PDA

View Full Version : ADS-B ground stations


cogwheel
7th Jan 2017, 20:36
Does anyone know if there is a list of the current and proposed ASA ADS-B ground station sites published anywhere? The ASA site seems to only give the coverage. With the mandate approaching I thought a list of sites and expected coverage at say 3000 ft would be available.

LostProperty
7th Jan 2017, 23:10
Don't think that info has ever been published but the 5000ft coverage map on the website makes it fairly easy to work out where a lot of them might be. The large gap up the north Qld coast is interesting - one would expect a few stations might still have to go in along there.

Icarus2001
8th Jan 2017, 02:16
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/ADS-B-5k.jpg
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/ADS-B-30k.jpg

Dick Smith
8th Jan 2017, 03:10
As I said previously at typical helicopter VFR altitudes there is no coverage over about 90% of Aus.

That's why it's prudent to keep the second radio on 121.5. Normally will get an instant answer in an emergency from a high flying airline .

The CASA/AMSA recommendation of the area frequency will quite often result in no communication.

It's called airmanship - taught to me by Jim Hazelton.

And what's happened to Adelaide? No risk of a collision there? And Darwin?

Dick Smith
8th Jan 2017, 03:19
I love it. From next month an IFR training organisation at Cairns must fit ADSB but the Government has saved the money on the other half of the equation.

A bit of political hypocrisy goes a long way.

le Pingouin
8th Jan 2017, 05:05
Dick, they only show ADS-B coverage. SSR is still available at Adelaide and Darwin.

Dick Smith
8th Jan 2017, 11:22
SSR is available in the other capital cities as well.
So why the need for expensive ADSB at these locations?

le Pingouin
8th Jan 2017, 11:54
For SYDWAM around SY and on Mt Macedon to provide coverage when the Macedon radar is out - terrain shielding by Macedon significantly reduces coverage to the northwest of ML. Cheap redundancy.

The name is Porter
8th Jan 2017, 13:32
Dick, your logic is wasted here mate. All you'll get is excuses and 3rd world solutions from people who haven't seen how a 1st world aviation nation delivers a service.

underfire
8th Jan 2017, 20:21
Dont mean to keep beating the ADSB-2 drum, but aircraft such as those in the US and Europe will be using ADSB-2.
Thus, per mandate:
"Transmissions from unapproved equipment configurations could mislead aircraft with ADS-B IN capabilities and could also mislead ATC." Such as ADSB-2 aircraft.

“If an aircraft carries ADS-B transmitting equipment which does not comply with an approved equipment configuration, the aircraft must not fly in Australian territory unless the equipment is
(a) deactivated; or
(b) set to transmit only a value of zero for the NUCp or NIC.”

NIC set to zero means null location. ASA has already stated that ADSB-2 aircraft must transmit 0 NIC

From the ASA maps, you can interpolate coverage below 5000 feet as being pretty minimal. In the US, ADSB will not be required for at/below 3000 feet, because of the coverage issue.

rjtjrt
8th Jan 2017, 20:53
Dont mean to keep beating the ADSB-2 drum, but aircraft such as those in the US and Europe will be using ADSB-2.
No need to apologize. I think you should keep up te pressure on this.

cogwheel
8th Jan 2017, 20:56
I have seen the coverage maps above. What I would like to see is a list of existing and proposed locations. A coverage map for 3000 ft would be of interest.

underfire
8th Jan 2017, 22:12
Oz at ADSB-0...whats in your ac?

http://i60.tinypic.com/34gn1aq.jpg

underfire
8th Jan 2017, 22:16
In looking at the Boeing timeline above, (Airbus similar) please note this requirement from ASA:

Note: 'accepted'...while 'accepted' by ATC, there are caveats, such as position integrity. In addition, in the US and Europe, UAT is used below 10K feet.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2e4aiko.jpg

From a Jeppeson seminar on ADSB mandate in the US.

http://i66.tinypic.com/28tyt05.jpg

It is not only the GA aircraft that will feel the pain from the ADSB mandate...

Capn Bloggs
8th Jan 2017, 22:42
What has that got to do with the topic??

underfire
9th Jan 2017, 00:51
What has that got to do with the topic??

wondered how long it would be before you stalked my post.

Thanks!

Perhaps read the thread for relevance, maybe post #11, as relevance is not something you are accustomed.

Capn Bloggs
9th Jan 2017, 01:14
Underfire, I am sick and tired of clicking on new posts on a topic of which I have an interest, only to find you have gone off on yet another tangent, pushing your ADS-B 2 barrow.

If you want to make a point about it, start your own thread. Stop hijacking others.

