Will New ADSB IFR Requirement Reduce Safety Even More?

[Dick Smith]

A number of pilots I talk to who hold instrument ratings and own and operate an aircraft that is in the IFR category, have told me that when the ADSB mandate comes in (unique in the world) that rather than spend the money in fitting the ADSB, they are going to simply take their aircraft out of the IFR category and only fly VFR.

At the present time we have a very low percentage of Australian pilots with instrument ratings, compared to countries like the USA and it’s going to get worse and worse as pilots end up scud running all the time because of not being able to afford the cost of ADSB.

Another pilot told me he is just going to sell his plane and move on to other fields.

This is going to make our industry even more unviable.

[Flying Binghi]

...Another pilot told me he is just going to sell his plane and move on to other fields...

Enuf with those negative vibes man!...:suspect:

Something tells me them ADS-B spruikers don't care about those who would so easily just walk out.




.

[KittyKatKaper]

Yep.
The amount of IFR that I do does not justify me spending a minimum of $10k all-up for a minimally-compliant system, or upwards of $20k+ for something that complies and improves my navigation/radio capabilities.

My steed will be leaving the IFR stable.

[training wheels]

I see a fair number of light aircraft on Flightradar24 nowadays, obviously already equipped with ADS-B Out and ES. Around Bacchus Marsh, you even see experimental (or could they be ultralights) doing circuits on various days as well as a couple of PA44s out of Ballarat doing IFR training flights. Surely if they can afford to install the system, so can others?

[Ultralights]

Another pilot told me he is just going to sell his plane and move on to other fields.

been a handful of people i know do exactly just that over the past 5 years,

and personally was in a position to buy a well known school in bankstown, but decided investing in a medical degree would be more rewarding...

[Eyrie]

Depends, if you are building a new experimental and want a transponder you need Mode S anyway so you get one that is ADSB ready and then you only need the TSO's GPS to go with it to have ADSB out and a certified nav source which you'll also need to fly night VFR even. Some people will spring for this. Others won't.

[Eyrie]

Dick, surely you realise this part of the master plan? Make flying more difficult and expensive, get people to drop out, kill the industry and leave only Military, airlines and the top IFR end of GA. The other, formerly IFR guys, at the lower end will drop out. I'm sure the Authorities consider this a feature, not a bug.

[Pontius]

Playing the Devils' advocate; why should the IFR aircraft that are being talked about not be equipped with ADSB? Yes, Australia is unique in the world with the requirement but it is a bloody unique bit of real estate. Can you show me other places with such huge tracts of land, other than the USA, where radar can cover the areas concerned? The Americans have spent huge amounts of money on the infrastructure to date and if you're expecting Australia to do the same, who is going to pay? ADSB is very cheap compared to radar coverage and I'm sure that if the USA was in the same situation as Oz they wouldn't go to that expense now when there is a much cheaper alternative. Why should the airlines, military and top end IFR have to fund providing a radar infrastructure that they don't need to just because the minority don't want to pay out on new kit for their aircraft?

If you're not prepared to pay for the service you want then you're going to have to go VFR because it is entirely unreasonable to expect the tax payer (Government funding and military funding) and airline passengers (airline contributions) to fund the infrastructure enjoyed by relatively few people.

Nobody ever told us flying was going to be cheap but if you want the certified equipment necessary for the IFR service you want then you're going to have to dip into your pocket.

And please, enough of the histrionics. Painting a picture of scud running aircraft crashing in droves because they've been forced out of IFR is disingenuous and does little for your argument. Given the benign weather we enjoy in Oz there is already little enough scud running taking place. The increase in the amount because a few people don't want to equip with ADSB is so negligible as to answer 'no' to your question and will tend towards zero as those that do have their flying curtailed as a result of their stupidity.

[Dick Smith]

Are you in the military?

[Pontius]

No. Any other irrelevant questions?

[Ovation]

Why should the airlines, military and top end IFR have to fund providing a radar infrastructure that they don't need to just because the minority don't want to pay out on new kit for their aircraft?

Pontius, the people you quote have the means to fund the infrastructure and except for the military, are commercial operations that recover the cost in their fare structure.

The system as we know it has worked well with procedural separation outside of controlled airspace. Further, we have such a vast expanse with bugger-all GA traffic operating IFR, the chances of a mid-air are exceedingly remote.

