Airservices’ Western Australian ADS-B Mandate

[Dick Smith]

Do I read the mandate correctly which CASA has introduced – at the pushing of Airservices Australia – for ADS-B in the Perth area as follows? i.e. from 4 February 2016 any aircraft that flies IFR – even in Class G airspace – within the arc that starts 500 nautical miles true north from Perth Aerodrome and finishes 500 nautical miles true east from Perth Airport – must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment.

Am I correct in surmising that if you have ADS-B equipment in Class G airspace you will still fly in the Airservices 1930s airspace system where the controller will just give traffic information and pilots will have to use a Marconi-like system of calling each other in cloud and self-separating? Is it true that Airservices have put this cost onto the industry but haven’t bothered to put in any Class E controlled airspace so they actually provide a control service to the aircraft that have expended the extra money?

I understand this is because they don’t want to spend a few dollars in training the controllers on how to do approach work at these airports. The higher risk is clearly in the terminal area where no control service will be provided.

Isn’t it amazing that in the USA every single instrument approach is in a minimum of Class E controlled airspace and you get a superb separation service in IMC. However, in Australia it’s not possible to do this - even if ADS-B is fitted to the aircraft. Crazy! And not even at one airport in the whole country. Are we that inferior?

Then again, Capn Bloggs will be delighted because we are still keeping a 1930s system. He will no doubt be in raptures!

[rr007]

2016 – IFR for Western Australia: On and after 4 February 2016, an aircraft that is operated under the IFR in Airspace that is Class A, B, C or E and within the arc of a circle that starts 500 NM true north fromPerthaerodrome and finishes 500 NM true east fromPerth Airport must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with Civil Aviation Order 20.18


So no, not in Class G.
Why would you want an En route controller separating aircraft in sometimes massive sectors, focused in on Terminal areas, surely you should be pushing for stand alone Terminal Controllers (or Towers?) Take a visit to one of the centres and see what kind of range controllers have to work with.

[Dick Smith]

What about just one non tower terminal area to see if it could work like it does in USA , Canada France and lots of other countries ?

And they do it there without any survailance requirement. Are these countries so much wealthier than ours? I don't think so.

Come on Aussie Controllors. Why not show you are as good so that we pilots don't always have to be our own controllors in all non tower terminal airspace. We luv ya all !

And it reads in class G within 500 nm to me ?

And in the USA and Canada one en route controllor can handle approaches to lots of non tower airports. Yes. No doubt they are very capable people .

[ANZAV8or]

I've written and deleted more than a few time but I settle simply on the question. What have you got against controllers? In this, and many other, posts I have seen you calling into question the skill and the resolve of the coal face controllers in these matters. I doubt they make the decision as to the ADS-b mandate, the structure of airspace or any of the numerous other things you accuse them of. If you have an issue with ASA management take it up with them and stop besmirching the name of the people who are probably just doing what they're told.

I'm not a controller but I'm over seeing you use your name and profile to kick the little guy. (That being the worker doind their job)

[rr007]

The text mentions A, B, C and E class airspace. Why would you think that reads G too (surely it would say D and G if it meant so).

Doesn't Mackay and Rockhampton provide E almost to the ground (700AGL from memory) during out of tower hours. The catch being it's actually done by a Terminal Controller, rather then an En-route controller looking after half of Queensland. What safety benefit has it provided and at what cost? I'm sure ASA would be happy to put in all the services you want, if your willing to pay for it.

The current ATC system doesn't really have much space for all these new "terminal E sectors" but now you also want to cancel OneSky that has the potential to expand and improve current practices.

PS: I'd be interested to hear about these US controllers who are doing Upper airspace sectors and terminal airspace, maybe you could fly a few of us over for a fact finding mission.

[Dick Smith]

Anza. I make it clear that it is AsA that is not training controllors to provide a terminal service.

007. Yes. If I was in a position of influence that's what I'd do- fly a few controllors to North America to see how en route controllors provide multiple class E approach separation services.

