Mr Skidmore unmovable on ADSB

[Dick Smith]

I have been informed that Mr Skidmore has just appeared at Senate Estimates and confirmed he will not budge on the ADSB mandate coming in next February for all IFR aircraft.

Clearly he is going to ignore the request from AOPA and others that the mandate be delayed until 2021 similar to NZ.

Of course this mandate which CASA has costed at over $30 million for GA is not addressing any existing safety issues

My advice remains. Anyone involved in attempting to make a living out of Aviation in Australia should get out as soon as possible otherwise losses will be staggering.

Mr Skidmore was given a 5 year term and will unlikely be supporting cost reducing reforms.

Can someone post a link to the video of the hearing?

[aviationadvertiser]

No other option than for the DAS to resign. What a disgrace.

[aviationadvertiser]

https://youtu.be/-417SpL4CAM

[Dick Smith]

It makes me feel sick to watch that video.

It's obvious the CASA board has not been able to communicate to the Director the damage that this totally unnecessary mandate will do to Australian aviation.

Or maybe he doesn't want to listen.

Remember the mandate was not driven by CASA or an existing safety issue but by the boffins at Airservices who possibly wanted to win an award for being first to force this on industry in the world .

And as noted elsewhere to maximise their own profits and bonuses they have only put in a handful of ground stations compared to the US .

Remember in the US even in 2020 no ADSB mandate below 10,000' in E and G if more than 30 nm from class B. Means most GA aircraft will not require the expense .

[gerry111]

I note that Mr Skidmore told Senator X that he didn't receive an invitation to Friday's Tamworth meeting.


Was that such a good idea?

[Dick Smith]

The mandate will clearly reduce safety as many pilots I have spoken to are taking their aircraft out of the IFR category as they can't afford the cost.

And everyone was invited to the meeting. I didn't get a special invitation but I will be there.

Mr Skidmore mentioned that the decision was made years ago. Yes. That was when GA was told the units would be subsidised from the savings made by AsA removing the SSR units. Then went back on that but left the mandate. Quite dishonest however that's how I found the Canberra system works.

[aviationadvertiser]

I would like to clarify, that the Deputy Prime Minister (via his office staff) organised for this meeting, Friday 6th May 2016, offering to attend with the Minister for Infrastructre & Transport and the Chairman of the CASA Board, to engage with industry. At no time did they indicate that DAS Skidmore would be in attendance.

The video included above, clearly demonstrates the unwillingness of the DAS to accept that the 2017 compliance position on ADSB is unreasonable. The DAS states that CASA is willing to engage with industry, yet remains defiantly set with his determination to maintain the 2017 date.

So much for industry consultation and consideration. Yet another example of the blind and mlndless manner in which the regulator is destroying our industry?

CASA GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK MANUAL
SECTION 2.4.5 - The aviation industry is a key stakeholder in CASA

As a key stakeholder in CASA the general aviation industry calls on CASA to extend the ADSB compliance to 2021, providing the industry with a sensible pathway to compliance.

[The name is Porter]

Ben, go to bed, you've got a big day tomorrow :D

[The name is Porter]

Sorry, today :E

[Sunfish]

Good luck. I'm afraid the only way forward that will actually work is to form a "Tiger Team" from PM & C with a mandate to rewrite the Act.

The rewritten Act would:

1) Require that the aviation industry be fostered and grown.

2) Mandate international standards and prohibit home grown concoctions of regulation where an international standard is already available.

3) Require rigourous cost/benefit studies with mandatory industry participation.

4) Remove regulatory infringements from the criminal to administrative courts and require education, legal action being a last resort.

5) Break up CASA into a regulator and a separate enforcer. Enshrine the independence of the ATSB an d prohibit "agreements or MOUs" between the ATSB and anyone.

6) Remove the entire "show cause" pantomine and require strict rules of evidence.



…and, and, and……

Then allow existing CASA staff to apply for positions in the new organisations.

[Jabawocky]

Mr Skidmore mentioned that the decision was made years ago. Yes. That was when GA was told the units would be subsidised from the savings made by AsA removing the SSR units. Then went back on that but left the mandate. Quite dishonest however that's how I found the Canberra system works.

A bit disingenuous there Dick. :=

If my memory serves me correctly, the GA subsidy, which would have been plenty given the low cost of todays units, was scuttled mainly by a group of extremist activists. I am sure you know exactly who.

The SSR replacement then had to go ahead. We all lost out.

The very same people who have their Cherokee 6 or whatever that are going to take them out of IFR would have been covered.

Pity the deal was scuttled and I recall several well known identities on this forum crowing about their success.

[CaptainMidnight]

If my memory serves me correctlyIt does indeed - what you state was exactly the case.

[Lead Balloon]

But that's not a sufficient reason to press ahead with a stupid decision, namely implementation before it happens in first world aviation nations.

[aroa]

Sunny....all good BUT...

Letting old CAsA trough dwellers back into the new agency would only allow a coterie? group to form to get to work and upset the new apple cart.

New Agency, NEW blood required. NEW aviation oriented blood NOT ratty reg, process driven paper shufflers, who claim the punitive approach is all. Just ticks on the paperwork doesnt mean its been properly done or safe.

OUT with the old, I say. Having been a player in the old monumental cock-up should be an automatic disqualification.

And as for the Skidmore attitude re ADSB...needs to be dragged out of the office, just leaving his mark on CAsA .....his skidmark on the floor.

[Squawk7700]

It's fairly clear cut really.

Skidmore has made it clear that they ignored the fact that the decision will result in un-necessary costs to GA. Whether the Government decides to hold them accountable and action this is the question.

The suggestion that the costs will be more if we wait for the US date was laughable.

[aroa]

See....with CAsA ....any old BS will do

[Squawk7700]

Mr. Skidmore, did Plasma TV's get cheaper or more expensive when everyone went out any bought one?

[Old Akro]

Skidmore has not shown enough engagement in the detail of his job to deserve to keep it.

Try asking any private industry CEO on one of the 2-3 major projects in progress in his / her company and you would get a response with perfect detail.

Skidmore's performance at the Senate shows that he does not have sufficient grasp on his job. Its time he went. He has just demonstrated lack of a minimum competence in his role.

https://youtu.be/-417SpL4CAM

[Old Akro]

In the Senate video Skidmore indicates that he is not attending the Tamworth meeting today.

This is from the letter from Benjamin Morgan.

In attendance, representing the government will be;

The Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Barnaby Joyce
The Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester
The Chairman of the Board, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Mr Jeff Boyd.

If Skidmore was engaged with industry and the minimum level for competency of his role he would be aware of it and attending - invited or not.

If Skidmore had a functional relationship with his Chair consistent with minimum competency for his role (its the CEO's role to manage the relationship with his chair, not vice versa) , then he would be aware of the meeting and be attending, if for no other reason than to provide support for his Chair. So he fails here too.

Skidmore is not up to the job. Its time to go.

[Capn Bloggs]

If Skidmore was engaged with industry and the minimum level for competency of his role he would be aware of it and attending - invited or not.

Come off it. If he was any old Joe, then fair enough, just roll up, even if not invited. But he's the head of CASA, allegedly the biggest, baddest nasty in the whole story. For him not to be invited clearly indicates he is not welcomed. You lot deserve what you will get if you don't have the decency to invite one of the main players.

[Jabawocky]

Pb Balloon
But that's not a sufficient reason to press ahead with a stupid decision, namely implementation before it happens in first world aviation nations.

We are meant to be a first world nation……..yeah I know. :hmm:

We also had a timely opportunity to execute the move, not do it ten years after.