In my case I've spent 22K to install TCAD and I'm reasonably confident I can detect and avoid any aircraft, always providing they have a working transponder (that's also been switched on). Thanks to CASA and their over-the-top approach and early introduction, I'm held to ransom by Garmin and Mooney if I choose to bring my G1000 panel up to ADSB compliance. A spare $45K would do the trick.

[Duck Pilot]

Heard from a very reliable source yesterday that Airservices have to keep the radars operational to continue to look at the VFR traffic.

IFR aircraft being monitored using ADS-B and VFR being monitored using radar, is that economical?????

ADS-B for IFR above 10,000 would be a far better solution initially, especially for GA.

[Pontius]

Pontius, the people you quote have the means to fund the infrastructure and except for the military, are commercial operations that recover the cost in their fare structure.

Ovation, whilst it appears those people have the means, we surely have to ask how they got them in the first place and how they should be spent. Obviously the military and Government organisations get them from the taxpayer and the airlines get them from their passengers. However, why should an ordinary taxpayer have their taxes, or an airline passenger have their ticket prices increased, to fund radar coverage all over because Dick Smith doesn't want to pay to get ADSB fitted to his aircraft but, instead, uses specious scud running crash examples to drum up support?

I agree that the chances of bashing into someone are incredibly small but that doesn't really help Joe the ATC who has to provide standards of separation in an ever reducing airspace (or more aircraft, however you wish to view it). The world is moving on and we cannot continually say that how we did it in XXXX worked okay. Procedural control is incredibly inefficient. It may have worked with the lower traffic numbers of yesteryear but it's binding the hands of ATC and has no future-proofing (sorry for the management babble). ADBS, along with RNAV etc not only make things easier and more efficient for ATC but save money with direct routings etc and has development potential, whereas scores of miles between procedurally controlled aircraft, following necessarily mandatory courses, does not.

[Ultralights]

what ever happened to the idea of the general public, through their taxes, pay for the infrastructure required, to support an industry that supports them? imagine the same funding regime applied to the waterways, or roads.. every road a toll road... how well will that go down..

[Flying Binghi]

via Pontius:
...ADBS, along with RNAV etc not only make things easier and more efficient for ATC but save money with direct routings etc and has development potential,...

Hmmm... yes, them terrorists see the potential as well..:hmm:

Terrorists have already used GPS guided drones and will only continue to develop and evolve the potential. As soon as they have a few succeses with GPS guided bomb drones we'll be seeing them in Oz. I dont think a couple of F18 jammers will be enough. The only real defence against terrorist drones will be to turn off civy GPS. When that happens, lets hope ATC remember how to use radar...




.

[peterc005]

Over time ADSB transponders will get cheaper and more common as the Mode C transponders age and need to be replaced.

At the last transponder check the Avionics LAME said it would be the last time the old Mode C unit would be able to pass the tests.

I doubt anyone will buy a new Mode C unit now and by natural attrition and default ADSB will become the norm.

In my case it looks like the Trigg 31 will fit directly into the tray where the old Narco AT150 sits now. The Trigg transponder, EO and fitting should cost less than $5k. Spending $5k is a pain, but is not a show stopper. Instead of spending $3k to replace the old Mode C unit it is only about $2k extra for an ADSB upgrade.

Everyone will use GPS and ADSB. Radio-based navaids and Mode C transponders will end up like VHS VCRs - just a memory.

[CHAIRMAN]

Like lots on here, I can't comprehend why Aus had to be the first to mandate. USA options are becoming cheaper by the month, and they've got until 2020. What is the point in me spending 20-30k now to upgrade my IFR Archer when it will probably cost half that price come 2020. What was so wrong with our current system that we have to be the first in the world :{

[Pontius]

what ever happened to the idea of the general public, through their taxes, pay for the infrastructure required, to support an industry that supports them?

Ultralights,

There would be nothing wrong with that if the infrastructure was required, but it's not. What I am saying is that the tax payer and airline passenger should not have to be paying for radar coverage when ADSB would allow ATC to provide the same service. The fact that some aircraft owners do not want to fit ADSB should not be the cause of a whole infrastructure being put in place and paid for by others just so they can fly IFR......and avoid scud running.