I personally prefer the North American system than our " do it yourself system" in most terminal IFR approach airspace.. Why have controllors if they don't provide an approach service at busy non tower IFR airports but provide a full service right across the country in en route airspace where the experts say collision risk is lower?

[ANZAV8or]

Quoting your second post on this thread,
'Come on Aussie Controllors. Why not show you are as good...'

That is this thread. I've nearly written this post dozens of times over the past while but thought maybe I've misunderstood because of similar out of place comments in numerous threads.

If I were a controller I'd think you had it out for them.

Take a moment to re-read your posts before you hit enter if you don't want to attack them because I've seen it a hell of a lot from you.

I'd almost be inclined to suggest bully like activity on your behalf.

[Dick Smith]

I guess I am hoping that after 25 years since the AMATS decision decided to introduce North American type class E terminal airspace that a number of dynamic controllors would tell their bosses at AsA that they would like have a test of this system!

[ANZAV8or]

Well Dick, I'd suggest you're going the wrong way about that because any controller reading your comments on here would probably not have that high an opinion of you.

[rr007]

Might need to take it up with CASA, they decide what airspace is required. They also set the rules regarding doing an en route function and terminal function at the same time, last I heard it wasn't allowed (you can be dual rated but can't exercise both functions at the same time).

As has been pointed out many times, controllers will do whatever is asked from them, but time after time we see these "great ideas" turn to poo due to lack of resourcing (be that training, equipment, staff etc) and understanding on what is actually involved.

[Capn Bloggs]

He will no doubt be in raptures!
My bl@@dy oath! ADS-B? Bring it on! Should be mandated in F (G) as well. Then we'll have the increased safety of ADS-B (SIS) with the flexibility of F (we don't have G in Australia, as you know, Dick :=)

No if only I could have ADS-B in...nirvana! :D

Are these countries so much wealthier than ours?
Where does the FAA get it's money from, again?

I understand this is because they don’t want to spend a few dollars in training the controllers on how to do approach work at these airports.
You're the businessman: cough up your CBA. Truth is, you have no idea what all your Class E (err VFR-exempt) will cost, do you?

[Dick Smith]

So is ADSB required for IFR aircraft in the G airspace within 500 miles? -no

But

In about 18 months ADSB is required for all IFR aircraft everywhere in Australia ?

[Dick Smith]

ANZ. Most controllors I know realise that I want aviation in Australia to boom.

That can only help the entire industry.

[LeadSled]

Where does the FAA get it's money from, again?

Bloggs,
Do you know how FAA ATC and most of FAA is funded??
Taxpayers??
User pays??
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick and Leadie. I have a quote for you-

You cannot demand the internet without first inventing the transistor!

You guys have a think about what you have been pushing for the last twenty five years or more. Cart before the horse!

[ANZAV8or]

Dick, they might realise you want the industry to boom but that doesn't excuse you bullying them on a public forum.

[Capn Bloggs]

Bloggs,
Do you know how FAA ATC and most of FAA is funded??
Taxpayers??
User pays??
Tootle pip!!
Well, derr, why do you think I asked?? :rolleyes:

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,
Answer No.3, user pays.
For airlines, a ticket tax, for the rest, fuel tax, is the short summary.
Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

ANZ. Surely you are pulling my leg.

What's wrong with controllers publicly stating that they can provide the same service as US controllers if the workloads are similar?

And I don't blame our controllers for having lousy leadership - you are clearly being let down.

Why not copy the best from around the world?

Why can't controllers actually " control " aircraft in IMC at places like Ballina - anyone can give traffic information!

[NOtimTAMs]

Why can't controllers actually " control " aircraft in IMC at places like Ballina

Let's see: Radar coverage at Ballina is patchy and despite getting down to under 1000' AGL in some parts of the circuit, it reliably gets down to only 5000' for the "terminal area" around Ballina (have a read of this: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/draft_supplementary_airspace_review_ballina_byron.pdf . For instrument approaches, the LSA from the northwest west is 5000' and lower elsewhere. So how are they going to help you, Dick? The radar won't help and procedurally it'll be one in, one out - pretty much just the same as if you actually talked to the very very very occasional aircraft that might arrive within the same timeframe as you in IMC and then mutually arranged that one of you would hold (either at a designated hold, waypoint or distance/bearing) until the other lands, goes missed or is happy to continue visual. And you'd still have to be aware of any aircraft operating visually within the circuit area below the cloud base, aircraft that ATC would not be aware of.....

