and a cost/benefit justification for any subsequent mandate.

If that had been done in the first place (as Government policy of the day mandated - that mandate, "imposed" by a Labor Government, was ignored) we would not be where we are right now.

The vast cost shifting, inherent in this program, to an already financially marginal GA (a macro financial situation imposed on GA, largely not of GA's making) should be revisited, and if the RRAT Standing Committee of the Senate have their way, it may well be.

For those of you who would rejoice in many fewer GA aircraft in the air (Bloggsie and his mates) it is this short term thinking that has got Australian aviation, as a whole, to where it is today, compared to even little NZ.

When Donald Horn titled his seminal work "The Lucky Country", he was being quite ironic, describing a country with huge potential, with a population (including political classes from the left to right) of none too bright people, who were probably never going achieve that potential.

If you look at the Australian aviation sector, he was so correct, it is uncanny --- and very sad. The aviation sector has lucked out.

Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

I wasn't having a shot specific to you Leady, and I'm aware of your input and involvement over the years. Having been in the industry nigh on 40 years myself, we've probably been at the same forums from time to time.

So some issues for the way forward, in no particular order:


CASA to evaluate cheap 1090ES transponder/GPS combinations WRT compliance with current specifications, and consider revising specifications where appropriate, to facilitate a cost-effective means of GA fitment of ADS-B;
CASA to consider a complete re-analysis of the Australian ADS-B mandate, a proper risk analysis and a cost/benefit justification for any subsequent mandate;
CASA and Airservices to work with the industry WRT revaluating the ADS-B implementation mandate, to a date appropriate and workable for GA;
CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards increasing the number of ADS-B ground stations, to increase low level coverage;
CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards the lowering of Class E airspace where surveillance (SSR or ADS-B) exists or is required, thereby increasing the benefits of ADS-B to industry;
more?

[LeadSled]

Midnight,
I agree with that whole list, and only make the following comments:

Any justification of the ADS-B mandate beyond FAA/Eurocontrol proposals for operations below 10,000/250kt IAS will not genuinely be able to be justified, the AsA/CASA mandate must be wound back.

With the extension of E airspace, the right of RAOz Pilot Certificate Holders to operate in E must be granted, subject to meeting the current transponder requirement. It was a certain Assistant Director, back in about 2003, who kyboshed what had already been agreed by CASA, that E would be open to AUF/RAOz pilots.

As far as I can see, many of the unacceptable cheap systems available only have a C129 GPS. Given Australia's traffic levels, a case should be made for these units to be used. For those that have a C145/146 GPS chip, any reason for non-approval needs very careful scrutiny, against the background of the very low traffic levels in Australia, and the proven collision risk probabilities above 10,000' being several orders of magnitude less the ICAO standard, effectively a statistical zero --- vanishingly small.

Nobody should forget that it is the Mode C Transponder that the ACAS/TCAS of a suitably equipped aircraft will see, not ADS-B Out.

Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

As far as I can see, many of the unacceptable cheap systems available only have a C129 GPS. Given Australia's traffic levels, a case should be made for these units to be used.It's out of my area of expertise the limitations such units have, but -

Maybe the use of such units could be confined to Class G (and maybe E below (say) 8500)?

[CaptainMidnight]

Updated list below.

All:

If you agree to any or all of these I suggest you drop a line to your industry association (AOPA, AFAP, SAAA, RA-AUS etc.) for them to prepare and file a submission to CASA.

Now it the time; just discussing here won't do anything. If you don't ask, you don't get.


CASA to evaluate cheap 1090ES transponder/GPS combinations WRT compliance with current specifications, and consider revising specifications where appropriate, to facilitate a cost-effective means of GA fitment of ADS-B;

CASA to consider a complete re-analysis of the Australian ADS-B mandate, a proper risk analysis and a cost/benefit justification for any subsequent mandate;

CASA and Airservices to work with the industry WRT revaluating the ADS-B implementation mandate, to a date appropriate and workable for GA;

CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards increasing the number of ADS-B ground stations, to increase low level coverage;

CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards the lowering of Class E airspace where surveillance (SSR or ADS-B) exists or is required, thereby increasing the benefits of ADS-B to industry;

CASA to consider approving RAOz Pilot Certificate Holders to operate in Class E airspace, subject to meeting the current transponder requirement.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Good luck!

