The Military Look After Their Own - Don't Require ADSB

[Dick Smith]

I flew over to Cunderdin to help my friend, Fedor Konyukhov take off in his solo around the world balloon attempt. I had to remain at FL 280 from Ceduna on and wasn’t even allowed above FL 180 near Northam to fly around the balloon, because I was not ADSB equipped. This is despite the fact the aircraft is fitted with the latest MODE S transponder and I had been radar identified and in perfect radar coverage.

I was then told, the military PC9s were all flying in the ADSB mandatory airspace but without ADSB. They were conducting training practice in these small aircraft but of course, the ex military people in charge of CASA and Airservices have ensured the military have a full exemption against ADSB fitment in mandatory ADSB airspace.

The reason that was given, “It would cost the military too much to fit ADSB.” So here you have the mates of a multi-billion dollar outfit protecting their own, whilst small commercial businesses have to fit the ADSB and generally go broke.

Remember, John McCormick wrote to an operator at Armidale saying exemptions would be given regarding non-ADSB fitment in a similar way RVSM exemptions were given. This was then stopped by John McCormick because Airservices Australia said that operations would not be safe.

Work that one out. It’s quite safe to have lots of PC9 training aircraft as well as dozens of other military aircraft flying in mandatory ADSB airspace with complete safety, but one small GA aircraft is going to make the whole thing unsafe.

Yes, it’s a total dishonest con. How these people can sleep at night amazes me.

By the way, I’m not complaining personally in any way, I have absolutely no problems in affording the extra cost of the equipment. I’m very concerned about the destruction of a GA industry and all of the things I will do in future will be to draw the attention of the media and the politicians to this, so hopefully I can get some changes before total destruction takes place.

[Shagpile]

Also the PC9's don't have a GPS of any description (except iPad, which they're using without approval because it's safer to break the rules and come back alive). Single pilot IFR, no autopilot, no GPS

It would cost 355 million dollars to fit them too. You need the 5 year project set up with 25 people. Engineering approvals, operational approvals, project meetings, stakeholder meetings, then a tender and 4 year selection process. Nothing would happen during any election year or minority government, so another 6 years passes until finally a minister announces they're buying the second lowest tender (Bowen's law - everything the ADF operates is second lowest tender).

It gets blocked by contractor maintenance because servicing the new equipment is not in the contract. The RAAF eventually folds to contractor demands because they need their aircraft serviced, costing a further $3m. Training/operational demands blow out operational test flight/evaluation schedule.

The aircraft is retired before fitment of the new box.

[Dick Smith]

Incredible. Not even a fitted GPS. ? Is this true? Surely not. It's 2016!

Is it true they haven't even fitted their King Airs with ADSB?

[LeadSled]

Incredible. Not even a fitted GPS. ? Is this true? Surely not. It's 2016!

Dick,
After the Seasprite, why are you surprised?
Shagpile's description of an RAAF project timeline and administration sound like it is from his/her experience, not a "Yes! Minister" comedy sketch.
I wouldn't want to take an F-35 into seriously contested airspace. I wouldn't want to be in one, the first time the "networked defenses" are actually tried against faster and agile aircraft with commonly available current electronics and missiles.
Tootle pip!!

[alphacentauri]

Further to Shagpiles post, the gps units planned to be fitted were actually purchased!! There were approx 100 shiny new G430 units acquired around 2006/7. So far as i know they're still sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting .....so the project Shagpile speaks of already happened.

The dispute came down to cockpit layout, pilots v contractors and then who would maintain them.

Anyone know if PC21 comes gps eqquipped? Or is it another MRH90 'fitted for but not with' scenario?

[dartman2]

Dick, it would be a waste of public money to fit the PC9 with ADSB. They fly mainly in airspace controlled by the RAAF at PEA and ESL and the type will shortly be gone and replaced by the PC21 (presumably with ADSB).

I would imagine if it was announced that the PC9's were getting a new bit of kit a a cost of (pick a number) you would complain about that due to the proximity of their retirement.

[Squawk7700]

Dick, it would be a waste of public money to fit the PC9 with ADSB. They fly mainly in airspace controlled by the RAAF at PEA and ESL (presumably with ADSB).



I don't agree with that, I've seen PC9's out and about many many times not in airspace operated by the RAAF. One could argue that due to their speed and size they are the ones that need it the most !