Of course, if everyone had ADSB OUT and IN..... :} (but I digress).

Mutual self-separation works fine in low traffic IFR environments in IMC. In your original whinge on another thread about operating into Ballina and having to self-separate, you had the luxury of a very experienced pilot in the right seat of your private jet - should have been a piece of cake for you, if I can do it single pilot IFR. If you can't manage it under those conditions, then I would suggest that it is not Ballina in particular or the presence or absence of radar in general to assist you that is the hazard......

[The Green Goblin]

How can aviation in this country thrive when it's costs almost $20 for a pint of beer in an average pub, close to $10 for a cup of coffee and the best part of $500 to get a sparky to put a new power point in a house.

Don't mention the best part of a mill to buy a ****ty old house within cooee of Sydney. Don't even get the calculator out for renovations. If the council will even let you, because it's probably heritage listed.

We're screwed.

[Dick Smith]

Notim. In the USA radar coverage is not required for terminal class E airspace and it is no more "one in and one out" than G is here.

In practice there are no more delays than we get in our class G terminal airspace .

Yes , they do have more sensible separation standards in the USA and Canada.

We should simply copy the best from around the world. As I have stated before. It worked for me!

[rr007]

So what standard do they use then in this Terminal E with no radar and more then one in one out?

[le Pingouin]

So, you admit it wouldn't work in Australia then with the current rules. Thankyou. You "just" keep piling on more "justs" which clearly indicates you "just" have no idea what you're asking.

[Dick Smith]

Ping. I have always said the introduction would require the implementation of the proven US or Canadian standards.

That's just commonsense

[le Pingouin]

Care to provide a link to these wonderful standards?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

anyone can give traffic information!

Actually not everyone can. Three guys failed my FS course because they just couldn't get it. And that was after 6 months of training. But I'm sure the receptionist at the aeroclub will do a fine job.

[mgahan]

It IS an acquired art, as my FS mates can attest. Acquired by lots of training.

MJG

[peuce]

Well guys, we're getting closer to the real issue here....as drawn out by Monsieur Le Pingouin and others.

Dick wants terminal separation for IFRS, in Class E, in some locations with surveillance and in some locations without surveillance coverage...and he does not believe that "one in and one out" would be required in the non-surveillance locations. I hope that's a fair summary.

Now...how is that done?

Let's, for the moment, put aside the obvious, to most, resources question and assume it will cost nothing extra to get this up and running....and resolve the only other outstanding issue....what are the separation standards used, obviously in the USA, that allow such a "one in and one out" situation to be avoided? :confused:

[topdrop]

Much as I don't agree with Dick's suggestions here, but with appropriate training, you will be able to use the same standards that Procedural Towers use, apart from visual separation by the controller - vertical, lat sep, clearance limits. This will be more restrictive than pilots arranging their own sep as in Class G.
Lat Sep will become more difficult as NDBs/VORs are turned off around the country, RNAV tolerances are so much bigger, apart from RNP.

[peuce]

Okay, this good. The sep standards already exist here, albeit with a reduced menu. However, there's the issue of it being a "more restrictive" environment than Class G.

That leaves the question.... Do the disadvantages of a more restrictive environment outweigh the increase in safety of a controlled environment ?

Aspects to consider in the non-surveillance controlled scenario.
Positives: IFRS will never hit each other.
Negatives: There will most likely be delays. There will still be "free to roam" VFRs.

To me, the only problem we are solving here is....stopping IFRs running into each other. That begs the question...is that an issue at the moment?

[topdrop]

And going to the question of cost - how much is it costing the industry for Mackay and Rocky Approach when the Towers are closed and have they ever had to separate two aircraft? Is Sunshine Coast App running yet?

