Tasmanian Multilateration and ADS-B

[Dick Smith]

I flew out of Hobart yesterday to Bankstown in the CJ3. I noticed we were held at 280 until we got into the coverage of the mainland radar. This is, no doubt, because I have not yet updated the CJ3 to ADS-B as the Collins/Cessna cost is just on $132,000 (including GST) whereas the real cost should be about $15,000.

http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o570/margot23/cockpit%20reading_zpspzycowzl.jpg (http://s1148.photobucket.com/user/margot23/media/cockpit%20reading_zpspzycowzl.jpg.html)

I wasn’t in the cockpit but I asked the pilot to check if there was any aircraft above 290 in Tasmania at that time – he was told that there were none.

When it was decided to spend tens-of-millions-of-dollars on a multilateration system for Tasmania, I am sure we were told that it would be as good as – or better than – secondary surveillance radar. I that case, why don’t they allow non-ADS-B fitted aircraft which have a dispensation for radar airspace to operate above 280?

There must be a reason for this. Could it be that the multilateration doesn’t work?

When flying into Hobart from Bankstown I often notice that the radar service is terminated on descent over Flinders Island. Once again, this seems strange if the multilateration is working as it should.

I look forward to some accurate advice on this.

[TBM-Legend]

All good questions Dick.

We are bringing a used jet into Australia from Europe where it has been safely operation all over some of the world's busiest airways and we need to spend hundreds of thousand updating to ADS-B et al....[not mandated until 2020 over there]

The rhetorical question is why is aviation so different and costly here????

[le Pingouin]

Multilateration works Dick but occasionally there's an outage - once more than a certain number of the multilat sites are unavailable it can't be used. Not sure if that was the case yesterday.

How did your pilot know what else was out there? Assuming multilat was unusable you would have been procedurally separated & the tolerances on that are on the huge side i.e. TCAS wouldn't have the range.

[Dick Smith]

He asked ATC.

I wonder if there is a big cover up re the Multilateration.

[CaptainMidnight]

Perhaps your used jet has been operating in a region extensively covered by SSR, which we don't have here.

[Capn Bloggs]

I wonder if there is a big cover up re the Multilateration.
Could well have been. It wasn't on the MEL FIR Enroute AEIS yesterday...

[Stationair8]

Just out of interest Dick, how long did you get held at your non planned level?

[Dick Smith]

Not long. Probably less than 15 minutes. But why at all if no aircraft above and multilateration airspace

[swh]

I dont see a conspiracy, RPT jets to and from HBA before and after MIF were above FL290. It was a quiet time of day.

The Virgin flight that left 1 hr before you was up at FL380 over Tassie, JST715 was up at FL330, VOZ702 was up at FL360, they were the closest to your departure time.

Just out of interest Dick, how long did you get held at your non planned level?

20 minutes according to flight tracker Flight Track Log ? VH-MIF ? 11-Feb-2015 ? YMHB / HBA - YSBK / BWU ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VHMIF/history/20150211/0115Z/YMHB/YSBK/tracklog)

[Dick Smith]

Swh. Why were we held down if the multilateration works?

What was the point in spending tens of millions if it can't be used like a SSR?

When we climbed above 10,000 why were we not given a radar separation service ?

[le Pingouin]

Here's your answer Dick:

CASA EX56/14 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L00922)

Look at the chart. You couldn't operate above F280 until you were north of FLI as you weren't in ADS-B exempt airspace.

For us to use WAM you need to be between multiple receivers (to give sufficient accuracy - think triangulation) which is clearly only possible over central Tassie due to the lack of receivers positioned out in the ocean. No usable WAM coverage means procedural separation and no ADS-B exemption.

No conspiracy, no outage, just lack of WAM coverage (simply due to the way WAM works) and you not being ADS-B equipped. Them's the rules!

If you download the PDF copy of the instrument you should be able to see enough detail to plan a suitable route to remain in exempt airspace next time: CASA EX56/14 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L00922/Download)

[Old Akro]

Why is it that there is a huge debate about whether ADS-B implementation should proceed in the US for 2020, but not so much as a whisper from any of our "representative" bodies about Australia's more stringent 2016 implementation??

