Many Not Going to Fit ADS-B

[Dick Smith]

Lots of aircraft owners have told me that rather than keep their GA aircraft in the IFR category and go to the expense of fitting ADS-B when required by the unique Australian CASA ADS-B mandate in the next 18 months, they are going to change their aircraft so that it operates VFR only.

It’s not only the cost of ADS-B they are concerned about but it is also the fact that with an ADS-B equipped aircraft, the call sign and altitude information is transmitted to Airservices and recorded.

This means the slightest penetration of controlled or restricted air space gives a total record for CASA to take licence action. Even the exact altitude is recorded – no doubt resulting in enforcement action over so called populous areas for those pilots who even just make an error.

Remember in Australia alone, if you have an ADS-B extended squitter transponder, it is illegal to turn off the extended squitter, so the call sign must be shown at all times – even if flying VFR in remote areas.

By the look of it, this will mean a large number of pilots will no longer fly IFR and be forced to go scud running.

It is interesting that in the USA there is no requirement even in 2020 for ADS-B to be fitted to IFR or VFR aircraft if flying below 10,000 feet in D, E or G air space – unless within 30 nautical miles of a Class B airport such as Los Angeles or New York.

It is clear to most people I have spoken to that this unique ADS-B mandate, which is going to cost over $30 million to GA, will do nothing other than result in a reduction in safety.

My latest communication with people at CASA shows that they are not going to budge from this requirement and they won’t be giving any dispensations at all.

This is what happens when you have people from the military who have never really paid for anything in aviation in their life.

Not only will we get a further downturn in GA because of extra costs but we clearly have a reduction in safety because $30 million will not be available for real safety improvements like – dare I say it – purchasing more modern, safer aircraft.

Costs also increase because pilots now have to get renewals for IFR ratings in each different type of aircraft they require a type rating for.

One of the rescue pilots often flies my Agusta 109E to assist me in positioning and doing test flights. From now on he will not be able to do that because his renewal is done in a different type of twin engine helicopter.

As I have said to everyone, get out of aviation as soon as you can. In the next five or ten years there are going to be tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars losses as business becomes more unviable and aircraft values drop further.

I attempted to sell my CJ3 for a bargain US$4.6 – now it’s dropped to US$4.2 with still no takers because both ADS-B and a F.D.R. have to be fitted for use in Australia.

[Sunfish]

ADSB = Automatic infringement and punishment mechanism, nothing more.

[DutyofCare]

Another very good post Dick = but who's in CASA is listening to you :( :( :(

Can we get the excellently versed legend Alan Jones onto this pls :ok: :ok: :ok:

[Old Akro]

Its worth repeating at every opportunity that:

Australia is the only country in the world that is mandating ADS-B for all IFR aircraft at all levels in all airspace types.

ADS-B is essentially a tax on IFR flying.

ADS-B does not increase safety because it does nothing to provide traffic information about VFR aircraft (which will now include more ex IFR pilots scud running).

ADS-B will absolutely definitely result in less IFR aircraft and less active pilots.

[The name is Porter]

Lots of aircraft owners have told me that rather than keep their GA aircraft in the IFR category and go to the expense of fitting ADS-B when required by the unique Australian CASA ADS-B mandate in the next 18 months, they are going to change their aircraft so that it operates VFR only.

Dick, any chance any of your mates want to sell? I'm after a Baron or a late model Seneca. I'd consider other types. Ta

[Car RAMROD]

F@/k me what paranoia! Honestly if you fly properly you won't have anything to worry about!

Busting cta isn't a big deal. It's only a problem if your a ******** and don't own up. They can radar track you still and get a pretty damn good idea on who you were anyway, adsb or not!
So, really, how smart are you if thinking accidentally busting cta will result in a reprimand when you would prefer to scud run instead? If you think like that just stay out of the bloody sky, everyone else is better off without you.


I have adsb and I love it.

[Captain Nomad]

Does anyone actually have any examples of where ADSB has been used to prosecute?

It is far from the primary objective of the equipment...