Ever looked at ADSB paints around the globe…..we are not the only ones.

[Ultralights]

i think that was bull****, how many big avionics companies are there in Oz, that can develop a ADSB system cheaply? Ozrunways and Avplan?

[Vag277]

i think that was bull****, how many big avionics companies are there in Oz, that can develop a ADSB system cheaply? Ozrunways and Avplan?

Enigma Avionics

[Ultralights]

Enigma avionics, cool, were they actually approached and worked with CASA to price the ADSB in oz? or was it just something skidmark said to improve his already poor argument that he actually, did consult with industry?

[Vag277]

Enigma avionics, cool, were they actually approached and worked with CASA to price the ADSB in oz? or was it just something skidmark said to improve his already poor argument that he actually, did consult with industry?

Industry consultation started more than a decade ago! Why not ask Hans Seiker and deal in facts?

[Lumps]

am I missing something? A quick search shows ADSB units for US$2k. For run of the mill GA aircraft not biz jets etc. A bit of money, yes, but if you own an aircraft this amount, while not pleasant, does happen from time to time. But then I don't own a Cessna so the extra insult is lost on me...

[Sunfish]

Lumps, yes, you are missing something.

1. In Australia, a High accuracy certified GPS is required to drive ADS-B out - $10,000 approximately. In the USA Dynon sells a GPS sensor for US$590 that drives their ADS-B solution, but of course that won't work in Australia, our air and climate is different…...

2. If the installation is in a certified aircraft, there needs to be an STC for it or you are up for an Engineering order to fit it - $$$$$$$. In Dick Smiths case for a Cessna Citation, that approaches $150,000, since no one has done the design work yet.


3. Last time I looked a ES squatter capable transponder was about A$3500.


Vag: The Enigma avionics ADS - B solution has been around for at least 18 months and is still not yet approved by CASA or Airservices. Based on prior experience, by the time it is approved, if it ever is at all, Garmin will have released a similar product and Enigmas time - to - market advantage will be destroyed and probably the little Australian company as well.

CASA likes it that way because they don't have to actually do anything innovative and risky, like taking responsibility for approving a ground breaking Australian product. Much better to drag their feet and let Garmin and the FAA approve the product type (ADS-B beacon, I think its called), then , If Enigma is still around, they can have an approval on the basis that their product does what the Garmin one does - hence no CASA responsibility for actually having to decide something.

I worked in the field of innovation for some Eight years and my advice generally was to take Australian inventions offshore to commercialise them. It was much easier then doing it here. For example stem cell stuff we sent to Singapore which doesn't have the catholic church and University and hospital ethics committees trying to block you at every step. Electronics? USA or China. Then of course there is the Australian BS associated with the taxation of share options, which is the way you generally remunerate workers in start up companies.

[Lumps]

Whoa! Ok. I suggest anarchy then.

[no_one]

Lumps,

Which ADSB unit is $2k? The best I have been able to find is about $5k US.

[Jabawocky]

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/av/adsb/garmin_gtx335.php

$3300 or about $4500 here

[no_one]

To which you need to add the approved GPS. The GTX345 is $5k

[Dick Smith]

At the Tamworth meeting the CASA Chairman stated that he understood that the Feburuary ADSB mandate could not be put off to 2021 because Airservices had made plans which would preclude this.

Any idea what these plans could be?

I understood all the SSR s were being kept and as AsA have resolutely refused to support the NAS decision to bring in terminal E - what is the reason for the early mandate - other than so Airservices can win an award for being first in the world to send an industry into bankruptcy ?

[Dick Smith]

Remember. Once you fit ADSB you lose every bit of privacy you may ever have had flying VFR.

Friends and enemies alike will be able to follow nearly your every move in the air on their iPhones.

Imagine if every Aussie family that went for a weekend drive had to fit a transmitter to their car so everyone else in this country could follow everywhere they went and stopped.

There would be a huge outcry.

[outnabout]

But, Dick, if aircraft had ADSB fitted, we would not still be searching for aircraft in the Barrington Tops for 30 years, would we?

And although it is not a requirement for vehicles to be fitted with ADSB, an ambulance fitted with a GPS led police to the murderer of a nurse in a remote community fairly quickly, didn't it? And helped the recovery of her body fairly quickly, to allow her suffering family some closure. Imagine if Peter Falconios Kombi or his murderer's vehicle had been fitted with GPS / ADSB...

[MIR 3]

Can anyone tell me one positive improvement ou new director of CASA has done to improve aviation in Australia?
This is a genuine question and I'd like to hear from others.

[Dick Smith]

Out. Possibly not if it fluked going missing in about 10% of our low level airspace that is covered by AsA ADSB ground stations at low levels.

Your other examples would not have been assisted by the ADSB mandate for the above reasons.

I will stick to my spider track unit for Sar purposes as it works all across Australia and all around the world to ground level and is private .

For enroute collision avoidance at low levels I will keep my eyes open and remain vigilant.

[outnabout]

Dick, I question your assertion that only 10 per cent of our country is covered by the ground stations.

I was flying VFR in a ADSB fitted aircraft at 1000 feet, with a company SAR, on the Nullarbor coastline. I was called up by Melbourne, by call sign, for a radio check. Ditto while operating in the Channel country. I would not have previously thought that either of those locations / heights were in the magic "10 per cent".

I believe that if your friends or family or (like some of us) have staff flying paying passengers in a remote location, and went missing, I believe you would be very grateful that the aircraft was fitted with ADSB, allowing for an accurate location to be identified quickly in case of emergency.

I know I would be.

[Sunfish]

My opinion is that ADSB will become an automatic infringement notice generator within a New York Minute of implementation. It's for the children........

[Dick Smith]

At 1000' less than 10% of Australia has ADSB coverage. You just chanced on being line of site of an outlet twice!

Don't self delude about technology . In a few years the iridium system will receive ADSB to ground level everywhere but you will need an antenna on the top of your aircraft!

And you won't need Airservices and their huge overheads.

I challenge Airservices to publish the ADSB coverage at typical VFR helicopter levels of 1000'.

Bet they won't .

The US has 90% coverage at 1000' agl and that required over 600 stations- not a pathetic 60.

[Dick Smith]

A number of months ago I was told that part of an industrial agreement AsA had with the ATC Union Civil Air resulted in the IFR mandate being used as a bargaining tool. That is less workload for ATCs if aircraft have ADSB.

Can anyone throw any light on this. its outrageous if true .

The so claimed 90% already fitted is already causing a lowering of safety as resources are moved from real safety improvement areas. It's clearly one of the reasons GA is almost destroyed .

Are these industrial agreements secret? Surely not in a monopoly?

[Jabawocky]

no oneTo which you need to add the approved GPS. The GTX345 is $5k

And CTR


You guys need to do more research before you post. I am not the ADSB guru of Australia, but I was an early adopter, ditching my GTX327 for a 330ES and now an integrated unit after that. I am not a mega millionaire either, but I see value especially longer term.

GTX335 is available as a standard transponder (like the 330ES) or with an optional built in GPS for ADSB out.

All-inclusive 1090 MHz ADS-B “Out” Transponder Solution
Satisfies NextGen equipage requirements for ADS-B “Out”
1090 MHz output enables aircraft to operate at any altitude, in airspace around the globe
Combines Mode S Extended Squitter (ES) transponder and optional WAAS/GPS position source in a single unit
Useful display features include flight time, count-up and count-down timers, plus current pressure altitude readout
Easy replacement for your existing transponder, with common 1.65-inch tall form factor
For aircraft operators looking to satisfy the ADS-B “Out” equipage rules as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, the Garmin GTX 335 ES transponder offers the ideal one-box, one-swap solution. It’s optionally available with a built-in WAAS GPS position source – so everything needed to meet compliance standards for a certified ADS-B “Out” solution can be provided with this simple all-in-one package installation.