Australia is the only country in the world mandating ADS-B for ALL IFR flights at ALL levels in ALL airspace types. We seem to be the only country NOT listening to industry in an attempt to reach practical compromises.

See Flying Magazine:

ADS-B Revolt: AOPA Responds | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/ads-b-revolt-0)

Flying Sparks ADS-B Conversation | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/flying-sparks-ads-b-conversation)

GA Groups Press Case for Lower-Cost ADS-B Gear | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/news/ga-groups-press-case-lower-cost-ads-b-gear)

See US AOPA

GA groups urge FAA to lower barriers to ADS-B - AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/January/23/GA-groups-urge-FAA-to-lower-barriers-to-modernization)

AOPA ready to work with FAA on ADS-B Out mandate - AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/November/12/AOPA-ready-to-work-with-FAA-on-mandate)

see AVWEB

ADS-B Summit: 'Irreparable Harm' Seen - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ADS-B-Summit-Irreparable-Harm-Seen223007-1.html)

[Dick Smith]

Old Akro

You have an extremely good point. It has come about because those who introduced the mandate – a combination of the boffins at ASA and some of the bureaucrats at CASA – have simply no idea of the effect of cost on the industry. Most importantly, the regulation impact statement (“RIS”) which was performed was a total con – one of the most dishonest documents I have ever seen.

I have been in touch with the RIS people in the Productivity Commissioner's Office and they have said that a RIS must clearly state the “winners and the losers”. In this case, the RIS which was prepared by CASA implies that everyone is a winner when, in fact, it’s only the airlines who are likely to get a win in relation to cost and that depends on them getting more direct tracking and saving fuel.

In fact, I have spoken to some of the senior airline people and they have said that since the ADS-B mandate came in a little over twelve months ago they haven’t seen any measurable saving from direct tracking.

The mandate for all IFR aircraft flying at all levels in all airspace is going to be the death knell of the IFR trainers who are located at places like Bathurst and other country towns. In effect, they are going to have to spend between $10,000 and $20,000 for no measurable saving at all. And there is no measurable safety improvement as Airservices don’t separate IFR aircraft in G airspace – they just simply give traffic information.

Now I can assure you the Controller will not be calling out with the latitude and longitude of the aircraft from the ADS-B paint; no, the traffic information will be the same as always given and then the pilots will have to talk to each other to arrange their own self separation as per the 1930's

More importantly, this has been a giant move of costs from the service provider to the customer. In effect, Airservices will achieve an enormous saving by not having to put secondary surveillance radar in airspace which is now to be mandated for ADS-B.

Of course they did not ever put secondary surveillance radar in this airspace as it would never meet any cost/benefit study. However, by constantly stating that America has more SSR coverage (DERR! They have far more aircraft to justify it!), it allowed ASA to then state that ADS-B coverage needed to cover all of Australia.

I have tried to get the RIS looked at again but the lack of ethics in Canberra – no, not just at ASA and CASA but also in the Department – means that no-one is interested in looking at it. The reason organisations like AOPA are ineffective is the fact that ASA, CASA and the Department have made sure they are given no recognition at all if they make any statement which refers to cost misallocation.

Watch for further staggering damage to the industry as this next mandate comes in.

[thorn bird]

Dick,


my old pappy used to say, if you want a reason, follow the money.


I believe ASA and CASA executives are paid bonuses on what they can save the "guvmint".


A $170 million saving they engineered by forcing industry to pay should set them up nicely in retirement.


Imagine what McComic will be able to engineer as president of ICAO.

[swh]

OA,

A number of other countries currently have ADS-B mandates apart from Australia.

DS,

"Watch for further staggering damage to the industry as this next mandate comes in."

I find it disingenuous to suggest that anyone needs to spend enormous amounts of money to meet the ADS-B requirements. I could build a WAAS capable position source (even RTK) and 1090 ES mode S transponder with ADS-B out for less than $100 using a Raspberry Pi. It is really is not that complicated.

The manufacturers that have avionics installed as part of the type certificate in my view are price gouging, they are waiting for suckers to come along and pay them a heap of money for little work. The US$135k upgrade for your aircraft is probably going via Cessna, that is a consumer choice you may or may not elect to make.