[CaptainMidnight]

Lots of aircraft owners have told me that rather than keep their GA aircraft in the IFR category and go to the expense of fitting ADS-B when required by the unique Australian CASA ADS-B mandate in the next 18 months, they are going to change their aircraft so that it operates VFR only.
Those "lots" don't appear to be supported by the fitment statistics, which are steadily climbing.

Table "Current percentage of flights fitted" on right hand side:

Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/ads-b/)

[KRviator]

You need to red between the lines. 67% of all IFR flights had ADS-B fitted, but how many individual aircraft conducted those flights versus how many aircraft in the IFR category is what you really need to know. Just because an aircraft can fly IFR doesn't mean it actually does!

If you have 200 IFR-category aircraft, and only 20 filed & flew IFR last month, but of those 18 had ADS-B. YIPPEEEE! 90% of all IFR flights last month had ADS-B, when the reality is less than 10% of IFR-registered aircraft had it.....See the problem?

I think Dick is right. How many people will say "I'm not going to spend $15,000 on a GTN650 just to have IFR capability. Even that old TSO129 GPS will allow RNAV and I'll just say I'm VMC, that cloud looks far enough away" and downgrade to a NVMC-equipment fit, but still actually fly IMC, simply because they can? I reckon the answer to that'll be "Lots".

[no_one]

It is interesting that in the USA there is no requirement even in 2020 for ADS-B to be fitted to IFR or VFR aircraft if flying below 10,000 feet in D, E or G air space – unless within 30 nautical miles of a Class B airport such as Los Angeles or New York.

While what you have said is true it is also worth noting that the USA ads-b mandate extends to cover VFR aircraft too. When you factor in that their class C airspace covers a lot more airports because their class C is effectively any tower that also has radar you are likely to need ads-b in the USA in as many places as you are in Australia.

The big difference is the time frame and the cost of approving the installation. The USA mandate of 2020 means that industry is gearing up to provide solutions. The cost of compliance is dropping as new technologies are developed. Australia being earlier locks us into the higher cost of equipment. Coupled with a more expensive process for minor modifications to aircraft we have an overall higher impost.

If ADS-B cost $500 would you be opposed?

[Old Akro]

Dick, any chance any of your mates want to sell? I'm after a Baron or a late model Seneca. I'd consider other types. Ta

What rock have you been under? There are quite a few selling disturbingly cheaply at the moment. I know of one very nice Seneca that sold a few weeks ago specifically because the owner did not want to do the ADS-B upgrade.

[Old Akro]

Those "lots" don't appear to be supported by the fitment statistics, which are steadily climbing.

Lies damned lies and statistics.

KR Aviator has it. The total number of IFR flights filed vs last year needs to be tracked. It would also be illuminating to know how many aircraft remain IFR certified.

[Eyrie]

Isn't it obvious that the aim is to eliminate all aviation but the airlines and military?

They are doing this without even a "Buyback" as happened with guns.

[CaptainMidnight]

when the reality is less than 10% of IFR-registered aircraft had it
I recall mention at an industry meeting that the % of aircraft fitted is not too far different from the % of flights in the table (over half of the "all IFR" fleet and climbing were then fitted?), but that's a question to ask of CASA & Airservices.

The Enigma system as mentioned in other threads may be a cost effective solution. People need to do their research specific to their aircraft and not rely on scaremongering.

Enigma Avionics reveals Low-cost ADS-B System (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/enigma-avionics-reveals-low-cost-ads-b-system)

[Old Akro]

The Enigma system as mentioned in other threads may be a cost effective solution.

Enigma is a VFR solution. The ADS-B tax is not applied to VFR aircraft. It is irrelevant to this thread.

[no_one]

I've got it too and I think its rubbish. I really don't have to go very far at all before I hear 'identification terminated' and I'm back on my own sorting myself out with other IFR traffic, even at quite busy airports.

I do hope my substantial investment is helping ASA 'manage airspace better' because there seems to be zero benefit to me in safety or anything else.


Its biggest benefit is in areas outside radar or ADS-b ground coverage. An aircraft equipped with an ads-b receiver can see the position of your aircraft and avoid without the need to talk to you "old school".