There would be many IFR aircraft who can live with the lack of a TSO146 navigator (say older G1000 or 430/530) or a VFR machine, that can fit these readily.

And the list price is USD$3795 so on the street less. As for EO's that argument has been done to death before.

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/general-aviation/transponders/gtx-335/prod140939.html

[outnabout]

I say, bull****, Dick.

In the locations where I was, given the aircraft I was flying (neither aircraft of a type usually associated with ATSB, particularly given the opposition to ATSB) ATC knew exactly who I was, and exactly where I was by Lat and long. I disagree strongly with your claim that I got lucky to be in the line of sight, at least twice (it has happened more often but these are the most recent examples) in such remote locations at such a low level. Hell, in both cases when I confirmed my location by giving the nearest airstrip, they required the code, as they didn't recognise the name / weren't sure of pronouncing the name as it doesn't occur often.

I note the comment that this might be a revenue raising exercise, but has anyone also thought it might get you out of the poo? Joe Bloggs, while flying ABC, you are penalised for infringing R123 at this time / date. Your honour, ATSB shows I was outside the boundary by the accepted margin at the stated height, so, not guilty.

Yes, I accept that installing ATSB might be (is) eye-wateringly expensive, and we might be 5 or more years ahead of the rest of the world, but so? I am snarly about the fact that when it was first mooted, there was going to be rebates for operators / owners who complied, and that promise has vanished into the ether, never to be seen again. Why can't we get Senator X onto reviving that promise? Would we then still be so resistant to the introduction, or insisting on delaying the introduction of ATSB until the units get cheaper?

And before anyone starts, no I don't work for CASA / the media.

[le Pingouin]

Jesus Dick you really must stop smoking whatever it is that's inducing the paranoia or stop listening to the paranoid idiots who are feeding the "it's industrial" tripe to you.

[The name is Porter]

Penguin, it's not paranoia. I know of 2 instances of CASA contacting pilots asking them how they got visual on approaches when other aircraft haven't. Some clown sitting at a desk in prime real estate, not in the cockpit of the aircraft concerned. First, where'd they get this 'data' from? Second, how is this clown in a position to judge a pilot's actions unless they are in the right seat, looking out the windscreen at the minima?

[le Pingouin]

Just to clarify this is the tripe I'm referring to: "A number of months ago I was told that part of an industrial agreement AsA had with the ATC Union Civil Air resulted in the IFR mandate being used as a bargaining tool. That is less workload for ATCs if aircraft have ADSB."

[Sunfish]

The trouble with ADS-B is that the associated legislation has a "barbed hook" in it.

Once you have it, you must always use it. There is a Three day grace period if it fails before you are grounded. That will be "fun" if you are touring.

Furthermore, it is extremely simple and easy to program an "automatic infringement generator" that identifies ANY transgression of restricted areas, controlled airspace and some regulations and automatically issues a show cause notice or penalty notice without further human intervention if so desired. Speed camera systems already do exactly that.


Unfortunately human nature is such that once that capability exists it will be used. WHen one takes into account the incomprehensibly subjective nature of the regulations, the capricious, vindictive, unjust and vicious behaviour of the regulator then the capability is going to be used to kill what little is left of GA.

To put that another way; ADS - B bias the ability to single out and watch each of Dick Smiths aircraft every time they fly, provided they are in range of a receiver, and automatically follow and examine his conduct for the slightest deviation from regulations.

To put that yet another way, turn left at 499ft after takeoff? Here is your penalty notice!

[Dick Smith]

Le Ping

Is this what I stated that you are objecting to?


"At the Tamworth meeting the CASA Chairman stated that he understood that the February ADSB mandate could not be put off to 2021 because Airservices had made plans which would preclude this."

The previous CASA Director made a similar statement.

Can you throw any light on why Airservices won't allow any delay on the implementation?

Is there a particular safety problem that exists in Australia at the present time that Airservices has kept secret that requires this mandate three years before the US mandate and 4 years before the NZ mandate?

If so why is this being kept secret?

Or is the Airservices position totally based on ego- that is so they can win an international award for being first to have an ADSB mandate for all IFR aircraft.

[Dick Smith]

Sunfish. In the USA you only have to have the extended squitter ( which sends out the aircrafts registration ) on when in "ADSB mandatory" airspace.

In Australia CASA has mandated ( I am told) that if an aircraft is fitted with ADSB it is illegal at any time to turn off the extended squitter.

Can an expert on complex CASA regs , like Bloggs , confirm this?

[Kiwiconehead]

There would be many IFR aircraft who can live with the lack of a TSO146 navigator (say older G1000 or 430/530) or a VFR machine, that can fit these readily.

There are - but don't forget that on the 26th of May there are a lot of navaids being turned off - if you fly IFR in country WA or Queensland then you are going to need a TSO145 or better GPS.

[Dick Smith]

Maybe that's the answer. Airservices management believe they may not be able to turn off the ground aids if the ADSB mandate is delayed.

This is not true.

I am amazed that this is supposed to be a rumour network and no one even has heard a rumour on why AsA won't budge on this.

[ol-mate]

Putting aside personal vendettas and conspiracy theories against the 'military', there seems to be three main arguments against ADS-B:

1. The cost
2. Reduced privacy
3. Possible infringements

The cost wouldn't have been as big an issue, if those against ADS-B hadn't fought so hard to have the subsidisation of fitment quashed, never to be seen again.

Reduced privacy is a double edged sword as outnabout has already described.

If you can't accept that infringements for violating CTA or active prohibited/restricted areas might be good for safety, then you are a danger to us all. God forbid the onus falls on the PIC to do their preflight planning, to avoid an infringement and ensure they don't put themselves or anyone else in harms way.

[Lead Balloon]

The costs argument is a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that.

The costs argument also takes into consideration that mandating fitment ahead of first-world aviation countries mean Australian aircraft owners will not have the benefit of economies of scale. If 40,000 GA aircraft in the USA were fitted first, the rounding error fleet in Australia would get the benefit of the development and other fixed costs of the manufactured avionics being spread far more broadly.

And don't forget: In the USA the ANSP is funded as a common good, whereas in Australia the ANSP execs write their own salary checks for being smart enough to make money out of a monopoly gouging industry.

The airspace infringement argument is also a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that. It's the difference between a system that facilitates punishment rather than education and a 'just culture'.

However, I do think the privacy argument has no legs. Australians already have no privacy from governments.

[Duck Pilot]

I've heard through a reliable source that some of the navaids to be decommissioned later this month may not be shut down on the day. They will continue transmitting/radiating until they fail, maintenance falls due or they are physically switched off.

I assume that ASA will issue NOTAMs to reflect this at the time. Effected aids probably won't be able to be used for navigation, similar to how they manage an aid on test.

It will be interesting to compare the new published LSALTs with the current ones.

Don't take this as correct, as the information is 3rd hand.

[Dick Smith]

The privacy argument has lots of legs. It's not so much a lack of privacy from governments. It's a lack of privacy from everyone including nutters.

As I explained before the general public would not accept that there every drive in a car could be followed by anyone keying their car rego into an iPhone.

Lead . I bet you wouldn't accept for your family members where ever they went. Remember this is not tracking by police. It's tracking by anyone with a free app.

But why won't Airservices see reason on this? Must be an explanation . Interesting no one knows or is game to say.