Edit: quote incorrectly truncated due to iPhone screen size. Apologies to the sensitive types.

[dartman2]

I don't agree with that, I've seen PC9's out and about many many times not in airspace operated by the RAAF. One could argue that due to their speed and size they are the ones that need it the most !
7700, where do you think these aircraft are based and as such do most (not all) of their flying?

Would you (I presume you pay tax) like to pay for ADSB to be fitted to a fleet of soon to be replaced aircraft that fly mainly (but not always) in RAAF Restricted Areas?

Also, if you are going to quote somebody, the idea is to quote them without editing what they said. Perhaps you are a politician or a journalist?

What I said was "They fly mainly in airspace controlled by the RAAF at PEA and ESL and the type will shortly be gone and replaced by the PC21 (presumably with ADSB)."

[Shagpile]

Nope no GPS. I'm not even joking either -- it's navaid to navaid. Navigation to IFR waypoints is done by old school point to point radial/range from a known navigation aid by visualising your location on the HSI. The tolerance on an instrument rating test to be checked out is 2nm for one of these.

Yes they spend 80% of time in ESL/PEA airspace but (a) Other IFR aircraft also transit, (b) Roulettes fly all across the country and sometimes international island hopping. (c) it's very common to do IFR Nav trainers to Essendon/Perth/Albury/Wagga/Tamworth/Geraldton/Learmonth/Albany etc.

Worse, they have a single generator and poor batteries. Lots of generator fails recently. If you're in IMC there's about 10mins to turn off some stuff, get visual and consider extending the gear to check 3 wheels before complete loss of electrical power, no artificial horizon and ejecting.

At least without ADSB, ATC won't be able to see the lack of RNP compliance!

Yes there's a warehouse full of GPS's but due to complex issues involving training downtime and contract issues for fitment, were only fitted to a couple of aircraft at ARDU.

Also, the pc9 transponder is a small square one (around 2.5"). I could be wrong, but I don't know of any small ADSB transponders with inbuilt TSO146 GPS (or whatever the inbuilt spec is).

So no, I highly doubt you'll see ADSB on any PC9's any time soon Dick.

[Lead Balloon]

The exemptions always expose the safety justification for a rule as a sham.

We won't fit the RAAF fleet because it's too costly, and that's safe.

Heavy metal can fly around for days without it serviceable, and that's safe.

But everyone else has to have it fitted and serviceable, irrespective of the cost, because to do otherwise would be unsafe.

It would be silly to expect the taxpayers to pay for the fitment of ASD-B to the legacy RAAF fleet, but safety demands that those same taxpayers pay for the fitment of ADS-B to a legacy GA aircraft if they happen to own one.

As with almost all other aspects of Australian aviation regulation, the ADS-B rules and exemptions are just another manifestation of political expedience hiding behind the facade of safety rhetoric.

[le Pingouin]

The RAAF civvy style aircraft have ADS-B.

[Lead Balloon]

The RAAF civvy style aircraft have ADS-B.But they don't have to be serviceable, even if they are flying in airspace in which Dick's aircraft is not permitted without serviceable ADS-B.

Expediency hiding behind the facade of safety rhetoric.

[donpizmeov]

Just let the military fly everywhere Due regard...should keep everyone happy. I believe those pesky Mil types also have exemptions for dangerous goods.....its terrible :0

[Squawk7700]

They are also exempt from civilian rules such as lowest alt and flying over the crowd at airshows, because as we know the military has *never* crashed at an airshow anywhere in the world before.

[tail wheel]

Dick, it would be a waste of public money to fit the PC9 with ADSB. They fly mainly in airspace controlled by the RAAF at PEA and ESL and the type will shortly be gone and replaced by the PC21 (presumably with ADSB).

So how do they get to the numerous air shows and demonstrations they attend in every State around Australia each year? By road transport? :confused:

[Arm out the window]

They are also exempt from civilian rules such as lowest alt and flying over the crowd at airshows,

No, that's not true.

[Fieldmouse]

I would imagine if it was announced that the PC9's were getting a new bit of kit a a cost of (pick a number) you would complain about that due to the proximity of their retirement.

I'd love to know what it cost Bae at Tamworth to fit out all the CT-4's. No exceptions there for a fleet that must be due for the knackers yard soon.

[Slezy9]

No, that's not true.