[Old Akro]

An aircraft equipped with an ads-b receiver can see the position of your aircraft and avoid without the need to talk to you "old school".

Australia is implementing ADS-B OUT only. The US is implementing ADSB IN which allows full traffic visibility. We will not get the advantage of this traffic information.

AND it only applies to IFR aircraft. I have had 3 alarming traffic incidents. In each case I was IFR and the other aircraft was VFR. In one of these incidents I was IMC in Cloud and had a traffic advisory of opposite direction traffic at the same level!. ADS-B will not help this one iota. ADS-B does not improve safety. OCTA we get no improvement over the current situation while there is non ADS-B VFR aircraft. In CTA there is and has always been radar.

[no_one]

Old Arko,

You need to do a bit more research. An IFR aircraft fitted with the equipment required by CASA/Air services will broadcast its position via its mode S transponder and this information can be decoded and displayed on an in cockpit display. This equipment could be fancy Garmin GDL 88 or GDL 39D providing traffic to your GTN or G1000 or it could be by using an ipad + raspberry pi + DIY software to display the traffic overlaid on the ozrunways chart. There are many other option that will display this traffic. Some gliders have the powerflarm which can receive and display this information (as well as the flarm targets)

Even if the VFR aircraft is not broadcasting its position, many can receive and hence display the positions of other aircraft.

Now I am not saying that the safety benefit justifies the $20k cost to fit to most aircraft but saying that there is no benefit is not true.

[Old Akro]

No-one. Yep. Or you could get pretty much the same result with a Zaon unit linked to a Garmin 496 etc reading mode C returns.

[Ixixly]

no_one, if you don't mandate that VFR aircraft need to have ADS-B Out then how many will actually bother? Answer is probably not many. If not many have it fitted then even if all IFR Aircraft required to have ADS-B out get ADS-B IN as well. As such Old Akro is correct, the benefits are imagined.

Current Situations are as such with ADS-B

1. IFR and IFR Traffic CTA - On Radar and as such get traffic avoidance given.

2. IFR and IFR Traffic OCTA - Will be monitored by ATC and if they are in proximity will get a warning and avoidance

3. IFR and VFR Traffic CTA - Will mostly likely both be on Radar and as such get a traffic avoidance for the IFR

4. IFR and VFR Traffic OCTA - This is anyones guess as there is a likelihood the VFR traffic won't be on any radar and may not have made a radio call as required or simply is in a position where one isn't required

5. VFR and VFR CTA or OCTA - Are unlikely to get warnings or avoidance most of the time

Looking at those 5 options, which one will be improved by mandating ADS-B Out for IFR Aircraft, in Situations 1 and 2 there is already going to be warnings given, in situation 3 no real benefit as you're in CTA and should have transponders under current regs, Situation 4 you might get additional benefit if BOTH aircraft are fitted but the VFR isn't required to have either In or Out so probably not and even less chance of any change to situation 5 at all.

If they are going to tell us this is for Safety for all aircraft everywhere then they would have to mandate that ALL aircraft are fitted with both ADS-B In and Out. By only mandating ADS-B Out on IFR Aircraft only and especially at the current prices I doubt there is any demonstrable safety increase above and beyond having Transponders except that ASA and CASA save a bunch of money on not having to expand their Radars and instead put that cost to the Users.

[no_one]

You could get close but not quite because:

a) Zaon is long out of business.
b) The Zaon system only worked by listening in on the mode C responses triggered by a ground based radar. This means that it really would be useless outside of the radar coverage areas of Australia.
c) The Zaon worked by detecting the direction that the Mode C response came from. This is always going to be less accurate and prone to more spurious signals that recieving an encoded broadcast. I haven't flown with one but when I was in the USA knew people who had them who were less than impressed with the accuracy.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A fundamental point that some (most) of you have missed, is that there has NEVER been a collision risk probability to justify ADS-B in any airspace, and this comment is not geographically confined to Australia.