FB,

I don't know really where to start with your post. I think the best thing you can probably do is invest in some industrial strength tinfoil for a new hat and realise the USA & Russia are not going to switch off GPS because of the terrorist threat of GPS-guided bomb drones in Oz. They're quite capable of inertial guidance as well, so you'd better decide how you're going to combat laser ring gyros as well as GPS :rolleyes:

[le Pingouin]

Duck, aircraft are monitored by whatever surveillance method they are in range of and equipped with.

There was never any intention of removing radars, in fact they're all being updated. ADS-B was never intended as a replacement for radar but as a relatively cheap means of extending surveillance coverage.

For the cost of installing and maintaining one radar you can install and maintain something like 30 ADS-B ground stations.

[The name is Porter]

Down south ADSB has extended coverage significantly. Before the ESL radar was fed back into TAAATS you'd be lucky to get identified out of ESL, WSL, BNS etc by F120. It's virtually to the ground there. High level stuff in bound from NZ (GEMAC, KURTT, SNELLY, LOLLY etc) are now ADSB identified 15 minutes prior to the boundary rather than a couple of minutes west. It's making a significant difference to the way controllers are separating (better, easier).

There are areas where surveillance has improved significantly (low level). If you haven't got an ADSB transponder your radar service will be terminated where it is always terminated. VFR pilots are **** scared of talking to controllers and don't take advantage of the services available to them. The reasons for that are beyond my understanding.

So, is there a benefit to the controller? Yes, in some areas a significant benefit (makes life a whole lot easier). Is there a benefit to the airlines and high level traffic, yes, they are more often getting the levels they want due to reduced distances in the application of separation standards. This a moot point however when you're transferring aircraft to an FIR that doesn't have surveillance, it goes back to procedural separation.

Is there a benefit to the GA? It depends if you are using ADSB services. I know one big charter and freight operator LOVES it, he can see exactly where his aircraft are rather than relying on text messages in suss coverage areas or expensive tracking tools. If you're an IFR lighty, yes, increased coverage will give a better traffic picture where there's coverage. If you need help one day, assistance becomes much easier if it's known exactly where you are, same with VFR. How do you quantify what that's worth?

Did there need to be a mandate and did that mandate need to be so out of whack with the rest of the world? Particularly the USA where most of the avionics comes from, where cost will reduce significantly with higher market penetration?...................

[swh]

Good to see the double standard still exists, the 787 has been banned from ADS-B airspace overseas as it transmits the wrong position information passing a waypoint, instead of banning the aircraft above FL280 they are allowed to operate.

Double standard, try getting away with that in your own aircraft.

[Pontius]

Good to see the double standard still exists, the 787 has been banned from ADS-B airspace overseas as it transmits the wrong position information passing a waypoint

Who on earth told you that? Whose 787s and what 'ADSB airspace'? All the routes I fly where ADSB is mandatory have no problems with the 787, including Oceanic routes. ADSB transmits your position, speed etc continuously and not just when you pass a waypoint. I think you've been fed a kipper ;)

[Eyrie]

Pontius, here:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/two-atc-agencies-blacklist-787-over-position-data-419916/

Frankly if everyone has ADSB in and out, what the hell do we need en route ATC for? You will be able to see all traffic and the computer will tag the one that is a threat well before any potential collision.

With no enroute radar if ADSB fails due to a GPS failure ATC won't be much good anyway. Good luck going to procedural control if you've stuffed the airspace with aircraft using lower than procedural separation standards.

This has in fact been simulated in a dense traffic environment some years ago and the surprising result was the small number of conflicts when everyone just flew direct to their destination (Free Flight) while being able to see all traffic. No I don't have the URL to hand.

(https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/two-atc-agencies-blacklist-787-over-position-data-419916/)

[le Pingouin]

Clearedtoenter, ADS-B is radio waves so line-of-sight just like radar and has exactly the same range and coverage - if every aircraft were suitably equipped you could one-for-one replace radar with ADS-B ground stations.

swh, are you confusing ADS-B with ADS-C? Or something else? The 787 ADS-B works perfectly well here in Australia and not just the local ones.

[LeadSled]

This has in fact been simulated in a dense traffic environment some years ago and the surprising result was the small number of conflicts when everyone just flew direct to their destination (Free Flight) while being able to see all traffic. No I don't have the URL to hand.