Methinks the FDE part of TSOC145/146 is the means of guaranteeing separation standards. The system wants to know your equipment isn't using questionable data.

[CaptainMidnight]

Well, I did say "evaluate" :)

Unlike what some seem to think, there aren't necessarily simple solutions to what they don't realise are complex problems.

[rr007]

RA-AUS Pilots already have access to E airspace

[sunnySA]

Captain Midnight said
CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards increasing the number of ADS-B ground stations, to increase low level coverage;

I really can't see how the "big end of town" would support this, no safety benefit for them in the airspace they fly in (EK et al) and at what cost? An alternate strategy, lobby Government to receive reduced dividend (from Airservices) for the next five years and this money to directly put into ADSB to better low level surveillance around regional airports.

BTW, Title of the thread is offensive.

[LeadSled]

RA-AUS Pilots already have access to E airspace

rr007,
Would you expand on that, please, I can't see any reference in Issue 7 of the RAOz Operations Manual that the controlled airspace endorsements for an RAOz Pilot Certificate holder have made it into the manual.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Dynon just announced a $590 GPS that complies with FAA ads-b out rules, but is not TSO'd. I wonder if CASAwill have a rush of common sense and allow its use? Also the Dynon radio?

[7478ti]

Don't believe the Dynon $590 ADS-B KOSH ad "ruse". When you add up all the needed parts to make it actually work, plus installation, it is still many many $thousands. Worst of all, FAA's entire ADS-B concept is still seriously flawed, and even if the Dynon was free, FAA's ADS-B doesn't stand a prayer of actually being implemented anything like it is currently being proposed (required).

The fundamental Issue here is that both VFR and IFR are entirely obsolete, and FAA's ADS-B keys to a seriously failing Nextgen concept. The entire US ATS foundation is based on the long obsolete flawed premise of "see and be seen" related to 91.113(b), which has failed time and time again, from the Grand Canyon midair, to AL853 (Sept '69) to Aeromexico 498 at Cerritos, to PSA182 in San Diego.

Further, seeing hundreds of thousands of new tiny UAVs flying into a sunset, for anybody, from F-16s to B777s, to even low end GA, is virtually hopeless. We now can economically and safely do EFR (Electronic Flight Rules) globally, but IF AND ONLY IF WE reformulate ATS from first principles, use dynamic RNP 3D and 4D trajectory based separation, exchange the correct "state vector" data, (and NOT FAA's ridiculous overspecified overexpensive seriously flawed version of ADS-B with UAT and ADS-R), and finally do C-N-S properly (but NOT NextGen, which really should be called PastGen). ALL vehicles need to see each other without ATS help.

For example, the recent F16/C150 midair event isn't the F-16 pilot's fault, it isn't the C150 pilot's fault, it isn't the Air Traffic Separation specialist's fault (I feel bad for all of them, and they all deserve our sympathy and support).

Instead, IT IS primarily the FAA's FAULT, and our fault, for completely failing to force the needed ATS evolution over the past 4 decades, and OUR failing to hold FAA adequately accountable for sustaining this broken, antiquated, seriously flawed system (that spurred FAA's seriously flawed ADS-B). We will someday see this sad F16/C150 event all over again, if we don't now learn, dump FAA's ADS-B, and take the needed more basic action of fundamental ATS redesign from first principles, taking into account the capability of modern technology, just like the phone system did over five decades ago.

To start, FAA needs to be broken up this fall in the budget hearings, and re-constituted with a completely separate ATS that is PROPERLY modernized, and much more closely held accountable for its design, costs, benefits, and performance, ...directly to the airspace users, and NOT to FAA's contractors, consultants, avionics companies trying to economically benefit from mandates, and politically appointed or career FAA officials with marginal or no serious aviation experience.

But for now, don’t waste a dime on any Dynon, Garmin, L3, or anybody else’s version of FAA’s flawed misapplied ADS-B concept.

[buckshot1777]

Interesting then, the local campaign to copy and implement the U.S. system :)

Don't tell Ean Higgins.