ADS-B is NOT for collision risk reduction, it is a tool for ATC separation, just like radar or procedural separation. Given Australia's traffic levels, as an ATC tool it is "nice to have", but has never been in the category of "must have".

Indeed, in a cost/effectiveness (NOT cost benefit) analysis, whether in US or Australia, ADS-B comes up well, the ATC service provider can slash infrastructure costs, effectively transferring hundreds of millions of $$$ cost onto the operators, whilst still providing the same service as SSR.

All the PR about "improved efficiency" for airlines is pure flummery, at least FAA is honest about this, Airservices is, in my opinion, not honest in its claims for ADS-B.

Clearly, most of you do not know the history, or have forgotten, particularly the several CASA attempts at a cost/benefit analysis to justify ADS-B. See if you can find a copy, you will be surprised at the nonsense. As for the RIS, what a joke in very poor taste.

In fact, it would be wonderful if there was enough GA traffic to warrant ADS-B ---- but that is so far from reality. Surely most of you have realised that the largely CASA induced collapse of GA is not just the whinging of a few malcontents, but is all too real --- as reflected in collapsing avgas sales and ever decreasing movement rates in the bottom end of GA.

And some turkey here wants to mandate ADS-B IN and OUT for everything, including VFR aircraft ---- get real !!!

Tootle pip!!

[Ixixly]

LeadSled, to be clear, incase that comment about a "Turkey" was aimed at me, I do not think that all Aircraft including VFR should have ADS-B In or Out Mandated, my point was merely that to get the benefits they are claiming this would be the only way. Anything less is, as you've said, just "Flummery" in the end.

And agree entirely, I made this point about the requirement for an ATPL Flight test and put the challenge to others to bring up any particular incident or potential incident that could have been avoided by the new requirements.

This is the biggest problem with EVERYTHING that CASA are currently doing, none of it is to actually improve upon any actual threat to safety, it is to justify their jobs and be seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something whilst achieving their aim of removing GA and thusly simplifying their jobs. It might not even be the current mob who are truly to blame, it has been those there for a while driving it all but no one seems willing to stand up and admit it.

[The name is Porter]

What rock have you been under? There are quite a few selling disturbingly cheaply at the moment. I know of one very nice Seneca that sold a few weeks ago specifically because the owner did not want to do the ADS-B upgrade.

Ahhhhmmm, I was taking the p!ss out of Dick. And I haven't seen any disturbingly cheap twins anywhere, maybe I should put you on retainer. No buckets of **** & no mutton dressed up as lamb

[Tankengine]

If collision risk was the reason then mandating Flarm for all aircraft would be way cheaper. Flarm is already installed in most gliders in Australia, the newer Powerflarm also sees transponder equipped aircraft..:ok:

[The name is Porter]

Yep, thinking of putting flarm in my aircraft ;)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Among others, a group under the AFAP umbrella has been and is pushing for mandatory ADS-B for all aircraft.

An interesting piece in the US AOPA mag., (from FAA papers) recently, about "automation dependence" and the degradation of pilot skills.

This extends to various "automated" collision warning systems in light aircraft, which are NOT effective at close range (because, oversimplified, of the order of accuracy of the displayed target position) such as in a VFR circuit.

In short, using ADS-B, and various other systems, is probably increasing collision risk, because pilots are becoming dependent on such systems, and no longer keeping an adequate lookout. And, of course, ignoring the probability of a a non equipped or u/s equipped aircraft in the area.

Sadly, in Australia the problem/risk is minimised by the minimisation of any actual flying, thanks CASA for keeping the skies "safe".

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Enigma now makes a relatively cheap complete portable ADS-B in and out solution. I assume it works.

http://www.enigmaavionics.com.au

I understand it needs CASA approval to be legal.

I advise the owners of Enigma to take their product and manufacturing to the United States right now because time to market is everything in electronics these days.

If they do not take their product to the USA immediately Three things will happen:

(1) CASA will not approve it for years, if ever, because its made in Australia and they hate that. Meanwhile they will engage with you in endlessly expensive meetings and technical analysis. You will be lucky if this analysis does not find its way to the USA long before they consider approving your product. If you try for a confidentiality agreement, well, that will take SIx months to negotiate.