[peuce]

So my questions to Dick are:

1. What is the problem we are trying to solve here?
2. No matter how this problem is solved overseas, is this the most cost efficient and cost effective way of achieving it here?

Regulatory change, and cost, needs to be confined to "fixing a problem" ...not for tying up philosophical loose ends.

If you can clearly articulate the problem and show me a substantiated cost-benefit friendly solution....then I'm happy to take on Nepal's system, if it provides that solution.

Till then, it just smells of a philosophical agenda.

[Dick Smith]

I suppose if you don't reckon Air Traffic Control is necessary for Airline aircraft at busy no tower airports when in IMC - then there is no problem.

But it makes you wonder why have ATC at other than busy city airports.

I would have thought that a proper " control " service with actual enforced separation standards would be safer than a " do it yourself " radio arranged - no standard required " service.

I know that if we followed the proven US system and trained existing en route controllors to do the terminal service at airports like Ballina that safety would be improved at very low or zero extra cost.

We have had serious incidents at Bundaberg and Orange - we have been lucky .

Let's try it at just one airport before we say it won't work or it will cost too much.

[Hempy]

I guess I am hoping that.....a number of dynamic controllors would tell their bosses at AsA

That is probably the funniest thing I have ever read on PPRuNe in all my years!!

If you really think that ATC's (dynamic or otherwise) can 'tell' their 'bosses at ASA' ANYTHING, and actually get heard, you are more out of touch than I thought!!

I had a now extremely high level manager tell me quite happily a few years ago that ATC's are equivalent to "bank tellers", and nothing more. They face the customer and make transactions.

To the 'bosses', controllers know nothing - the only smart men in the room are wearing suits and working at HQ in Canberra.

You are barking up the wrong tree Dick. If you want reform you'll get more by pushing your agenda with Senators Heffernan, Searle, Gallagher and Xenophon than you will by trying to get it pushed by line controllers from the bottom up. It doesn't work that way, not here.

[sunnySA]

trained existing en route controllors to do the terminal service at airports like Ballina that safety would be improved at very low or zero extra cost

Earth to Dick, as usual you are not listening. :ugh:

For en route controllers to take on additional responsibilities (more airspace) isn't going to happen without significant safety work to validate airspace volumes and airways data, likely to mean smaller sectors = more sectors = more controllers = more consoles = more frequencies = more surveillance = more $$.

Training all the en route controllers, lets say four days training X 200 ATCs, assuming training ratio of 2:1, 2 ATCs/1 Instructor = 1200 work days = $$, that's without the cost of simulator time, blip drivers, purpose built exercises that need to be validated.

It ain't zero extra cost, and it ain't very low cost either.

And, FWIW, I would have thought that a proper " control " service with actual enforced separation standards would be safer than a " do it yourself " radio arranged - no standard required " service.
I agree that a "proper" CONTROL service would be safer than do-it-yourself, however, you seem to whinge when you are delayed when ATC is doing their job and separating you from other users.

I thought you were a strong advocate of see and be seen, no standard required, missed by a coat of paint..

[Hempy]

I thought you were a strong advocate of see and be seen, no standard required, missed by a coat of paint..

:ok: :ok:

The Champion of it, if I remember correctly! 'Affordable Safety'!!!

[Dick Smith]

No. Not an "advocate". Just a person who accepts that in all airspace I pilot must remain vigilant at all times.

Not possible to see other planes in cloud that's why I support class E.

We could have had class E at Ballina at a lower cost than 17 fireman and a $12 m fire station.

Surely better to spend money on preventing accidents first rather than pulling bodies out of burning aircraft that collided in cloud like nearly happened at bundaberg .

We need a more dynamic ATC Union - or they need to get advice from the Firemans a Union!

[Dick Smith]

Hempy. I suppose you like " un affordable safety"

Dreamworld mate

[AbsoluteFokker]

A low-cost battery-backed (operator replaceable), low-current-draw ATSB-Out device + mandated tablet with OzRunways (or similar) with ADSB-In with mounting for all aircraft would crap all over all other safety measures.