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/564391-airspace-2015-coming-airport-near-you.html#post9042144

[LeadSled]

Folks,
From The Australian today, even Mr. McCormick is having his say.
---------------------------------------
The former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says his five-year campaign for safer skies came up against repeated resistance from Airservices Australia, which dragged its heels against *reforming airspace management along US lines.
John McCormick, who stepped down from CASA last year, said that he met opposition each time he moved to have Airservices, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air traffic control and navigation system, extend controlled airspace.
In his first interview since *leaving the aviation watchdog, Mr McCormick said Airservices seemed reluctant to implement measures that involved its air *traffic controllers directing aircraft over a wider range of airspace where reliable radar was available. “Their objections were not based on safety; to my belief, they were internal Airservices *issues,” Mr McCormick said.
In one case, Mr McCormick said, he had to issue a directive to have Airservices’ air traffic controllers take charge of aircraft around Avalon airport in Victoria, a move he believes may have *prevented a potential serious air accident.
Mr McCormick said he supported calls from businessman and aviator Dick Smith and others for Airservices to have its fire and rescue crews at regional airports without control towers to provide pilots with basic local air traffic and weather information via radio, as do their counterparts in the US.
Airservices chairman Angus Houston has vigorously opposed the suggestion.
Mr McCormick said it made sense because Airservices’ prime responsibility was air safety and the firefighters were its employees. “You have to say, ‘What are they there for … what do we want them to do’,” Mr McCormick said.
Mr McCormick, who started his career as a RAAF fighter pilot before becoming a Qantas pilot and later a senior executive with Cathay Pacific, put his weight behind restarting the effort begun in the early 2000s to move to the US and Canadian national airspace system.
In those countries, whether radar is available or not, commercial aircraft are always under direction by air traffic controllers almost right to the runway. “They say they have implemented it, but of course they haven’t,” Mr McCormick said of the unfulfilled plans to introduce the North American system.
Australia still has a mishmash of regimes in which some airports are in designated controlled airspace, but most others, including some with significant airline traffic, are not, requiring pilots in cloud to talk to each other to work out their relative positions and avoid collisions.
The Airservices media unit yesterday refused to provide information or comment.
Mr McCormick’s decision to speak out follows a sustained campaign by The Australian raising issues of air safety and the administration of government aviation organisations.
While the new CASA chairman, Jeff Boyd, recently unveiled to this newspaper a reform agenda to embrace the US model, Mr Smith suspects he will encounter push-back from Airservices because of what he claims is a misguided assumption on its part that it would mean hiring more air traffic controllers.
Mr McCormick said he did succeed in some reform, such as improving airspace arrangements at the main secondary airports used for general aviation in each mainland capital.
At Avalon, not far from Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport, the situation was absurd, Mr McCormick said, because the radar coverage of the area was so good “you could see aircraft on the ground” but it was not being used for air traffic control down to the runway.
“I said that this was unacceptable. For various reasons, there was a bit of objection,” Mr McCormick said, referring to Airservices.
He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said.
It was after controlled airspace was introduced at Avalon that air traffic controllers helped avoid what potentially could have been a major air accident, Mr McCormick said, after a Tiger Airways airline pilot decided on a go-around of the runway at night.
“In the subsequent missed approach procedure the radar controller noticed they were descending when they shouldn’t be,” Mr McCormick said. “The controller told them, then they arrested their descent. If that airspace wouldn’t have been changed, he or she would not have had the requirement to monitor that aircraft.”
It was a further example, Mr McCormick said, of how controlled airspace should be extended at least wherever reliable radar coverage was available.
In 2004, air traffic controllers did not intervene when a radar alarm warned them an aircraft was off-course in uncontrolled airspace, and it crashed into terrain near Benalla in Victoria with the loss of six lives.

[Capn Bloggs]

Australia still has a mishmash of regimes in which some airports are in designated controlled airspace, but most others, including some with significant airline traffic, are not, requiring pilots in cloud to talk to each other to work out their relative positions and avoid collisions.

Mishmash indeed. The only mishmash is the biased use of a national newspaper to push personal agendas (that won't publish letters countering the diatribes that are printed). Australians self-separating. Shock, Horror.

Mr Smith suspects he will encounter push-back from Airservices because of what he claims is a misguided assumption on its part that it would mean hiring more air traffic controllers.
Yes, how silly of AsA, how could providing full approach services for IFRs in the regions possibly mean more controllers (and training)?

With the extension of E airspace, the right of RAOz Pilot Certificate Holders to operate in E must be granted, subject to meeting the current transponder requirement.
Controlled Airspace training or just swan around with the other users dodging them? So now we have even less experienced operators in an airspace type that does not provide any traffic information, all saved by the mighty TCAS/transponder. Good stuff.