(2) If CASA do approve it, it will be with Australian CASA required changes and a CASA rider to the approval that it is for domestic use only and that means you can't use CASAs approval to sell it overseas.

(3) By the time CASA approves it there will be at least one American alternative (Garmin) and Three Chinese copies on the market and you will fail because the time to market cycle for electronics is about Nine months or less.

Message to Enigma guys: take your product to the USA immediately! Do not try for CASA approval, they don't know how to do things quickly and couldn't care less about AUstralian industry or GA aviation. You have only a few months, if not mere weeks before someone announces a similar product and if its Garmin then you are toast!

[KRviator]

Has anyone actually seen a price for that Enigma box? My google-fu is usually pretty good, but I've struck out so far.

[theclocker1]

Some well connected people running Enigma. Hope they make it.

[peterc005]

The enigma product looks promising hope they get it certified.

[c100driver]

Upgrade costs and practicality
Aircraft operating in New Zealand airspace currently have a diverse range of navigational capabilities. This diversity, coupled with a wide mix of aviation activities, a high level of non-commercial operations and an older aircraft fleet, mean that not all participants will have the level of equipage to meet future requirements and that upgrading costs will vary greatly.

A balance will need to be struck between the needs of the operators who are driving towards an exclusive PBN environment (which will allow best cost savings) and the needs of some participants in the aviation system, in particular some in the general aviation community, for whom cost may outweigh benefits until equipment costs reduce.

In addition, there are some practical implications to take into account, New Zealand only has a small number of avionics engineers experienced in the new technology and is reliant on supply of equipment from overseas. Time will be needed to allow operators to arrange for upgrades and there may be impacts on the operation of both existing and new aircraft systems.

Just read this in the Southern Skies project by NZ CAA. It appears like a more balanced approach.

[Eyrie]

The Enigma box is for Light Sport Aircraft, Experimentals and like. It is a VFR solution, not IFR. Probably won't be allowed in standard certified aircraft. Looks to me like it is aimed at the US market where TABS WILL be allowed for Experimentals and Light Sport.
They are already competing against at least two products I know of that are TABS approved GPS units for around US$700 which can drive ADSB capable transponders. One is a Garmin unit. The cost of the TSO'd transponder has been the issue.
It also isn't "portable". You'll need a transponder antenna and a GPS antenna on the outside of the aircraft. Likely the installation wiill need "approval" and/or "certification". No bets as to whether CASA and ASA will countenance TABS devices in Australia.
Flarm will likely only help you in the circuit. The range is short, uncertain and the system suffers from airframe shielding due to the frequency and the low power transmitter. Also needs a Flarm equipped target. PowerFlarm will detect transponder Mode C (range and altitude only, no bearing) and ADSB targets but doesn't advertise its presence to those.

[outhouse]

just in case anyone needs to look it up like me.

The Raspberry Pi is a series of credit card–sized single-board computers developed in the United Kingdom by the Raspberry Pi Foundation with the intention of promoting the teaching of basic computer science in schools and developing countries.

The original Raspberry Pi and Raspberry Pi 2 are manufactured in several board configurations through licensed manufacturing agreements with Newark element14 (Premier Farnell), RS Components and Egoman. These companies sell the Raspberry Pi online. Egoman produces a version for distribution solely in Taiwan, which can be distinguished from other Pis by their red coloring and lack of FCC/CE marks. The hardware is the same across all manufacturers.

:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Gawd...not you again, Eyrie.

You would be wrong on the enigma equipment. You need to dig a lot more to find out who makes the engine for them and where they are along with certification.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Eyrie, I owe you an apology! Checked the Enigma site and I am gobsmacked...the company had a solution in the works over ten years ago. All they needed was the gps engine to get the proper TSO...which it did over six years ago...and now this! If enigma reads this...I reckon you guys have dropped the ball big time. A blind mounted basic encoder to feed the data to a mode S was all that was required.