Prime reason the subsidy did not go ahead is that it was to be funded by removal of all the SSR heads. No way this could happen in the short term. No removal meant no cost saving therefore no subsidy.

[alphacentauri]

I've heard through a reliable source that some of the navaids to be decommissioned later this month may not be shut down on the day. They will continue transmitting/radiating until they fail, maintenance falls due or they are physically switched off.
Does it matter? Fact is that on the day, they will not appear in any AIP document. I have seen all the documents (inc charts), they are gone. The fact that they may be still radiating is irrelevant, you won't be able to use them unless you refer to 'out of date' documents.

Considering these navaids are spread out over 5000km of the Australian continent I am surprised you seem to think AsA are going to send out 180 add technicians to sit there with a screw driver to power these things down on the same day. Considering they won't be part of the airways network what is wrong with letting them sit there until they can get to them?

I assume that ASA will issue NOTAMs to reflect this at the time
So far as aviation operations are concerned the navaids don't exist....can't notam something that does not exist.

It will be interesting to compare the new published LSALTs with the current ones.
I think you will find in the short term that the old/new LSALTS will be exactly the same. The difference is that they are valid only for RNP 2 enroute navigation. If you can't/aren't flying RNP2 then the LSALTS are not for you and you need to calculate your own.

Question for you Dick. Do you actually have evidence that shows the main driver for the ADSB mandate is AsA? There seems to be a idea that AsA can ask the regulator to introduce mandate for something and they will do it. I can tell you now there is no love lost between AsA and CASA. CASA rarely consider anything AsA has to say on face value. If AsA is the main proponent then Mark Skidmore's insistence that he is sticking to the ADSB mandate is effectively going in to bat for AsA. Why would he defend AsA? The current relationship between then 2 organisations is nowhere near mature enough for that to happen. That's why I think this is actually a CASA initiative....

[Capn Bloggs]

I challenge Airservices to publish the ADSB coverage at typical VFR helicopter levels of 1000'.

What has (your) VFR chopper at 1000ft got to do with the ADS-B mandate?

The US has 90% coverage at 1000' agl and that required over 600 stations- not a pathetic 60.
Here we go again... they need 600 stations because they have aeroplanes flying over all of their country. We don't. Have a look over the side next time you're doing your Area Freq coverage test across the GAFA: no sign of life, let alone aeroplanes. That's why there's no ADS-B coverage there/why we don't need 600 stations.

[Flying Binghi]

Wont it be fun when the first GPS guided terrorist drone wanders in over the coast..:hmm:




.

[Capn Bloggs]

Relevance, Bingi??

[Flying Binghi]

via Dick Smith:
The privacy argument has lots of legs. It's not so much a lack of privacy from governments. It's a lack of privacy from everyone including nutters.

As I explained before the general public would not accept that there every drive in a car could be followed by anyone keying their car rego into an iPhone...


Inspire Magazine #13...

https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/inspire-magazine-issue-13.pdf

Various articles about bomb making, god is great, etc, etc.

Near the end of the magazine one of the articles covers the targeting of "Economic Personalities", "Wealthy entrepreneurs or company owners"

I think our Mr Smith probably ticks all those boxs..:uhoh:

ADS-B - a terrorists delight..:hmm:





.

[The name is Porter]

Question for you Dick. Do you actually have evidence that shows the main driver for the ADSB mandate is AsA? There seems to be a idea that AsA can ask the regulator to introduce mandate for something and they will do it.

The MAIN reason Jeff Boyd gave for not being able to roll back the ADSB mandate was 'other agencies are involved' i.e. ASA.

If 350 odd VOR's & NDB's are being decommissioned by ASA why aren't 350 odd ADSB ground stations being commissioned in better locations? Why isn't there an ADSB ground station at Albury? ATC's are still procedurally separating aircraft 180nm from the second biggest city in Australia. Less than an hours flight.

Fact is ASA are turds, it's about one thing only: profit. If it was about safety we'd have RNAV approaches with vertical guidance, something that would cost stuff all in the great scheme of things.

[alphacentauri]

The MAIN reason Jeff Boyd gave for not being able to roll back the ADSB mandate was 'other agencies are involved' i.e. ASA.

You are assuming he was referring to AsA...

You get no argument from me that AsA could be doing more to facilitate the ADSB mandate. AsA are under prepared for what is coming (in my opinion). But again, if the mandate was pushed so hard by AsA why are they so under prepared? Second, with the level of under preparedness now on display, what is the big risk with pushing the mandate out? I just don't buy that the road block to pushing the mandate out is AsA. I also cannot see that CASA would defend AsA.

If it was about safety we'd have RNAV approaches with vertical guidance, something that would cost stuff all in the great scheme of things.

I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. I'm at the coalface of APV implementation and the delay has absolutely nothing to do with AsA, and everything to do with the safety regulator not being prepared or willing to roll them out.

Fact is ASA are turds... Do you really think that? How would you make it better?

[thorn bird]

"I'm at the coalface of APV implementation and the delay has absolutely nothing to do with AsA, and everything to do with the safety regulator not being prepared or willing to roll them out".

Is that the reason the rest of the world has had low vis approaches quite safely for over 40 years and Australia is only now begrudgingly fiddling around the edges?

Third world infrastructure for a third world country.

[alphacentauri]

Yes, in a nutshell. We DO NOT have a progressive regulator. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming to allow operations in this country that have been done successfully overseas for years.

Third world infrastructure for a third world country. Totally agree.

...and third world regulator for a third world country.

[Dick Smith]

I believe the CASA Chairman at the Tamworth meeting made it very clear it was Airservices that would not budge on the ADSB mandate.

On this site a year or so ago an email from the last CASA Director to Brad Edwards was quoted which made it clear that it was Airservices that prevented the Director from giving promised ADSB dispensations .

There is something going on here that is being kept hidden.

Surely someone who posts on this site must know the facts- why won't the Canberra bureaucracy support an entirely reasonable request from AOPA and other industry organisations to postpone the mandate until 2021 as per NZ.?

Free invitation and beer at the next Bowylie fly in on Sunday May 22nd for the Pruner with the most likely correct answer!

[Vref+5]

AsA produced the Safety Case, and gave it to CASA. The SC stated that the risk would not be tolerable in the upper level airspace if non ADSB aircraft were permitted to operate in it once ADSB was implemented. The only reason non ADSB aircraft got the exemption to operate in the J curve was due to CASA involvement. CASA politely pointed out that there wasn't an increase in traffic numbers, so the risk could not have gone up in airspace under radar coverage. So don't bag them all the time.

The problem is when AsA produce a SC using their airspace modelling tool (s) with certain assumptions inputted, with no basis in reality, for the purposes of achieving their own aims, it's very difficult to provide a rebuttal, unless industry get involved. My previous post regarding the E over D rollback was another example of this.

The rest of the developed world has gone SBAS before ADSB, safety before efficiency. The sensible approach. The reason we haven't is that, if AsA install it, they can't charge for it's use, as the charging model is based on a user pays principle, not their fault but the Federal Government's policy. CASA isn't responsible for it's installation, it's national infrastructure therefore the Federal Governments problem.

So let's hit Nick X up for an SBAS, the new government will be looking for new national infrastructure initiaves. It ticks all the boxes, latest technology, country/regional benefits etc etc. Probably a couple of overseas trips for managers in AsA and CASA as well:}

[outnabout]

Sunfish:


With reference to your comment that there is only 3 days grace to fix a U/S ATSB for IFR flight:


There have always been instruments required for IFR flight which, if U/S, can ground an IFR flight. As the first example that comes to mind, I refer you to AIP ENR 1.7 1.2 IFR Altimeters, which stipulates checks for altimeters to be used in IFR flight, and the tolerances. If the altimeter doesn't meet the requirements for IFR, go VFR or stay on the ground.