I continue to chuckle at this fanciful concept that just because it is VMC, you can operate two parallel but completely independent airspace types, all aircraft kept apart by See and be Seen. Dick, you're right you would never have got ANY Class E unless transponders were mandated. It is sheer lunacy to expect jets to fly around looking out for bugsmashers. Tobago v 737 example. I wonder why J Mac didn't mention that one? ATC are quite at liberty to provide hazard alerts; if going into a CTAF, they should and they have.

As for Tiger, it's been done to death already. Should we design the complete airspace system around those that don't know the basic rules? EGPWS will bleat if you get too low off-airport.

[rr007]

rr007,
Would you expand on that, please, I can't see any reference in Issue 7 of the RAOz Operations Manual that the controlled airspace endorsements for an RAOz Pilot Certificate holder have made it into the manual.
Tootle pip!!

Section 7.1 (d) of CAO 95.55:
the aeroplane must only be flown in:
(i) Class G airspace; or
(ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.; or
(iii) in accordance with paragraph 7.3 — in Class A, B, C or D airspace;

Class E isn't considered controlled airspace to VFR aircraft, therefore no controlled airspace endorsement is required.

[Capn Bloggs]

Precisely my point, rr007. Two different worlds operating in the same piece of sky. :)

[buckshot1777]

Interesting, Mr. McCormick's claims, and distancing himself.

I wonder if he was aware of his own Office of Airspace Regulation, and what their regulatory responsibilities are?

Role of the OAR
The role of the OAR is to regulate Australian airspace in accordance with the Airspace Act 2007 and the Airspace Regulations 2007, and to meet the Australian Government commitment expressed in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2012 to:

ensure that Australian airspace is administered and used safely, taking into account:
protection of the environment,
efficient use of that airspace,
equitable access to that airspace for all users of that airspace,
national security; and
continue the reform of Australia's airspace and move towards closer alignment with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) system and adoption of proven international best practice.


The administration of Australian airspace as a national resource shall:

consider safety of Passenger Transport Services as the first priority;
be in the best interests of Australia;
consider the current and future needs of the Australian aviation industry;
adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia's aviation environment; and
take advantage of advances in technology wherever practicable.


To meet the requirements and guidance, the OAR undertakes the following activities:

assessing and managing Airspace Change Proposals (ACPs),
consulting with industry on airspace matters,
reviews of the airspace classification and designation to ensure that the airspace is fit for purpose, and
participating in future strategic airspace planning.

In short, it is CASA OAR's role to assess the environment at locations and make a determination as to whether the existing airspace classification and services are adequate or not.

CASA OAR have conducted aeronautical studies since 2007 and have only on rare occasions found that the existing airspace classifications or services were inadequate and required upgrading e.g. Broome Karratha Avalon.

Given that for those locations Towers had to be built from scratch or refurbished, links installed and staff recruited, relocated and trained, airspace designed and published via a chart release, one would think 12 months to implement not unreasonable. And if OAR had determined that more urgent implementation was required, they could have - but didn't.

[LeadSled]

rr007,
Thanks for that, I had missed that change.
Tootle pip!!

[le Pingouin]

I love the way that Dick bangs on about Australia being antiquated, well you can't get much more dirt track antiquated than mixing IFR RPT with unalerted VRF and relying on see & avoid. That is straight out of the 50s and the US is stuck there because they daren't do anything different.

[CaptainMidnight]

He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said.

From RAPAC at the time I recall that while the Tower @ AVV was undergoing maintenance and being refurbished, and staff recruited, relocated and trained, airspace designed and published via a chart releaseAirservices - with the full approval of CASA OAR - as an interim measure, put in a CA/GRS.

So much for "hybrided". We (and presumably those at the coalface in CASA OAR) thought at the time the action was entirely appropriate.

I recall Airservices also put in a CA/GRS at BRM & KA as an interim measure before the Towers and airspace was ready, and have done the same thing at Hedland. In fact the latter has been operating at Hedland for a couple of years now I believe, because the traffic reduced to the point CASA OAR no longer required a Tower service.

However, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[topdrop]

Our airspace system will quite probably lead to the demise of GA. Please contact me, I've got a bridge for sale.

[Capn Bloggs]

It's certainly costs everyone a lot more and will quite probably lead to the demise of GA.
Yet another outrageous claim from the Dick camp. Justify your claim, CtR. And don't bundle the ADS-B debate/cost into the airspace arrangement.