[Eyrie]

Actually I made a mistake in my post above. I meant to say "The cost of the TSO'd GPS has been the issue".
There have been ADSB compliant Mode S transponders at reasonable cost available for a while like the Trig units and others but a GPS that's TSO'd has been about DOUBLE the price of the transponder itself. The Trig unit and some others have the altitude encoder built in to the transponder

I stand by the other things I said in that post. AFAIK the US will demand a real ADSB out even in standard certified VFR aircraft if what I read on Avweb is correct but will allow TABS in LSA, Experimentals and hopefully, gliders.

OZBUSDRIVER, how did you come on the information about the Enigma timeline? I sure can't find it on their website.

[Chronic Snoozer]

LeadSled,

In short, using ADS-B, and various other systems, is probably increasing collision risk, because pilots are becoming dependent on such systems, and no longer keeping an adequate lookout.

'is probably...increasing collision risk.' The same thing could be said for GPS! This is really down to training isn't it? Somebody using automated collision warnings as a substitute for lookout and listenout in the VFR pattern is asking for trouble. I'm sure that was never the designer's intention. Pilots need to have timely, accurate information and they must know how to locate, analyse and act on it. 'adequate lookout' has always been an unreliable way to separate aircraft in isolation, there are so many limitations to it and this is precisely the reason why systems were developed to aid situational awareness. ADS-B can be used (correctly) to perform directed lookout which increases the likelihood of identifying and avoiding a conflict, not the other way round.

By the look of it, this will mean a large number of pilots will no longer fly IFR and be forced to go scud running.
How do you force someone to go scud running? Does the pilot somehow enter an airmanship void, is his/her decision making incapacitated?

[Sunfish]

Chronic Snoozer, the phenomenon you are talking about is called 'risk shifting". Technology is developed that properly used, reduces risk but the response of the user is to engage in more risky behaviour leaving the overall level of risk substantially the same or even greater.

The classic example is ABS in cars. Drivers responded by reducing separation distances between vehicles, the net effect was that the reduction in nose to tail crashes wasn't what was expected.

Shirley pilots aren't stupid enough to engage in risk shifting?

[Chronic Snoozer]

They probably are. And don't call me Shirley.

[Old Akro]

The classic example is ABS in cars. Drivers responded by reducing separation distances between vehicles, the net effect was that the reduction in nose to tail crashes wasn't what was expected.


Off topic, a bit, But its regarded that ABS has increased accident rates because of the number of people who take their foot OFF the brake pedal because of the noise & pulsing when ABS intervenes.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Eyrie, to be more correct. Talked to both Enigma techs and the Accord owner at AV2008. Followed progress on the net. Accord (http://accord-technology.com/nexnav_mini.html) got certification just recently.
I think the first articles I read about Enigma were late 2007.:ok:

[Eyrie]

I think the same thing was found as ejection seat envelopes were improved. The pilots just waited longer before giving up on recovering without ejecting. People tend to maintain a constant risk profile even as technology should make things safer. This isn't necessarily irrational as nobody lives forever any way and the probability of dying of natural causes gets to be several percent per year as you get older and a voluntary risk of some activity of the order of 1 in a thousand per year (0.1%) doesn't make much difference to your life expectancy.

OZBUSDRIVER:
This is a GPS source for Experimentals and LSA

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/sport-aviation/gps-20a/prod525504.html

Use with any ADSB ready transponder. As it is non TSO'd I wouldn't expect it to be approved for IFR.

[KRviator]

Be careful, the Garmin GPS-20A - and the Dynon GPS-2020 - are not approved for use in Australian ADS-B installations as they have not been TSO'd, so do not meet the requirements for a position source. In the U.S., they "meet the performance requirements of the FAR's" which is deemed suitable over there. But it's not here.

I've been going through the CARs and various TSOs for a month trying to find a technicality that means I can use Dynons offering, but without success so far.

[LeadSled]

Chronic Snoozer,
Sunfish has got it tagged, the theoretical and the reality are somewhat different, AOPA USA were reporting on what FAA have found so far, and this is with only a very small proportion of the US fleet equipped with either of the US options, so far.
Tootle pip!!