Unless I am missing something (and, as always, I am willing to be corrected), the same rule applies to ATSB. Not in a position to get it fixed in 3 days, then fly VFR or stay on the ground.


If Skidmore has put his foot down, and the introduction of ATSB will happen by whenever (for whatever reason) then how can we (as an industry) work it to our advantage? How about getting pollies to put on pressure to bring back the rebate that was originally promised? How about saying to CASA or ASA, and to pollies, OK you have told us the date that you want the industry to comply. For those operators / owners who comply, how about a 100% rebate if there is not 100% coverage (or whatever they are promising) of Australia. Otherwise, businesses and individuals will have wasted money on a government mandated safety feature but because the government hasn't met their side of the bargain (ie provided maximum coverage) then we are entitled to our money back. And, to my mind, it will be serious egg on face - we complied, they didn't, therefore who here is really taking aviation safety seriously?

[CaptainMidnight]

A minor point, outnabout

You keep using "ATSB".

The system is ADS-B ....

[Sunfish]

Outnabout, the ADSB rule about three days etc. unless I am mistaken, does not just refer to IFR aircraft, it refers to ANY aircraft fitted with ADSB out, that includes VFR. Hence once you fit it as a VFR aircraft, you cannot turn it off.

[Dick Smith]

VRef Can you give me a link to the safety case that shows if an aircraft without a fitted ADSB flys above Fl 290 in the GARA that the risk will " not be tolerable"

Sounds like a complete con to me .

Or is the safety case a secret document.?

[no_one]

Sunfish, can you post a reference to that rule. I have had a look but can't find it.

[no_one]

Sunfish, Just to follow up here is the extract from CAO 20.18. It mentions the 3 days in 9B.12. The way I read it though is that 9B.8 to 9B.11 only apply to IFR or to flight above FL290 and requires ADS-B. 9B.12 then allows for IFR flight with the ADS-B unserviceable under certain conditions(3 days CASA permissions). I interpret that as if you don't fly IFR you can continue to fly VFR with the ADS-B unserviceable beyond 3 days. Perhaps I am miss understanding.


9B.8 On and after 12 December 2013, any aircraft that is operated at or above FL 290 must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.9 An aircraft:
(a) that is first registered on or after 6 February 2014; and
(b) that is operated under the I.F.R.;
must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.10 On and after 2 February 2017, an aircraft:
(a) that is first registered before 6 February 2014; and
(b) that is operated under the I.F.R.;
must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.11 On and after 4 February 2016, an aircraft that is operated under the I.F.R. in airspace:
(a) that is Class A, B, C or E; and
(b) that is within the arc of a circle that starts 500 NM true north from Perth aerodrome and finishes 500 NM true east from Perth aerodrome;
must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.12 Paragraphs 9B.8 to 9B.11 do not apply to an aircraft if:
(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting equipment; or
(b) the equipment is unserviceable for a flight, and each of the following applies:
(i) the flight takes place within 3 days of the discovery of the unserviceability;
(ii) at least 1 of the following applies for the flight:
(A) flight with unserviceable equipment has been approved by CASA, in writing, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies;
(B) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of CAR 1988 have been complied with;
(iii) ATC clears the flight before it commences despite the unserviceability.

[Old Akro]

no_one

I assume its tied up in the continuing airworthiness regulations. Once you fit something, it needs to function correctly, or be removed or replaced.

ADS-B is a good thing and you just need to get over the location thing.

My problems with ADS-B are:
Australia is the only country in the world mandating it for ALL IFR flight in ALL levels in ALL airspace.
CASA is mandating ADS-B 3 years before the country that makes the equipment is.
CASA just makes it hard with the requirements for engineering orders, etc
Introducing ADS-B under the guise of a safety case is a con.

[outnabout]

You are correct, Captn Midnight, I did mean ADS-B.

[Vref+5]

Hi Dick,

sorry, I'm not on the inside of either organisation, I'm guessing a FOI request should be able to retrieve it though. Or is it on the Dept's website?? Should have been available as part of the RIS

[Plazbot]

Australia is the only country in the world mandating it for ALL IFR flight in ALL levels in ALL airspace.

Are you sure about that or are you just sprouting what you read here?

[Old Akro]

Are you sure about that or are you just sprouting what you read here?

Absolutely positive. Read through a whole bunch of ICAO meeting minutes to find out first hand.

[andrewr]

Mr Skidmore would presumably have fitted ADSB to his own aircraft to lead from the front and demonstrate that ADSB is affordable and not a privacy issue. Wouldn't he?

And I assume all CASA operated aircraft also have ADSB fitted?

[no_one]

Old Arko,

If you are flying Under private or Airwork and the equipment is not function, but it is not required for the proposed flight you can placard it as inoperative and carry on. See section 10 of CAO 20.18.

This allows for example a day VFR flight to occur if for instance the AH is inoperative.

I cant see anything that would mean that ADS-B is different but I could be wrong.

[jas24zzk]

Some people losing track of the discussion??

Who care's if it affects your privacy?? Big Brother is always watching anyway...even in your car...it will have been photographed somewhere some time without your knowledge.

ADSB -out even for a VFR can be a great safety tool. It identifies you and makes contact from ATC....to that random aircraft heading NNW from seymour, a lot less hit and miss. (ok fixed PRD's like that aren't such a problem, but pretty easy to miss the temporary ones in your flight planning)
You can be contacted BEFORE you make the mistake. (the next evolution will be for the data to include the frequency(ies) you are monitoring)


The real discussion is implementation dates and how that affects costs.

[Old Akro]

ADSB -out even for a VFR can be a great safety tool. It identifies you and makes contact from ATC....to that random aircraft heading NNW from seymour, a lot less hit and miss.

Trouble is, that ADS-B doesn't have the coverage at typical VFR cruising levels to adequately do this. See the thread relating to coverage at LSALT.

[jas24zzk]

I got that Akro. Just didn't want to swamp my point with that added extra of the **** system we are getting.
:)

[andrewr]

Who care's if it affects your privacy?? Big Brother is always watching anyway

Not just big brother... you can get the registration data from CASA and use ADSB information to compile a real time list of "Rich people who are not at home"

[The name is Porter]

You are assuming he was referring to AsA...


I'm NOT assuming it alpha, Jeff Boyd STATED this FACT at Tamworth. He said it, out loud & everybody heard it.

[jas24zzk]

Not just big brother... you can get the registration data from CASA and use ADSB information to compile a real time list of "Rich people who are not at home"

they can pretty much do that now, so don't see the relevance

[The name is Porter]

Do you really think that? How would you make it better?

I do really think that, the level 2 managers are typical of: They can't ATC so we'll put 'em in managagement.

ASA management is full of inflated ego's, they do literally think they are the best in the world at ATC/ANSP. When you see how it works elsewhere, it's embarrassing when you come back here & experience the 'superior' service you receive.