Folks,
Such studies have been done over the years, the first one, of which I am aware, was financed by United Airlines, with a major US university, in the 1960s.

Each one I have read came to the same conclusion about en-route (not terminal) operations ---- that the joke definition of ATC was correct:

"Air traffic control is a system for concentrating a small number of aircraft, in a vast and empty sky, over one point, greatly increasing the collision risk, and thereby justifying the need for air traffic control".

Then and now there is a truth in this, the first study was long before even the first rudimentary TCAS, random tracking produced a lower collision risk than organised ATC.

Tootle pip!!

[The name is Porter]

that the joke definition of ATC was correct

Because nothing much in aviation has changed since the 60's has it ;)

I'm tipping that the cockpit will be automated well before en-route ATC.

[swh]

are you confusing ADS-B with ADS-C? Or something else? The 787 ADS-B works perfectly well here in Australia and not just the local ones.

"Ultimately, Airservices Australia decided to accept the “risk” of allowing 787s to operate in ADS-B-mandated airspace with standard separation distances, ICAO’s reports show. Airservices Australia also notified controllers about the existence of the software problem."

"Nav Canada first detected a problem on 1 July 2014 when controllers noticed a 787 appearing to deviate up to 38nm (70km) from its planned track. The controllers alerted the crew by radio, but the pilots insisted their instruments showed they were still on course. Suddenly, however, the 787 “was observed jumping back to the flight plan route” on the controller’s screens, according to ICAO documents.

Around four months later, Airservices Australia noticed a similar problem when a Jetstar 787 appeared to deviate “significantly” off-track, then suddenly “jump” back to the planned route on a controller’s screen, the ICAO documents say."

"In rare cases, after passing a planned turn upon crossing a waypoint, the data packets that arrived at the transponder would contain either the aircraft’s latitude or longitude, but not both. In those cases, the ADS-B transponder’s software would extrapolate the 787’s position based on the previous flight track before it made a planned turn at a waypoint. It would continue reporting the aircraft erroneously on the incorrect track until it received a data packet containing both the latitude and the longitude of the aircraft.

“It is important to understand that this is not a safety concern,” Boeing says. "

[Flying Binghi]

via Pontius #18:
FB, I don't know really where to start with your post. I think the best thing you can probably do is invest in some industrial strength tinfoil for a new hat and realise the USA & Russia are not going to switch off GPS because of the terrorist threat of GPS-guided bomb drones in Oz. They're quite capable of inertial guidance as well, so you'd better decide how you're going to combat l@ser ring gyros as well as GPS

"tinfoil for a new hat..." And those gyros know where they are to start with, because....?...:hmm:

Pontius, i received exactly the same comments several years ago in this forum when i first started posting about terrorists using GPS guided drones. Well, i've been proven right. Or should i say that those who first alerted me to the possibility have been proven right. There were many threads on the subject and many have now disappeared from this site, though there is a 'go-back' web history site around that will bring up the old threads.

Pontius, inertial guidance/laser ring for small terrorist bomb drones were covered some time ago here in pprune. Seems, at this time, that the tech can't match the un-traceability, versatility, accuracy, and low cost, of GPS for terrorist purposes. And the terrorist purposes... Usama bin Laden himself wrote that islamic terrorist warfare will be one of economically bleeding the west dry. (ref, Kilcullen, 2009)

If you have a look at the terrorists nightmare, the Predator drone, one of the main people involved in its development first looked at it as a poor mans cruise missile. i.e., a GPS guided drone bomb...

"...Neal Blue found his imagination fired by the coming availability of GPS. He began following the system's development avidly, and when he heard of a Silicon Valley company called Trimble Navigation Ltd. that was already making products based on GPS applications, he flew to California to meet the firms founder. He came back with a new idea: theoretically, an unmanned aircraft equipped with a GPS receiver connected to an autopilot could be flown with great accuracy to any point on the globe that its aerodynamics and fuel capacity would enable it to reach. If such a drone also had a couple of hundred pounds of TNT in its nose, and was built cheaply enough, it could be a poor mans cruise missile..." (via, Whittle, 2014)




.