Ummmmm.... Yes we are! How do I know? Because I have flown in many displays that do not comply with CAO 29.4

[Arm out the window]

Depends on how you look at the CAO I guess:

Manoeuvring Limitations
(1) Except during take-off and landing, or where specifically approved as part of the programme of events, the minimum height at which any aircraft may operate shall be 500 feet above ground level.
(2) An aircraft in flight below 1 500 feet above ground level shall not:
(a) track or manoeuvre towards spectators within a horizontal distance of 500 metres; or
(b) pass within 200 metres horizontal distance from spectators.


The 'specifically approved' bit allows scope, otherwise aerobatics below 500 AGL in front of a crowd wouldn't be allowed for example, as I've seen civil pilots approved to do at airshows.

CASA certainly had a say in what we were allowed to do in the displays I was involved in, and tightened up requirements over time to prohibit looping manoeuvers back towards the crowd etc.

Anyway, doesn't really relate to the ADSB thing I suppose.

[Squawk7700]

Armoutthewindow, have you not ever seen the roulettes pull out of a loop at low level heading directly towards and then over the crowd? EVERY airshow they attend my friend. Just one example of many. Of course PT6's have never failed either!

You've also answered your own question with your post...

Depends on how you look at the CAO I guess:


CIVIL aviation orders... Not military!

[Chronic Snoozer]

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt215/btwot/PC21-RSAF_zps8ikulqpa.gif

Thursday arvo Pearce. RSAF PC21s. Has mode S transponder and GPS input.

[Arm out the window]

Armoutthewindow, have you not ever seen the roulettes pull out of a loop at low level heading directly towards and then over the crowd? EVERY airshow they attend my friend.

I know, I've probably been in some of those shows. What I was talking about was the show used to start with a run-in from behind the crowd, then a loop so the formation ended up inverted and pulling back down towards the crowd. Later that was changed to a quarter clover so the pull-down ended up parallel to the crowd, obviously safer. All the toward-crowd stuff is in non-aerobatic flight unless it's changed since my day.

How does someone get away with extreme low level aeros when the order says minimum 500 feet? Because of the 'specifically approved' part.

[Mr Approach]

You probably have to differentiate between air shows run at military bases and air shows run at civil aerodromes. Only the latter are subject to civil oversight and that is regardless of who is doing the flying. I guess the ADF can make their own rules on a military aerodrome. That, of course, is not to say they are unsafe, merely that the CAo's probably do not apply.

[Lead Balloon]

Since when did any CAOs apply to ADF aircraft that are under the command of a member of the ADF in the course of his or her duties?

I don't recall ever seeing CASA ramp checking the Roulettes or any other ADF aircraft after landing at a civvy aerodrome...

[3wickets]

Wow, really taking a dig at Military flying....Its Military , not civil... They have no need to conform to whats fashionable in the civvie world.. They have their own set of rules and parameters which have been working since donkeys pulled carts.

[Hempy]

State aircraft are not governed by civil orders or regulations. 101.

[Lead Balloon]

Which is one of the reasons ADS-B is not a regulatory requirement for ADF aircraft.

ADF aircraft without ADS-B are permitted to fly in airspace in which civilian aircraft are not allowed to fly if they don't have ADS-B. Which gets us back to Dick's point.

Either it's sufficiently safe for an aircraft without ADS-B to be in a volume of airspace, or it isn't. The objective risk created by the aircraft while in a volume of airspace is the same whether the aircraft is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, or Joe Citizen. If the risk is sufficient to require the aircraft owned by Joe Citizen to be fitted, despite the cost, the risk is sufficient to require the aircraft owned by the Commonwealth to be fitted, despite the cost.

All of which goes to show that the mandate has little to do with objective risk or objective cost/benefit.

[Jabawocky]

no, it is more a reflection of what shagpile said.

[le Pingouin]

Eh no. All it says is the military are allowed to play by their own rules. Anything else is just reading into it what you want.

[Squawk7700]

Thanks LeadSled, spot on.

As I said earlier, a military aircraft has *never* crashed at an airshow, a PC9 engine has *never* failed and the Roulettes have *never* collided mid-flight, so therefore they should be exempt from airshow guidelines and why should a small and very high speed IFR flight levels capable aircraft be fitted with ADSB, surely not required??? (Sarcasm intended)