What would I do? I believe Dick did it in the 90's, a review of resources, 3000 odd bludgers & floorwalkers made redundant. Word is that a review is happening now. At least a 1000 bludgers wouldn't be missed from that organisation, what would I know Alpha? Worked there for 26 years ;)

[Vref+5]

Akro,

what is the point of aircraft having ADSB out, if they are operating in an environment where there is no obligation on the authority monitoring it to provide any type of separation service? It doesn't make any sense! In Class G airspace in Australia there is no separation standards applied, therefore what is the point mandating a requirement for aircraft to transmit their position?? If there is no separation standards for AsA to apply, there is no such thing a loss of separation. If they were serious about providing a suitable level of service to IFR aircraft, we would have - as a minimum - Class E airspace wherever IFR aircraft operate, with procedural separation standards. Then the ADSB technology would be used to reduce these separation standards. Like the rest of the world is planning to do. But wait, apparently we are leading the rest of the world.....

[Plazbot]

Absolutely positive. Read through a whole bunch of ICAO meeting minutes to find out first hand.

Interesting........................................

[CaptainMidnight]

what is the point of aircraft having ADSB out, if they are operating in an environment where there is no obligation on the authority monitoring it to provide any type of separation service? We'll assume you aren't a pilot, at least with experience in Class G.
Air Traffic Services are provided to aircraft in Class G airspace, traffic information to IFR is one.

Why have transponders operating in Class G?

[no_one]

I think that a few people are missing one of the main benefits of ADS-B. The system allows for a pilot(with the appropriate equipment) to be aware of another aircraft without ATC assistance. This works without ground stations or equipment beyond that installed in the aircraft. The equipment to display an ADS-B equipped aircraft either on an EFB(Ipad) or a glass screen is relatively inexpensive.

Now whether that benefit (and reduced risk) justifies the cost is very debatable.

[Sunfish]

But No One - the very aircraft that are the threat - unalerted and perhaps radio less VFR aircraft are NOT required to have ADS-B out!

[no_one]

Sunfish, I understand that and so does the FAA. They, in 2020, will require ADS-B for all aircraft, VFR and IFR, within the areas that a transponder is currently required over there.

All I was trying to point out was that the lack of ground stations does not mean the system is useless.

[Old Akro]

I think that a few people are missing one of the main benefits of ADS-B. The system allows for a pilot(with the appropriate equipment) to be aware of another aircraft without ATC assistance.

In the USA yes, In Australia, no. We are implementing ADS-B out, not ADS-B in like the US.

Yes, you can pick up nearby aircraft with non-TSO'd equipment, but you can do that now with mode C. You don't need ADS-B.

[Old Akro]

They, in 2020, will require ADS-B for all aircraft, VFR and IFR, within the areas that a transponder is currently required over there

Magic words are " within the areas that a transponder is currently required". With some caveats, this is largely only Class A, B & C airspace

Australia is the only country in the world that is mandating ADS_B for ALL IFR aircraft at ALL levels in ALL airspace types.

[Plazbot]

No, it's not.

[QSK?]

A number of posts have highlighted and/or implied that NZ agencies have taken the deliberate step of delaying introduction of ADS-B equipage until 2021 to align with the US implementation.

Whilst the scheduled implementation date for ADS-B in NZ is correct, the implication that the delay is deliberate to align with the US implementation schedule is false.

The fact is that NZ (to my knowledge) does not currently offer any ADS-B surveillance capability at all in its domestic FIR and that ADS-B surveillance capability will only become fully available in tandem with its Southern Sky ATM modernisation project which is only due for commissioning in 2021. By that date all existing radars will be decommissioned in favour of ADS-B surveillance. Leading up to 2021, ADS-B capability will be progressively introduced for controlled airspace operations starting from 2018. New Zealand will use the 1090 MHz extended squitter (ES) ADS-B system not the US UAT system.

[Vref+5]

Midnight,

you are correct, DTI is a service, albeit not one that provides any formal separation standards. Which is my point, it's Class G - there are no published separation standards, which means the authorities have determined the risk is not high enough to require ATC separation standards. If you are not going to provide a separation service, why mandate that aircraft must be fitted with equipment that is used to provide a separation service? It doesn't make any sense

[Hempy]

Vref+5. If you you are IFR and enter 'controlled' airspace you receive an ATC route clearance. You also receive a separation service (which really is one in the same). It costs you a fee (navcharge) every time.

If you solely fly IFR in G (which, unless you are one of the few who operate a non-pressurised a/c IFR outside radar coverage, is pretty rare), you are still subject to position reporting and receive a DTI service.

If you only fly IFR in G, would you prefer a standard traffic statement (e.g "IFR traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, was ABC at 08, A060, estimating YDEF at 25") on other IFRs, or "Traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, maintaining A060, currently 10 miles in your 9 o'clock, tracking souhbound"?

Or even better, "additionally, VFR traffic VWX, departed YDEF at 09, passing A045, appears to be tracking northbound, intentions unknown"?

Hopefully the 'big sky' theory in Australia doesn't last forever. It'll only end in tears one way or another

[Old Akro]

Vref+5. If you you are IFR and enter 'controlled' airspace you receive an ATC route clearance. You also receive a separation service (which really is one in the same). It costs you a fee (navcharge) every time.

If you solely fly IFR in G (which, unless you are one of the few who operate a non-pressurised a/c IFR outside radar coverage, is pretty rare), you are still subject to position reporting and receive a DTI service.

If you only fly IFR in G, would you prefer a standard traffic statement (e.g "IFR traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, was ABC at 08, A060, estimating YDEF at 25") on other IFRs, or "Traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, maintaining A060, currently 10 miles in your 9 o'clock, tracking souhbound"?

Or even better, "additionally, VFR traffic VWX, departed YDEF at 09, passing A045, appears to be tracking northbound, intentions unknown"?

Hopefully the 'big sky' theory in Australia doesn't last forever. It'll only end in tears one way or another

Hempy I would suggest that there is a significant amount of traffic that flies IFR in class G only. If I fly IFR into regional airports, I seem to commonly come across traffic like this.

I reckon a fair number of these aircraft will continue to fly in IMC post 1Feb 2017 without ADS-B and no-one will ever know.

One of my problems with ADS-B is that it is being applied in a heavy handed manner to IFR aircraft, but not VFR. My only anxious moments about mid air conflicts have occurred when I was IFR and in each case involved conflicting VFR traffic cruising at over 5,000 ft at non ICAO levels in class G airspace. ADS-B will do nothing to improve my safety in these circumstances.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that AsA is under any mandate to pass on VFR traffic to me. I think it's done on an "as available" or " as workload allows" basis.

[Squawk7700]

Unfortunately it's always been that way Old Akro. I recall once hearing a request for IFR traffic and being told there was none, quickly followed by a request for VFR for which there was half a dozen, a number of which were heading for a potential direct conflict.

[CaptainMidnight]

equipment that is used to provide a separation service?Because the equipment - SSR transponders and ADS-B squitters - are also used to provide DTI and other services, not just separation -

[Hempy]

Akro, if you plough into a VFR below A050 in VMC you can thank Dick. It's called 'see and be seen', 'affordable safety' etc.

And don't let 'workload permitting' get you down. I expect every ATC knows that that would never hold up in a courtroom. It's called 'duty of care'. You will be provided with VFR traffic if it appears to be in conflict with you, albeit only if it looks 'close'. The IFR traffic rules, procedurally, are very similar to separation standards e.g 10 min in front or behind, within 1000", etc. The difference is that ATC can't pass a traffic statement on VFR's if they can't see them.

Squawk, requesting IFR traffic if you are IFR is a waste of air-time. If you make the (mandatory) calls at TOPD etc you'll get it anyway.

ADS-B isn't a perfect solution, but it is a step forward in safety. It reduces separation standards in CTA, and it improves situational awareness for everyone OCTA. VFRs not fitted with ADS-B obviously don't fit into the equation, but as I said, they never have anyway. If they're below A050, and not operating from a CTAF(R) or entering CTA, they don't even need a radio let alone a transponder. They're supposed to be looking out the window i.e airmanship.