Cost? Say $2000 per aircraft installed. Estimated 2 hour install time.

15304 aircraft on VH register. Total cost $30 million.

Smart country? Surely we can do it?

[sunnySA]

Dick wrote We could have had class E at Ballina at a lower cost than 17 fireman and a $12 m fire station.

CASA rules, change the rules Dick. Surely a self-made man with your influence as a former Australian of Year could achieve this. I'd reckon you'd have more success in lobbying your current member than with Pprune. Oh, that's right your local member is B.Bishop, lots of luck...

[Dick Smith]

Doing lots of things in parallel.

One day fate will allow a Minister that actually shows leadership.

[sunnySA]

One day fate will allow a Minister that actually shows leadership.

Dick, stand and win in Mackellar and then become Minister for Aviation. I'm sure things will then change, not.

[Hempy]

Dick,

I've just watched your submission to the Senate committee on youtube. I didn't think I'd ever say it, but "well done mate" :ok:

As I said in a previous post, you'll never get reform from the bottom up, so leave the people at the console out of it. Going at them from the top down is the only way to get things done. Good on you!
a
siiMWoct-Mg

Ns0VdfeJsCY

erX566DJV-M

JYZrPjU_05k

-qS5cwA1m9g

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Welll.....that is fifty minutes I will never get back.

Dick, you tried!

[Hempy]

OZBUSDRIVER, normally I'd call you cynical. But, as I've learned, cynicism is simply experience mixed with reality..

Having said that, at least Dick is finally confronting things from the appropriate direction.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I do not want to bash him on this but this is cart before the horse stuff. He finally is getting a means of having the equivalent of radar coverage to the ground at whichever site he wants to try. Yet, he wants exactly the wrong console to change resolution to provide a positive control vectoring service right to the ground...complete with tower facilities for a ground control. This only works if everything is squiting ADS-B yet he wants exemptions to be made. He doesn't want one in one out procedural ala Coffs tower in bad wx yet that is exactly what he will end up with if not every aircraft can be identified.

I will say that there is nothing wrong with a class E to the ground for Ballina...in fact, this is already in the pipeline. Comms have been improved in the area already. However, do not use enroute! Remote TWR/APP hybrid with responsibility out to 30nm or where it overlaps with CG...if he asks for that?

[sunnySA]

Dick is wrong in relation to OneSky.

OneSky provides a single flight information region which means that any controller will be able to access the same flight information at any time, removing the potential for sharing incorrect information.

OneSky allows greater use of flexible airspace and user preferred routes.

OneSky is just an air traffic control system and as such the technology doesn't care what sort of services are provided, it is the designation of the airspace and the applicable procedures that determine the services provided.

But, from my experience, Dick doesn't listen. After all, did the Senators get a word in? No, and none of the Senators have any experience to challenge Dick. And if they did then Dick would just talk over them.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

SunnySA
none of the Senators have any experience to challenge Dick

Exactly!

[triadic]

WA notwithstanding, however I understand that the implementation of ADSB is a Ministerial Directive or similar, so ASA don't have much say to change that in terms of dates etc. I wonder who provides such advice to the minister who does not seem to be aviation savvy or perhaps care? :ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Class E procedural is no more one in one out than class G in IMC if modern separation standards are allowed.

One FIR is very cunning because it will prevent two en route centers competing with each other as was planned in the Baldwin days

Class E terminal airspace does not require survailance to work efficiently. Just modern standards.

[LeadSled]

I wonder who provides such advice to the minister who does not seem to be aviation savvy or perhaps care? :ugh:

There is every reason to believe he is in complete thrall to his department. A "Ministerial directive" served up to him by "the Department", but founded in AsA and CASA??

Face to face, Truss very clearly demonstrates his quite in-depth knowledge of aviation's problems, across the board. This comes as a complete surprise to many people.

In my opinion, this makes his complete inaction, across the (aviation) board, even more reprehensible.

From Truss's complete inaction, you would never know how important light aviation is, to regional, rural and remote Australia, and as an export jobs generator.

Tootle pip!!