[Capn Bloggs]

Trimble? Nothing to fear being bombed by a drone with that system on board... :ok:

[Pontius]

I get it, FB, and I'm not disagreeing with the technology available nowadays to a terrorist with $$s in his pocket. What I am at odds with is the tenuous relevance to ADSB. You've managed to squeeze in your point because the drones use GPS, as does ADSB but, whereas it's obviously a favourite topic of yours, it really has nothing to add to Dick's question. Might I suggest you start a different thread and discuss your GPS drones there, rather than clog up the ADSB thread with irrelevance.

(And the gyros know where they are in the first place because you tell them, just like every inertial platform and you don't need GPS for that).

[Dick Smith]

I understand that the US currently has ADSB coverage down to about 1000 agl across 90% of the lower 48.

To save money AsA has less than 20% coverage at 1000 agl. More likely less than 10%.

In the US IFR aircraft remain in a minimum of class E airspace in all IFR approaches so ADSB gives a measurable advantage.

Not so in Australia- most small IFR aircraft fly in Class G and get no ATC separation service.

The US has no plans for an Australian type ADSB mandate for all IFR aircraft.

[gerry111]

Dick,


Why do you continue to pursue this issue? Particularly, as you've previously advised that you intend to sell your aircraft? (And that you've suggested that others should do likewise.)

[Capn Bloggs]

To save money AsA has less than 20% coverage at 1000 agl. More likely less than 10%.
Idiots. Why isn't there coverage at Ykickamoocow? :rolleyes:

[le Pingouin]

swh, that problem with the 787 ADS-B is incredibly rare - I'm not sure how many we've seen in Aus but I doubt it's more than a handful. I'll try to find out. Pilots deviate from clearances vertically and laterally far more frequently. Controllers screw up far more frequently. On the scale of risks it's small.

[Lead Balloon]

"Incredibly rare."

Apparently a risk of that magnitude is fine.

What is the magnitude of the risk mitigated by the Australian ADS-B mandate?

If it's mainly about user pays, and efficiency and cost savings for Airservices, the people who get the benefits efficiencies and savings should pay for costs of mandate.

[Dick Smith]

I think it should be communicated how dishonest these people are.

[Pontius]

I think it should be communicated how dishonest these people are.

If that's your raison d'etre, why does your initial post make no mention of, nor allude to this vital selfless act?

[Vref+5]

I think Dick is trying to say that anywhere else in the developed world IFR aircraft receive an ATC service at all times, with the applicable separation standards. Low level ADSB means ATC can apply better separation standards. However in Australia, AsA have elected to mandate ADSB for all IFR aircraft, without planning to provide that service. So what is the point of the mandate? What benefit - related to separation standards - is there?

Of note, it's also very interesting to see that Australia was the first to mandate ADSB, but has no plans for a SBAS, which has far more safety benefits that ADSB. Take this into account before stating I'm wrong - the rest of the developed world - which includes India and China BTW - have taken the opposite path, SBAS then ADSB. Safety before efficiency. I remember reading something about the priority order somewhere. Oh yes, day 1 at flying school

[Capn Bloggs]

but has no plans for a SBAS, which has far more safety benefits that ADSB.
"Far more"? What are they?

[Old Akro]

anywhere else in the developed world IFR aircraft receive an ATC service at all times, with the applicable separation standards. Low level ADSB means ATC can apply better separation standards.

The problem is that without VFR aircraft on ADSB, the separation standards cannot be anything different than they are now.

Australia is the only country in the world that is MANDATING ADSB for ALL IFR aircraft in ALL airspace types.

[le Pingouin]

How safe is an overloaded procedural ATC system? There's more to safety than single aircraft.

[neville_nobody]

"Far more"? What are they?

It will provide precision approaches to every airport in Australia if they build enough ground stations. Basically the ground station acts as a satellite. As the poster suggested that's better then ADSB on the whole.

[Capn Bloggs]

It will provide precision approaches to every airport in Australia if they build enough ground stations. Basically the ground station acts as a satellite. As the poster suggested that's better then ADSB on the whole.
No he didn't, he said a SBAS has "far more safety benefits" than ADS-B. So we have to pay for ground stations (and the WAAS satellites ?) for something we may use once in a blue moon (given we have LNAV approaches to 500ft AGL now, and the big end of town have RNP-AR). Nice to have, but give me ADS-B any time.