[Dick Smith]

ADSB certainly doesn't reduce the "separation standards in CTA " in places like Hobart as the ATCs are only procedurally rated.

What a huge waste of industry money . Why is this so?

[Hempy]

Ok Dick, I'll rephrase. ADS-B outside radar coverage reduces enroute separation standards.

[Old Akro]

Akro, if you plough into a VFR below A050 in VMC you can thank Dick. It's called 'see and be seen', 'affordable safety' etc.


Hempy, I don't fly below 8,000 if I can help it. One of my incidents was at 10,000ft, one the other two at 6,000ft. Can't blame any of these on Dick.

I expect every ATC knows that that would never hold up in a courtroom. It's called 'duty of care'.

Cold comfort if you are dead. And it didn't work that way for the Chieftan that crashed near Benalla in 2004

[Hempy]

The Chieftain that crashed at Benalla had a CFIT. Yes it was observed off track and yes procedures changed following that accident. As in most things aviation, nothing changes until something bad happens.

I'm not sure how it fits into the ADS-B argument though.

[Old Akro]

I'm not sure how it fits into the ADS-B argument though.

It just fits because its an example where the controller a) didn't demonstrate a duty of care and b) I'm pretty sure was found by the courts not to have one.

One of my contentions is that ADS-B does precisely zero to improve my safety as an IFR pilot and specifically does nothing to address some of the scariest experiences that I have had flying.

You suggested hat a controllers duty of care would look after me in situations like IFR / VFR traffic conflict. But, I just don't believe it. AND I will hasten to add that this is a criticism of the environment and processes that controllers are forced to work within rather than a criticism of individual controllers.

If ADS-B was mandated for ALL aircraft, then it would be a giant step forward for mankind. But the halfway house that we are getting effectively amounts to just a tax on GA IFR flying.

[Hempy]

As procedures at the time were written, no, the ATCs involved at the time did not have a 'duty of care' to inform TNP that he was observed off track on the GPS approach. As I've already stated, that accident brought about changes, and pilots would certainly be questioned today as to their intentions if a similar incident were to occur.

I'd also contend that, given a similar situation, ADS-B does enhance safety. TNP was inside SSR coverage. If it had been at, say, Oodnadatta, no one would have ever known. Equip with ADS-B and fly off track on a GNNS approach at YOOD today and you will certainly hear about it over the radio..

It's called progress.

p.s you might not 'believe' that ATC will look after you in an IFR/VFR conflict scenario, but the truth is that if they can actually see the VFR they will. Despite what you might think, ATCs are actually professional. Not only that, they need to sleep at night.

[gerry111]

"p.s you might not 'believe' that ATC will look after you in an IFR/VFR conflict scenario, but the truth is that if they can actually see the VFR they will."


I've seen that work well before. An IFR Bonanza climbing to cruise is warned by Centre that there is an unidentified VFR in the vicinity at 7500'. We're monitoring Area freq flying in class G so dob ourselves in as perhaps being that VFR aircraft? Centre asks us to squawk 4321 and identifies it is us. So we communicate our intents with the IFR aircraft to stay away from him and it's all very stress free.

[Hempy]

gerry111, don't let Dick hear you admitting to something like that, he'll berate you for potentially blocking an important ATC instruction and ask you what the hell you thought you were doing by monitoring the area frequency...

p.s nice situational awareness :ok:

[gerry111]

Hempy, The situational awareness plaudit has to go to Lead Balloon as he was PIC on that flight.


Fortunately, no radio jammed heavy metal crashed and burned that day..

[Dick Smith]

Make sure that Aussie ATC's keep calling random VFR aircraft in G and E when they may be close to another aircraft.

We are the only country in the world that I know of that provides this service. In other countries the service has to be requested and agreed to by the ATC. In many cases the ATC can't provide the service and very quickly states. " frequency change approved" for obvious reasons.

In Australia this will almost ensure they will be held accountable for the next mid air that takes place in airspace that is covered by surveillance and where ATC workload is not high.

Same as what happened at Bankstown where ATC were held responsible and a huge payout was made to the families of the crew involved in the mid air.

Looks as if the Airservices Board is putting VFR on a level where they can receive substantial compensation. I wonder if their insurance company knows?

[Hempy]

Dick, save your rant. If you had read what gerry111 has written, you'll note that an IFR a/c was given traffic on an 'unidentified VFR'.

To which the VFR piped up, was positively identified, and the two self sorted.

What is your problem with this scenario? Would you have preferred that they had hit each other?

[Dick Smith]

The IFR was paying AsA for a service and got it.

I am referring to the system in Aus where VFR are called by ATC and informed about other VFR. Only in Aus .

[Agrajag]

I am referring to the system in Aus where VFR are called by ATC and informed about other VFR. Only in Aus .

And you are suggesting that this is a bad thing? :ugh:

[wishiwasupthere]

I am referring to the system in Aus where VFR are called by ATC and informed about other VFR. Only in Aus .

So you're saying that in the rest of the world, if ATC see 2 VFR paints coming together they don't say anything? If that's the case, i'd say who gives a sh*t what they do in the rest of the world, it seems like something we do right in Aus.

[Capn Bloggs]

What's your point, ClearedtoReenter?

[LeadSled]

As long as the VFR has his radio on
Clearedtowhatever,
Why the continual inference that VFR pilots are generally law breakers.

If a VFR has a VHF fitted, they must use it ---- been the law for a long time now - CAR 166 was amended some years ago to make the intent more clear, and I believe the amendment did its job.

As to frequency, CAR 166 says something about the appropriate frequency, or words to that effect, does it not.

Of course, CASA has a controversy running about what is the right frequency, but the person responsible for that controversy has been awarded the DCM, so we now might get a sensible resolution, with which the RAPACs can agree --- ie: Back to "the law", where the frequency selection is a PIC decision, as per. CAR 166, with guidelines as per any proper advisory document.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

QUOTE but to break the law, doesn't there have to be intent? QUOTE.


Strict liability removes the need to prove intent, as in murder, and reverses the burden of proof on the accused.


The current regulations which are undergoing a review of some 30 years and employing a plethora of public functionaries, are completely unintelligible and make the old legal adage of ignorance being no excuse in the eye of the law redundant.


Even if the regulations were miraculously made legible to a normal Australian Citizen or Judge, the paper jungle of "exemptions" put paid to any semblance of "fair" laws.


The best thing to do, is ignore all aviation regulations and throw yourself on the mercy of the Court when caught for doing "anything" because "anything" you do is illegal.


Also it's helpful for Lawyers.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I feel its making some of them 'rather rich'......

'Some' have been employed for quite some time now, writing all of this unintelligible crap - with exemptions.

Just how do the wannabees deal with 'Air Legislation' these days??

Serious question.

To be fair, when I put this question of 'strict liability' etc to Mr Skidmore, he responded that it is a Govt. requirement.

I appreciate that he also has to do as he is 'told' but it seems that there is no leeway other than to support the current political initiative for the changes that are REQUIRED for this industry to survive more than another couple of years.....

No Cheers....Nope. None at all..!!:ugh:

[Jabawocky]

To be fair, when I put this question of 'strict liability' etc to Mr Skidmore, he responded that it is a Govt. requirement.

He could change that IF he wanted to…….It may consume all his energy and take 5 years, but it should be done. It flies in the face of a healthy safety culture. And what is the 'S' meant to represent?