There are much smarter ways to get ADS-B apart from going with the manufacturer. Many people with G1000 Caravans have realized they dont need to go to Cessna and pay 60k to get ADS-B, you can insert a WAAS position source rather inexpensively (i.e. a WAAS position source for less than 5k).

Have you asked anyone if you can install a Freeflight 1203 position source via the Arinc 429 bus to the Pro Line 21 ? What about a different position source for your transponder ?

My aircraft cost less than 5k to upgrade to ADS-B, I sent my GPS back to Garmin for a WAAS upgrade, that was 3k, and a software update to the transponder (free download), plus 4 man hours.

Dont forget as an industry we decided many years ago not to accept a payment from Airservices to have ADS-B installed.

[LeadSled]

Dont forget as an industry we decided many years ago not to accept a payment from Airservices to have ADS-B installed.SWH,
What ever you are on, can I have some, it must be good sh1t.

Seriously, wherever did you get that idea, there might have been much loose talk, but the facts are that no offers of real money were ever made to anybody.
Just for starters, the airlines flatly refused to participate in any subsidies to GA, that might have impacted cost reductions for them, based on the ASA/AATA pricing formula.

For those of you who are upset about the cost of ADS-B --- have a look at the proposed equipment requirements for Draft Part 135 --- they will really make your eyes water.

Tootle pip!!

[swh]

LeadSled,

I seem to recall 15k per aircraft being offered, and as an industry we rejected it so the money could be spent on a refurb of the J SSR radar coverage.

Can you show me where I am wrong ?

have a look at the proposed equipment requirements for Draft Part 135

Let me guess, similar to what the EU have already got in place for new aircraft from Jan this year ?

[thorn bird]

"Let me guess, similar to what the EU have already got in place for new aircraft from Jan this year ?"


Guess that's why general aviation in the EU is pretty much non existent, most of the heavy metal end is on foreign registers and sane countries in the EU are frantically writing their own reg's in an attempt to resurrect their GA industries.

[c100driver]

There is a new market developing for the avionics world to find a solution.

L3 have just released their Lynx range which is a S Transponder with WAAS GPS. So options are becoming available as the USA marches to 2020!

The question has to be why did Aussie go earlier that the largest market?

[Dick Smith]

Re the multilateration - do planes get radar vectored to the approach at Hobart?

If not is that the result of our en route controllers not being rated to do radar based approach work as U.S. and Canadian controllers are ?

Or doesn't the multilateration work properly?

[c100driver]

Cannot answer for Aussie but in NZ the mLat works well but the interface with the legacy ATC hardware and software is taking some time to get certified in part because there is no supporting regulations at present in the NZ rule suite.

[swh]

I could just about believe $5000 if you have an upgradable IFR GPS box and a newish upgradeable transponder, although even then I guess you're talking USD.

AUD$4.5k all up, I did it at the right time. Most of the money went to Garmin, the Garmin upgrade is now 3.4k Garmin | United States | WAAS Upgrades (http://www.garmin.com/us/products/intheair/waasupgrade)

For most of us we're going to need a new WAAS GPS and a new 1900ES transponder to replace our perfectly functional and in many cases not very old IFR avionics.

You dont need a WAAS GPS in the cockpit, just a WAAS position source for the transponder in the aircraft. You will see there are a lot more options available now.

For those of us with a non WAAS 'state of the art' G1000 system that have to go through Cessna for the upgrades, we'd now be lucky to do it inside $40K+ per aircraft.

You dont need to pay 40k, you can add a stand alone WAAS position source to your G1000 setup, do a google on "G1000 Caravan ADS-B" to find out about the mob in Brisbane that did a common sense solution for the Fiji mandate.

I'm sure there is price gouging going on but whether or not the manufacturers are ripping us off, that's what it costs and CASA and ASA should be well aware and concerned about that.

Its a consumer choice to go down the no thinking hand over a wad of cash to the manufacturer to do something which is really not that complicated (adding a GPS position source to the transponder). With DS case Business and Commuter Aircraft of Bron in France has integrated a the FreeFlight 1203C WAAS position source with the TDR-94 transponder (as on the CJ3) on a Falcon 20 for ADS-B out.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Dick, I don't think the Hobart tower guys are radar rated.

[Capt Claret]

Irrespective of the radar rating of HBA TWR guys, they don't have radar.