[The name is Porter]

Please contact me, I've got a bridge for sale.

Embarrassing, I think most Australians' stopped using that saying in the 1980's?

Typical public servant, on the CSS scheme or Defined Benefit? An airspace user, one of the blokes that pays your wages is expressing an opinion. He flies in it every day, runs a business & probably knows a little more about it than you. Show some effing respect.

[le Pingouin]

So what is happening here is more modern, better and safer is it?

That's not what I'm saying. What's the point in trading in our clapped out Kingswood for an equally clapped out F100? That's effectively what Dick is asking us to do. Particularly when we can't afford the extra petrol it will consume.

(Not) It's certainly costs everyone a lot more and will quite probably lead to the demise of GA
Exactly how is adding more E going to save GA?

[le Pingouin]

Porter, can you spell ad hominem?

[The name is Porter]

Hold on, let me google that first :ok:

[The name is Porter]

Cool, now I know the meaning.

My remarks point out that it's easy when you're making a comfortable living from your customers and you're a monopoly provider to become arrogant and out of touch with them. It also points out that most business owners in GA will finish with no super or retirement savings. It's easy sitting in an ivory tower (pun intended) to think you know it all about your customers business.

Basically, pull your head out of your arse, spend a week with these guys and look at what they have to cope with day to day. I don't know one centre or twr\tma ATC that has done this in the last 10 years. (Apart from the pilot ones). Arrogant & out of touch. :ok: (you may as well add condescending to that list)

[Awol57]

Ok well I am an ATC that is not on CSS or DB. I also am a pilot. So explain how the airspace set up is leading to the demise of GA to me. I can see how the ADSB mandate impacts negatively cost wise but I can't see how the airspace is doing that?

[topdrop]

I agree that GA is tough - I fail to see how current airspace is contributing to GA's demise. It's just like politicians making statements that are not backed up by any facts.

[The name is Porter]

Ok well I am an ATC that is not on CSS or DB. I also am a pilot. So explain how the airspace set up is leading to the demise of GA to me. I can see how the ADSB mandate impacts negatively cost wise but I can't see how the airspace is doing that?

Ok, let's look at a couple of things, saying GA is tough is an understatement. A cheap ADSB solution for an IFR trainer, 15, 20k? You've got 2 of these aircraft. Do you put your hourly rate up to cover it? You can't, your prospective students will walk. Name me one GA business that has a lazy 40k sitting in an account to throw at this? Where's the money coming from? This is a very simple problem, think of the other crap GA is going through. Part 61. You have absolutely no concept of the battle GA is fighting, how much it is costing and the time commitment required to try and understand it let alone make it work or pay for it. Your customers tell you they are operating on paper thin margins, that the next little piece of horse**** legislation could tip them over and it's: 'How's this gunna cost you more money?' Listen to them and they'll tell you.

[Awol57]

What does installing ADSB have to do with the airspace set up? That is a completely separate mandate which I agree has cost issues.

Part 61 appears to be a balls up. Still not an airspace set up issue.

I agree GA has it tough, but I can't see airspace making any difference to that, unless Class E to 700' is brought in and you need to fit a transponder.

[The name is Porter]

yeah, no worries, shouldn't be a problem :ok:

[le Pingouin]

That's all well and good Porter (I'm not arguing the costs mentioned) but how is that related to the airspace model we currently use? Dick wants people to believe the changes he wants introduced are going to come without a cost to industry and won't require extra controllers. If nothing else where is the money for the training going to come from?

I'm glad to see that GA is also change resistant :E

[LeadSled]

Where's the money coming from?In the case of a friend of mine, well known school, the answer was a $32,000 second mortgage on the house, to equip two aircraft.
The cost is horrendous, the benefit is nil.
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Exactly Leadie, the CAsA cost benefit analysis.
The cost is ours, the benefits are theirs.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

$16,000.00 per aircraft?

Care to fill us plebs in on the work order and purchase list, shouldn't be a state secret?

[Mr Brewster]

I have simply dropped our aircraft to NVFR. It will not stop me doing GPS Arrivals OCTA if I need to. Just another example of Australia trying to go it alone and AOPA tugging the forelock to CASA and AsA.

[The name is Porter]

I have simply dropped our aircraft to NVFR. It will not stop me doing GPS Arrivals OCTA if I need to. Just another example of Australia trying to go it alone and AOPA tugging the forelock to CASA and AsA.