[LeadSled]

To be fair, when I put this question of 'strict liability' etc to Mr Skidmore, he responded that it is a Govt. requirement.Folks,
It is simply NOT TRUE that "the Government" requires most offenses to be strict liability.

The "instructing agency", as the subject matter experts,(in this case, CASA) advises the OPC ( and before that, OLDP) of the standard of proof required, and the penalty. As we know, CASA now routinely advises the maximum penalty (50 penalty units) for the most minor of offenses, to maximize the "administrative fine" that CASA may levy.

Further, CASA routinely advises OPC to apply "strict liability" where there is a mental element ( usually a decision to be made -- am I visual a minima?) contrary to the Australian Law Reform Commission recommendations, the A-Gs and other bodies guidelines for regulatory development.

The only "bit" that is "Government policy" is that the standard of proof and the penalty follow each regulation --- and that is negotiable.

I doubt Skidmore understands any of this, as a good "commander", he relies on his "staff officers".

Tootle pip!!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Leadie,

I can only state what actually occurred. I know that this is a 'rumour' net...but...

Cheers:eek:

[Gentle_flyer]

Hempy,

Thanks for your post a while back on some advantages of ADSB in G in the eyes of a controller.

From memory you used the example of a GNSS approach at YOOD.

You stated that if an aircraft deviated on approach the pilot could expect a call.

Is this some new functionality in TAAATS that alerts the controller as I don't think any of us have heard about it before?

This might (maybe) go some of the way in supporting the CASA mandate.

Why was it not put explicitly in the briefing material as a pro?

Thanks,

GF

[Frank Arouet]

Benalla comes immediately to mind, but I resist the temptation...

[Gentle_flyer]

Frank,

Hempy included Benalla in his comments but he seemed to imply things were different these days. Which is great if ADSB offers such advances, I just wanted some more info and why was it not pushed (publicised) as a safety advantage?

GF

[Hempy]

GF, yes, TAAATS has a tool that warns ATCs when an aircraft with a submitted flight plan, under surveillance (radar or ADS) coverage, 'strays' outside it's cleared (or planned, in class G) route. The parameters vary, but generally it's 7.5 miles. It gives an alert tone and attaches a visual cue to the aircrafts track label. It needs to be manually acknowledged before the tone stops, and manually cancelled before the visual cue disappears.

If you read the literature, you'll find that it has been mentioned as a safety enhancement outside SSR coverage for ADS-B equipped aircraft.

Some here think that ADS-B is simply for collision (with other aircraft) avoidance. Obviously that's not true until all aircraft are equipped with it. It still enhances safety regardless.

Frank. As per the ATSB report into the Benalla accident.

An internal investigation was conducted by Airservices Australia into the air traffic system aspects of the accident. The investigation report made recommendations that related to The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) Alerts refresher training, human factors awareness training, enhancements to TAAATS software, and greater clarity of instructions related to aircraft track deviation and route adherence monitoring (RAM) alerts. On 31 March 2005, Airservices Australia issued National Instruction NI 06/2005 Aircraft Track Deviations and RAM Alerts, to all air traffic service units. Included in that instruction were amendments to the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS) that clarified controllers’ actions in respect of aircraft track deviations.

An amendment to the MATS stated:

When ATC becomes aware of an aircraft diversion that has not been previously approved or advised, subsequent tracking intentions must be obtained from the pilot prior to modifying the FDR route.

[Gentle_flyer]

Hempy,

Thanks for the all the info and the speed of reply.

I'm on a quick turn around so at this time of the morning the coffee maybe is not yet kicking all my logical extrapolation skills along so if I make a mistake please point it out.

1. The tool you use to warn pilots of a lateral deviation (including on a GNSS approach) is not new but the RAM tool (as per much discussion at the Benalla Inquiry).

2. The controller interface ?MMI appears to be logical in sequence and functionality.

3. Only when a pilot deviates laterally by more than 7.5 nautical miles off route does the warning go off at the controller console and only then you are required by ?SOPS (whatever), that you query tracking with the pilot.

4. You mentioned in your first post Equip with ADS-B and fly off track on a GNNS approach at YOOD today and you will certainly hear about it over the radio. So I have to fly 8nm left or right of track on a GNSS approach before you warn me? Surely not....I must have missed something here?

If that was the case it would be next to useless? Tell me where my logic has gone wrong?

GF

[Awol57]

I am not a TAAATS user but I am pretty sure it doesn't show your flight route via an approach, just a direct line from the last waypoint to DEST. Unless the approach is wholly contained within 7.5nm of that line, you would get a warning.

[Old Akro]

Hempy included Benalla in his comments but he seemed to imply things were different these days. Which is great if ADSB offers such advances, I just wanted some more info and why was it not pushed (publicised) as a safety advantage?

GF. In the case of the Benalla accident, the aircraft was identified as off track and the controller received alarms indicating that it was off track. But at the time AsA policy did not require the controller to notify or question the pilot in class G airspace.

So, ADS-B in this instance would not have been an improvement.

ADS-B would be an improvement at Oodnadatta - because there is a beacon there. But below 5,000ft the range from YOOD that you will be identified is limited. At Leigh Creek, you will most likely still not be identified.

But, I would argue that there is not so much consequence for being off course out there - I think Big Red might be the highest spot height at 40m. There is simply nothing to hit (unlike Benalla).

But, this feeds back to Dick smith's original question. AsA is fond of quoting coverage at the levels that are the exclusive domain of jets, but that is not where GA is and its not often where aircraft get into trouble. I'd suggest that the LSALT or FAF altitude is the critical altitude where you want someone to know where you are and the ADS-B coverage at those levels is spotty at best.

[LeadSled]

Some here think that ADS-B is simply for collision (with other aircraft) avoidance. Obviously that's not true until all aircraft are equipped with it. It still enhances safety regardless.Folks,
Fascinating, the Australian preoccupation with mid-air collisions in an area where traffic density is so low that the probability of collision is a statistical ZERO.

The FAA regard ADS-B as an ATC tool, NOT primarily a collision avoidance device, likewise the EEC/Eurocontrol. --- Unless you want to say that ATC is a collision avoidance device, which is only partly true.

One of the funniest/pathetic justifications I have come across, in the last few days, is that the claim that the proposed "voluntary" fitment of ADS-B to ALL VFR is: "The traffic density is so low that Australian pilots have lost the facility of maintaining a proper lookout to maintains safe see and avoid".

And, of course, Mr. Skidmore has expressed the opinion that ALL aircraft should have MANDATORY ADS-B.

I can only state what actually occurred.ex-FSO Griffo,
Undoubtedly. And undoubtedly a further case of "tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth". Perhaps LeadBalloon might like to comment.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I don't think Mr. Skidmore understands what is and is not required by "Government policy", I believe he just acts on the "advice" of his "staff officers".

[Frank Arouet]

Mr Skidmore knows what he thinks he's doing.

[Lead Balloon]

And he knows exactly what he's been told to think by the people who run CASA.

[LeadSled]

And he knows exactly what he's been told to think by the people who run CASA. Exactly!!

A good commanding officer following (leading?) his staff officers' "recommendations" --- and he undoubtedly believe he is, in all respects, honourable and correct in his (in)actions.

Tootle pip!!

PS: It would appear that some (all??) of the representative associations (ASAC etc.) now regard mandatory ADS-B for all aircraft inevitable (thanks AOPA -- have you actually polled all your members?) regardless of absolutely NO risk management justification, let alone cost/benefit justification.
ie: CASA and Airservices still regard themselves as functionally exempt from Government policy on regulation, and in the CASA case, their (Mr. Skidmore's) published policy, and are working to minimise the cost impact, which will be substantial.