It's all procedural and they do a damned fine job of it too. :ok:

[PLovett]

It's all procedural and they do a damned fine job of it too.

If occasionally they appear to have swallowed their worry beads when they have incoming from two different directions. :suspect:

[Capt Claret]

Haven't experienced that yet PLovett but was very impressed one winter's night (VOR-Z RWY30), when I'd said to Bloggs "this is gunna turn to custard", an A320 on final, a 738 overhead and turning outbound, and a 717 inbound to HB from Tea Tree. It's a tad disconcerting to see the lights of a jet in a missed approach heading straight for one.

But it worked like clockwork with no signs of worry beads. But after two decades of Darwin ATC, my scepticism got the better of me.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Have you done the Derwent One Arrival, with a left base onto 30 yet Captain Claret?

Best done with a Yank carrier moored in the middle of the Derwent or regatta day.

[Capn Bloggs]

...left base ... Captain Claret

Oxymoron (although his hair is naturally white now, I believe; must be the worry beads...) :}

[Dick Smith]

So they spent tens of millions on the multilateration "Radar" system but no one is trained to use it? Is that what you are saying? What's the use of the system then?

[PLovett]

The towers are not allowed to use it but certainly centre uses it for identification purposes - not sure about vectors or anything like that as I have never had to ask for such things.

[Dick Smith]

Now come on. Surely someone can answer if this expensive system can be used by Melbourne Centre Controllers for separation purposes. Or is it that we still use 1920s procedural separation for Tasmania?

And how come all low level FAA en route controllers are trained to do radar approach services however this does not happen in Aus?

[PLovett]

Dick my experience has been that centre will space you in accordance with procedural separation standards because that is what is going to apply once you enter Launie or Hobart airspace but in their airspace I believe they will use it as a quasi-radar.

As you are well aware Tassie is not that big a place and it is no use applying radar separation standards when come 45 miles Hobart or Launie it has to go back to being procedural. So until the tower controllers get trained, and, I believe sort out some technical glitches that TASLATS throws up occasionally we are going to be stuck with procedural separation.

[swells]

outside tower hours, Melbourne Center use the Radar for control purposes down to low level.

there was talk about Melbourne Center taking airspace above 1500' a few years ago, but not sure why that didnt eventuate.

radar separation would certainly help at times... the RPT jets don't get too many disruptions, but the GA ops, Charter etc can get holding for perhaps only 1 Jet within the TMA.

[le Pingouin]

As you've been told on previous occasions, yes ML Centre does use it.

[fujii]

Dick, get your facts right before making your throw away lines. Multialteration and ADSB are en-route tools. They are not used in tower or terminal airspace where smaller tolerances are required. If a display were available in the procedural towers, it could not be used for separation but for information only. If you want to spend a few million installing a display in LT or HB, there would be no real benefit with the low traffic levels. Some procedural towers, e.g. Rockhampton do have a Eurocat display with a TSAD backup but even these can't be used for separation due to latency. I.e. the distance between the tower and the processor which in Rockhampton's case is Brisbane. If there were some benefit to be gained, it would be installed. Airservices does not go out of its way to make life hard for its controllers.

The only airports with multilateration are those with A-SMGCS, a runway incursion alerting system and surface display. Melbourne has eleven multilateration sites on the actual airport to get the required coverage and accuracy.

[PLovett]

Both Launie and Hobart towers have a display but are not rated to use it, hence procedural tolerances within their areas.

[fujii]

Thanks PLovett.

Are you en-route, if so what is the minimum separation between two ADS-B equipped aircraft? As a comparison, procedural towers can go to 5 DME separation within 15 DME of the destination.

[Jabawocky]

Dick, Fuji and anyone else interested. I have a few mates in MEL CEN, Hobart and Launie (not to mention BN and ASA HQ), good enough that I was able to ask for some info to help you guys understand.

Here ya go…No BS, no axes grinding just pure facts from the coalface guys who work their butts off for all of us.