PS: And NTSB study

[Sunfish]

Kraviator:

Be careful, the Garmin GPS-20A - and the Dynon GPS-2020 - are not approved for use in Australian ADS-B installations as they have not been TSO'd, so do not meet the requirements for a position source. In the U.S., they "meet the performance requirements of the FAR's" which is deemed suitable over there. But it's not here.

I've been going through the CARs and various TSOs for a month trying to find a technicality that means I can use Dynons offering, but without success so far.

Which begs the question; Why is such a unit acceptable in the USA but not here? Why do we have so many f*&*ing unique requirements? Why don't CASA and ASA have to justify in detail why they do NOT follow FAA requirements? Australia and CASA are just crazy!

To put it another way: the "not invented here" syndrome is alive and living in AsA and CASA! Anyone remember the Australian DME?

To put that another way. It is axiomatic in business to copy technology that works elsewhere and to only engage in bleeding edge research and development if you are already the worlds leader with, by definition, nobody else to copy.

One commandment is that if there is a system available that works well but doesn't quite suit your business processes, then you always change your business process, NEVER customise or modify the system.

Australia is hardly "leading edge" especially not in anything to do with aviation, let alone aviation regulation and air traffic control, therefore the case for ANY form of unique Australian regulation or practice (short of kangaroo protectors) is absolutely nil.

[RatsoreA]

I had a bit of an interesting experience last night about ADSB...

I already was 90% ADSB ready, so when my last transponder blew, I replaced it with a GTX330ES (thanks Jaba!) and boom, I was ADSB compliant, so it didn't cost me anywhere near where a lot of these figures are coming from, and, I didn't even require an EO, but that's another story... :E

Anyway, it was after midnight, going Rocky to Townsville at 8500 and I there was nothing happening and I asked BNE center how my ADSB was on their end. What followed was, that he couldn't see me that low anywhere basically between 130nm south of Rocky up to Horn Island. I asked if ducking up to FL125 would have done the trick, but he said no. There is basically no ADSB coverage from near Gladstone up to the top of Queensland, around the coast and inland quite a bit for "low level"! It did make me wonder why we are rushing the install when there are huge coverage gaps?

[thorn bird]

RatsoreA,

It is my impression that ADSB is a humungous fraud, perpetrated on Industry and the Australian taxpayers to elicit huge bonuses for a few senior managers.
Cant imagine why everyone is getting upset, happens all the time in big business. Just look at the obscene bonuses on top of obscene salaries paid around the country, even when they screw up they still get paid. A certain leprechaun completely buggered an airlines brand, still got his bonuses. By sheer luck and low fuel prices the airline is back in the black. With his next round of bonuses he'll probably be able to buy the bloody airline!!
Meanwhile the shareholders looking at their dividend cheque wonder where the money went.
Why should our Autonomous government corporations be any different?Sheesh! nobody is in control of them except a Murky Mandarin, and he has a different agenda, the minister is asleep at the wheel, If you were running a monopoly, with virtually no oversight wouldnt you have your sticky fingers in the cookie jar?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I find it more interesting when the likes of ClearedtoReenter and RatsoreA report on the shortcomings of the actual coverage. On this point, I am in agreement regarding the fitment mandate is bogus.

The gear is available, and at various price points. It surprises me the j curve is NOT a place where the system sees 1090ES. Why?

[sillograph]

Still being ADSB compliant would be a heap easier for many people if something like the STRATUS ESG transponder was certified in time, at least you wouldn't have to change your gps at the same time as it has a built in waas gps.

[Old Akro]

Solutions like the Stratus ESG don't really help IFR aircraft much. RNP now really requires a C146a device - or WAAS. This is made more so by the paucity of ground based aids after the shutdowns. Either IFR aircraft will have a WAAS gps already, or most owners will face up to installing a C146a GPS in order to meet the new PBN requirements.

Stratus ESG might be a cheap way to get make a VFR aircraft ADS-B compliant, but why would a VFR aircraft bother?

The built in WAAS transponders are a solution in search of a problem.

And IFR aircraft owners remain having been raped by CASA (again)