[Vref+5]

Bloggs, if you're right, then the rest of the world is wrong. SBAS provides LPV approaches to any runway, a 3D position solution that gives you vertical guidance to the threshold every time. Safety benefits of that are massive. ADSB in Class G on the other hand, only provides an advisory service because there is no ATC control and separation standards applied

[Capn Bloggs]

Safety benefits of that are massive.
Oh come on. Just go to your alternate if you can't get in off your LNAV (once in a blue moon?). And the cost benefit analysis of the WAAS gear? Give me ADS-B any day.

We don't have Class G here, despite what Dick Smith foisted upon the editors of AIP.

[Flying Binghi]

via Pontius:
I get it, FB, and I'm not disagreeing with the technology available nowadays to a terrorist with $$s in his pocket. What I am at odds with is the tenuous relevance to ADSB. You've managed to squeeze in your point because the drones use GPS, as does ADSB but, whereas it's obviously a favourite topic of yours, it really has nothing to add to Dick's question. Might I suggest you start a different thread and discuss your GPS drones there, rather than clog up the ADSB thread with irrelevance.

(And the gyros know where they are in the first place because you tell them, just like every inertial platform and you don't need GPS for that).

"it really has nothing to add to Dick's question..."

Oh, and here's me thinkin it do...

via Dick Smith:
...rather than spend the money in fitting the ADSB, they are going to simply take their aircraft out of the IFR category and only fly VFR...
...scud running all the time because of not being able to afford the cost of ADSB...

Pontius, Oz aircraft owners are getting a 'nav' system inflicted apon them by some incompetents more worried about their annual bonus. Now i woulda thought any factors that impact upon the "costs" of ADS-B are entirly relavent to Mr Smiths thread starter..;)



"(And the gyros know where they are in the first place because you tell them, just like every inertial platform and you don't need GPS for that)"

Pontius, there must be something i miss-understand about the 'gyros' you use. Lets run a scenario: An islamic nutter is out in the wilds of a little island just north of Oz and sets up his little bomb drone for a target in Darwin. Half kg ordinance payload and requires targeting accuracy of one cubic metre of airspace and within a few minutes of a set time.

Pontius, if the terrorist does not have the availability of GPS, will your 'gyros' be able to hit the target as per scenario?



And "the technology available nowadays to a terrorist with $$s in his pocket..."

Pontius, i suggest you actually research the subject. The 'cost' is peanuts. Like everything in life, terrorism gets cheaper by the day. And there is no 'peak' terrorism in sight..:hmm:




.

[Vref+5]

Bloggs, we are off topic now, all I will say is :

1. The rest of the world have implemented SBAS first.
2. There are over 7000 APV approaches published, available to those with suitably equipped aircraft (TSO C145 or 146)
3. These are flown using both the latral and vertical guidance information.

If you don't think this clearly demonstrates the rest of the world has realised the safety benefits of SBAS, well....

[Jabawocky]

I saw a recent ADSB transponder install in a Piper Commanche (Bendix King) and it cost $5k.

Maybe it is not so hard after all.

[KittyKatKaper]

Jaba, did that installation already have a certified GPS data-source for the new transponder ?

[Kiwiconehead]

I saw a recent ADSB transponder install in a Piper Commanche (Bendix King) and it cost $5k.

Straight slot in for either KT74 (Trig TT31 with King written on the front) or a Trig TT31 same rack is doable for around that price, just need to run RS232 from GPS to Transponder rack - but you need to already have a suitable GPS.

Exact details are hard to decipher but it is generally accepted that a TSO C145/146 WAAS GPS will be required to provide a suitable GPS data source for ADSB.

So it depends on what you have fitted already, an Garmin 430/530 can be upgraded to W spec, other stuff your are looking at new units.

[Old Akro]

Exact details are hard to decipher but it is generally accepted that a TSO C145/146 WAAS GPS will be required to provide a suitable GPS data source for ADSB.

Its not hard to decipher. Its very clear. ADSB requires a C146a GPS source. In common practice, this means a WAAS enabled GPS. Existing Trimble, Garmin C129a GPS (eg GNC155XL, GNC300XL, King KLN94, etc) are not acceptable.