[Pera]

Class E terminal airspace does not require survailance to work efficiently. Just modern standards. :ugh:

Care to provide a link to these wonderful standards? :ok:

[Awol57]

As a person who currently controls non surveilled Class E airspace what are these modern standards we need? I have tried having a look on the FAA website and only found some mention of the radar standards that they use.

[Dick Smith]

I will get them for you. May take a while!

I am amazed that Aussie ATCs don't know the U.S. standards.

Always copy the best in the world is my policy. To do that you need to know how other countries operate!

[Irish Sea]

Sunny SA,

Do you really believe what you said about OneSKY or have you just become another employee of Marie's.

A billon dollars and no real controller can tell me a business benefit (I think that is what Airservices call it).

The airlines have been waiting for (and promised) years for UPRs or Free Routing as it is called in Europe....what in OneSKY will be different to TAAATS eurocat?

The Irish

[Plazbot]

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf


It's all right there. 6-3-1 is a good place to start looking.......

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Page 325 on Plazbot's link.

[Awol57]

Segregated flight paths, but E and F are new to me. Interesting.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Much can be learned from history....cart before horse!

[]Four Corners 1999 (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s20879.htm)

[sunnySA]

Irish Sea
Sunny SA,

Do you really believe what you said about OneSKY or have you just become another employee of Marie's.

A billon dollars and no real controller can tell me a business benefit (I think that is what Airservices call it).

The airlines have been waiting for (and promised) years for UPRs or Free Routing as it is called in Europe....what in OneSKY will be different to TAAATS eurocat?

The Irish

My "cut & paste" about OneSky came from the ASA site. The jury is out as to whether OneSky will deliver these and other benefits. Clearly a single FIR is a benefit in terms of data exchange (CHG, and CFL issues) and remove a number of boundary restrictions when it comes to UPRs.

I was trying to point out to Dick Smith that OneSky in itself won't stop the delivery of the type of services he is seeking. He is peddling a false-hood (in relation to OneSky).

[OZBUSDRIVER]

YBNK has five to six RPT services a day. ZL, JQ and VA. The same level of services as AV. Cannot find stats for all movements within the area.

Dick, it could well be BNK is beyond a Unicom and class E?

[Plazbot]

Beyond class E meaning what? 5 to 6 movements even happening all at once means maximum 18 minutes delay. Obviously those movements happen over many hours. The average in a worst case scenario is less than 40 seconds. That is around the world's best practice that the US and Euro Control throw out a whole heap of stats about.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Not familiar with exact criteria re- TWR placement calcs.... BNK could have close to the same level of RPT pax movements as AV...just saying:E

[rr007]

AV no longer meets the requirements for TWR though, BNK was on the "watch list" for a TWR but think numbers have dropped over the last few years.

[NOtimTAMs]

Read this for your answers, Plaz.:

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/draft_supplementary_airspace_review_ballina_byron.pdf

Tower and ARFF are both a WOFTAM at Ballina. The ARFF will get to play cards all day and the Tower will get to play all day minus 20-30 minutes

[sunnySA]

From the above document.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made in light of this review of supplementary information and further data analysis. These recommendations supersede those made in the Aeronautical Study of Ballina Byron Gateway report, dated May 2013:

1. The operator of Ballina aerodrome should implement a CA/GRS before the end of June 2016.

2. CASA should continue to monitor movement numbers at Ballina with a view to designating Ballina as a controlled aerodrome as soon as the risk to traffic warrants it.

3. Airservices should consider implementing an Aerodrome Flight Information Service, replacing any CA/GRS, as a precursor to the provision of air traffic control should it be required in the future.

4. Airservices, in consultation with industry, should submit an airspace change proposal to introduce Class E airspace below the Class C airspace in the vicinity of Ballina.

5. The Ballina Airport User Group should discuss separating Evans Head from the Ballina/Lismore CTAF and provide comments at the next NSW and South Queensland RAPAC meetings. Stakeholders should note the considerations identified in this review.

6. Should Evans Head not be permanently separated from the Ballina/Lismore CTAF the organisers of the Great Eastern Fly-In should request a discrete CTAF for the events’ hours of operation.