1. The towers do have a display, it is called TSAD (Tower Situational Awareness Display) A very useful tool for minimising VHF chatter as ATC use it to streamline application of Class D procedures between VFR/VFR/IFR conflict pairs, as well as being able to ask IFR for necessary reports to achieve procedural separation standards when the distance, altitude etc has been achieved. These guys and girls would be doing a huge amount more scatter gun type talking without it.
2. The traffic levels in both locations have increased immensely in recent years, for example, Hobart over the last two months were regularly moving between 48 and 60 Jet moves per day. Add to this Cambridge, float planes to and from the city and east coast, circuit training, two IFR training schools (Kingairs, Turbine Helo's, Duchess etc some with DME, some not) wanting practice instrument approaches often to the non-duty runway, with a huge speed differential to that of the RPT's (80-100 knots verses 250+ reducing) finding gaps to make that work in surveillance airspace is just as hard as procedural. Some days saturation is reached multiple times during daylight hours. Hobart requires in-trail gap vectoring assist from Melbourne Centre due to runway occupancy in Hobart. There are only two (mid-field) taxiways, requiring 90% of all landings, and every departure to back-track.

3. The ADS-B coverage within the Launy and Hobart TMA's is comprehensive and has multiple redundancies as each Multilateration ground station is also an ADS-B receiver. Multilat some times struggles with older GA transponders when aircraft are at lower levels away from the receiver networks.

4. If it was determined via proper process that either or both locations required a surveillance approach service, upgrading the services would be required to enable 3NM Separation, as well as finding real estate in Melbourne Centre to place the Approach Consoles. Either or both might be expensive and time consuming, in the end industry would pay.


Hope this helps. :)

[PLovett]

Fuji, just to add what Jaba posted. Because the towers require procedural separation, centre will use that standard across the state due to the short time that most aircraft will spend under their control before they cross into the tower areas.

[fujii]

PLovett, thank for that. I did over 30 years in towers but there was no MLAT when I did my time in Alice TWR.

[Jabawocky]

Let's be clear.

Procedural tollerances do not apply in Tassie Enroute surveillance airspaces.

[bekolblockage]

Thread drift:
I couldn't help but smile when I read:
The traffic levels in both locations have increased immensely in recent years, for example, Hobart over the last two months were regularly moving between 48 and 60 Jet moves per day.

Worked procedural in Launy 36 years ago. I was trying to recall how many movements a day we had then only just the other day when chatting with someone.

At my current location, we had 1,203 scheduled jet moves last Saturday. 800 of them Heavy, the rest Medium. I know there are lots out there who do more than that but the change has been somewhat staggering to see in my lifetime in ATC.

No ADS-B or MLat here yet Dick. You've got til 2016 till we hold you down to 280, and I guarantee we will, so better hurry up and come up this way.

[le Pingouin]

fujii, 5NM is the minimum between ADS-B. In some circumstances procedural is superior, but radar/ADS-B is a better general purpose tool - it's simple, quick and dirty!

PLovett, you overstate the case somewhat - TAS isn't applying procedural separation the whole time. They have to have a procedural standard in place to hand to the tower, but they certainly don't need it until then. If the tower wants 20DME TAS can run them at the same level 10 miles apart and vector to achieve the 20DME or use speeds. They're very definitely using surveillance to separate.

Jabawocky, it's not quite that clear cut due to the transitional nature of the airspace - as stated above there needs to be procedural separation in place by the time the tower gets them. True, the procedural tolerance isn't actually being utilised in surveillance airspace but it's being worked towards the whole time.

[Dick Smith]

So how come in North America that en route controllers are qualified to radar vector aircraft in airspace covered by en route radar but not so in Australia ?

[Josh Cox]

Dick,

I'm kind of at a loss working out what your point is.

Multilateration (MLAT), as you know, is a function of mathematics that calculates a position, why would you suggest it works below FL280 and not above ?

[Dick Smith]

I have not suggested that. Looks to me as if the multilateration is not used like the SSR is used. Very strange!

[le Pingouin]

So how come in North America that en route controllers are qualified to radar vector aircraft in airspace covered by en route radar but not so in Australia ?

Maybe because they own the airspace? I bet they don't routinely control in another controllers airspace.

I haven't worked TASWAM but as far as I'm aware traffic is handled in the same way as when I worked it with the temporary radar at LT. We didn't provide a radar approach service at LT in the tower's airspace then and we don't now.

[Hempy]

It's called Class D Dick. Tower airspace. If you want an Approach service down to the ground, you have Class C overhead and a tower with no airspace. You know, just like you introduced in the first place....