Awesome, can you text me when you are doing this, I may need traffic on you when we're both in IMC.

[LeadSled]

$16,000.00 per aircraft?Oz,
I will ask, but I believe the aircraft already had a C145 or 146 source available. They were identical aeroplanes, this should have minimized the costs of the engineering orders, load analysis and all those sort of things that add $$$$$ thousands to this sort of job.

Exactly Leadie, the CAsA cost benefit analysis.
The cost is ours, the benefits are theirs. Thorn Bird,
Nil benefit is guaranteed in this case, they are normally operating in an area and below levels where any ADS-B return is not on the screens of the controllers they are talking to, just their Mode C returns.

This just adds insult to (financial) injury.

Tootle pip!!

[Mr Brewster]

No worries Porter, I will still be on the radio, just in very special VFR ��

Oh, and the quote to upgrade, about $3500 for a compatible transponder, another $8000 for a WAAS GPS plus fitting (cos my non WAAS 430 is no good, even though we don't have WAAS). So $16,000 sounds about right.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Mr Brewster....the magic acronym is not WAAS, it is FDE!

Methinks people are getting confused on what is actually required and what is candy. The requirement is FDE, the supply of that requirment need only be a blind GPS, purely to feed only the transponder.

As a navigator the 129 version 430 is still good. Did you really need to spend the money on a new 430? Did you look at All the alternatives, Mr Brewster?

This is where the argument was blurred a decade ago. Pilots were sold on the idea of a kick arse navigator. AirServices only wanted proof that your unit was excluding dud signals...they do not care what box supplies that information.

[LeadSled]

Clearedtoenter,
Just as well we have sooo much good weather, have topos handy, and recalibrate your fickle finger of fate ---- if you can remember how to map read and do a bit of old fashioned DR.
Nobody smokes anymore, so no more 1:1,000,000 matchbox.
Remember how to read a B-20 even. (always preferred P-7s myself, still got an almost new one in a box somewhere).
And don't forget, when you are flying IFRRR (I Follow Roads, Rivers and Railway lines) keep right.
That wonderful Can'tbra cost/benefit, your cost, they benefit.
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

CTR, TSO C145/146 is WAAS. As part of the TSO is Fault Detection and Exclusion. This is the bit AirServices is interested in. The NUC (or is it NIC) gives an integrity signal that it is using good data. Good data means integrity of the position, therefore maintain the separation standard.

My post on the C129 gear was prior to hearing of a rumour. Three ground station uplinks are being installed in Perth Brisbane and Melbourne...pointing at the MTSAT...now why would that be happening?

[Mr Brewster]

Well the guy who quoted (on GC) said my 430 was no good and I needed another one.

Way too much to pay for zero benefit. So super special VFR it is :O

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Brewster, not sure how much you're interested in the facts where they may conflict with your argument, but here goes anyway:

1. Garmin will upgrade (and fix everything else) on your non-WAAS 430 to make it WAAS. From their website:

List Price: $3,395 USD (subject to change without notice)

Visit an authorized Garmin sales and service center or call (866) 739-5687

Otherwise you can stay 129 compliant and buy a separate postion source such as the Freeflight 1201 - but that's going to cost you not much less than getting a TSO'd GPS.

2. A KT74 transponder is about $3500 (maybe a bit more with the exchange rate) but there are cheaper ones at about $2500 USD (Trig TT31).

So at a cost of $0 for the GPS changeover (*I'll qualify that by saying you need to have the right GPS antenna cable*) and a cost we paid of $1500 AUD installation (including an engineering order) on a Lance, you can do the whole job for just about than half of your $16k.

You still have the problem of finding alternates with only one GPS once all the aids are gone, that I can't help you with beyond saying that in any lighty, fuel reserves the nearest equiped aerodrome for most of the inhabited part of the continent still won't be unreasonable.

I'm also curious as to why you've dropped to NVFR about 8 months before needing to in WA and 18 months before the rest of the country needed it?


UTR

[Mr Brewster]

I dropped because all my RAD and INST ADs came up.

Even 8K is a lot given I am mostly VFR, only IFR when caught on top which is about 2 or 3 times a year.

I am mostly also below 8000 unless going to Cairns where the dreaded Bellenen Kerr and friend await.

So, nothing in the $8000 for me at all!