7. The organisers of the Great Eastern Fly-In should request a routine NOTAM be raised for the duration of each event to notify airspace users of the increased activity in the area.

8. The Ballina aerodrome operator should publish the location of the grass helicopter training areas to the north and south of runway 06/24 in the ERSA.

9. The Ballina aerodrome operator, in consultation with industry, should document opposite direction helicopter circuits (left hand runway 06 and right hand runway 24) in the ERSA preferably before the end of 2015.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thanks for the link to the draft. Changes the story somewhat. Taxiway and TWR sometime very soon for BNK.

[Capn Bloggs]

The old AFIS. Well I'll be. Don't they have them in Septic Tank land, called Flight Service Stations? :rolleyes:

Back to the future... the one in Port Hedland works well... :D

[triadic]

The following is the text of a letter provided after a recent RAPAC meeting, which may assist in this discussion. (Names removed)




UNCLASSIFIED

Dear ACT RAPAC attendees - Please see information below from Airservices regarding ADS-B units as discussed at last week’s meeting.

A copy of the email below will be attached the Meeting Minutes.


Subject: ACT RAPAC 27AUG15 - Airservices Action response [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


As a follow up to ACT RAPAC, I have provided some information below on the action I received during my Airservices update on ADS-B (Agenda item 6.3): RAPAC Convenor, would like to understand the methodology behind why the Australian ADS-B mandate is limited to 1090-ES and why aircraft owners can’t simply install any ADS-B avionics that are currently available in the American market.


The following explains the Australian adoption of 1090MHz ES (Extended Squitter) and why UAT will not be adopted:

ADS-B in the USA
• The USA’s FAA has adopted a dual system using both 1090MHz and Universal Access Transceiver (UAT).
• The FAA has adopted 1090MHz for all flight levels, and UAT only for operations below 18,000 feet.
• UAT supports two-way links, and the FAA provides additional services on the uplink including TIS-B, ADS-R and FIS-B, for weather and aeronautical information.
• Dual 1090/UAT systems have not been adopted in Australia or any other country.

Why can't we use UAT in Australia?
• In Australia, air traffic infrastructure is funded by the aviation industry, including airlines and general aviation.
• No stakeholders are willing to fund the high cost of dual-link supporting infrastructure (combination of 1090MHz ES and UAT) and so there are no UAT based ADS-B ground stations in Australia.
• UAT equipment cannot be used in aircraft in Australia.

Will ADS-B provide weather information in Australia?
• There are no plans to uplink weather data on an ADS-B link in Australia.
• No stakeholders are willing to fund the necessary supporting infrastructure.
• Other methods of obtaining weather and operational relevant information is being widely adopted through smart device applications such as Ozrunways and Avplan, amongst others.

The following provides information on the purchase of ADS-B avionics:

Can I buy an ADS-B transponder and GPS from the USA? Will it work here?
• Yes, provided you buy only Mode S, Extended Squitter (1090ES) equipment that complies with the required Technical Standard Orders (TSOs).
• Remember that the USA provides TIS, TIS-B, FIS-B, ADS-R, and UAT services, which are not supported in Australia.
• Operation of UAT equipment is not frequency-licensed in Australia and therefore not permitted; and UAT transmissions cannot be detected by ATC.
• Do not forget that equipment purchased in the USA must be installed in an Australian aircraft by a licensed and appropriately rated LAME and that CAR 21M design approval may be required.
• In many cases, owners find that the expected savings from purchasing overseas are outweighed by the added complexity of purchasing equipment and arranging approvals and installation separately.

Additional information:

The following is a link to the Airservices ADS-B FAQs which may be of interest to ACT RAPAC members:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/FAQ-ADS-B-1-11-MAY15.pdf

Aircraft operators are also reminded that they can contact the Airservices ADS-B hotline on 1800 844 487 should they have additional questions.

Kind Regards,
Aviation Relations Manager
Corporate and Industry Affairs
25 Constitution Ave, Canberra ACT 2601