If you think stalking is trying to stop herring-merchants waffling on on a tangent, then so be it.

Perhaps read the thread for relevance, maybe post #11
is not relevant to the thread, it is merely supporting your tangent!

Icarus2001
9th Jan 2017, 04:01
at typical helicopter VFR altitudes there is no coverage over about 90% of Aus. Yes but in fairness of that 90%, helicopters do not operate in at least 70% of it

Flying_higher
9th Jan 2017, 23:32
Unfortunately the coverage charts are indicative only and don't show the name of the ground station location so it's a little hard to work out where you will/won't have covereage. When suggested to Airservices that they overlay the ADS-B coverage at different altitudes on the PCA, one was told that they didn't have the capacity to do it! Take 1000 people out of that organisation after being told this means that there is zero chance of ever seeing a decent coverage chart or list of proposed ground stations, unless you're privy to ASTRA discussions.

And Dick, whilst I agree with your airmanship comments I must add to your comment on the VFR coverage for ADS-B. ADS-B is only mandated for IFR from Feb for most operations. There is no VFR mandate only a Mode-S (ADS-B compatible) upgrade requirement if you replace your existing Mode-C. I agree it would be nice to be under surveillance all the time if you have spent the $$$ to upgrade your VFR machine.

Hopefully we will see either more ground stations OR Australia using the satellite based Aireon ADS-B (https://aireon.com/resources/its-just-ads-b/) so we get full FIR coverage - for those with ADS-B antenna's able to take advantage of it.

Flying_higher
10th Jan 2017, 00:12
Underfire, your comment "In the US, ADSB will not be required for at/below 3000 feet, because of the coverage issue." only tells some of this story.

In the US, any aircraft (IFR or VFR) operating within 30NM of an aerodrome with Class B airspace requires ADS-B, regardless of altitude. There are about 36 of these airports with Class B airspace - of course these are the busiest airports in the US.
Only telling some of the story is misleading and possibly damaging to any arguement being put to our regulator about being more pragmatic about ADS-B requirements now and into the future. I would encourage those with an interest in the US system to make sure they're well versed in it before making assertions. (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/airspace/requirements/)

Of course Australia doesn't make use of Class B airspace - yet, although it is promulgated in AIP in the event it's needed. With Sydney's second airport coming on line early next decade I would suggest the SY airspace will become even more complex and therefore the need to incorporate this standard may be considered. And with ML and BN new runways coming online they may follow. This would result in EVERYONE within 30NM of these airports requiring transponders and ADS-B.

LeadSled
10th Jan 2017, 07:18
I agree it would be nice to be under surveillance all the time

Why ---- would you want to be "under surveillance all the time" ???

Tootle pip!!

Flying_higher
10th Jan 2017, 11:23
Why ---- would you want to be "under surveillance all the time" ???

Tootle pip!!

Unlike many people, I don't have paranoia about 'people' watching. If I don't break the rules, I'm happy that there is no conspiracy to charge me than I should be paying, or that my security is at risk, etc etc. I'm more than happy to have atc have the ability to assist, whether it be for traffic, weather or emergency. And before it's said that atc don't watch vfr's in G, they will assist when they can.

The name is Porter
10th Jan 2017, 12:42
They only assist because if it's observed on radar, nothing was said and something happened they'd (ASA) be liable. It's not about providing a service, its about arse covering.

Awol57
10th Jan 2017, 16:11
And probably because controllers, like most decent human beings, would try to help if they can.

underfire
10th Jan 2017, 21:04
In the US, any aircraft (IFR or VFR) operating within 30NM of an aerodrome with Class B airspace requires ADS-B, regardless of altitude. There are about 36 of these airports with Class B airspace - of course these are the busiest airports in the US.

Under the rule, ADS-B Out performance will be required to operate in:
Class A, B, and C airspace.
Class E airspace within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface.
Class E airspace at and above 3,000 feet MSL over the Gulf of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles.
Around those airports identified in 14 CFR part 91, Appendix D.

UAT 980 below 10,000 feet as well.

It is not part of the story, but some of the reasoning why it is not mandated below 3000 feet. For relevance, in AUS, I dont note any altitude or other caveats to the ADSB rule, is there?

mikewil
10th Jan 2017, 21:28
Of course Australia doesn't make use of Class B airspace - yet, although it is promulgated in AIP in the event it's needed.


Our Class C is more similar to the US class B than the US Class C anyway.


In the US, clearance is not required to enter the Class C airspace (only establishment of 2 way radio communication, like Class D here).


Here you need an actual clearance to enter any Class C.

Flying_higher
10th Jan 2017, 22:02
They only assist because if it's observed on radar, nothing was said and something happened they'd (ASA) be liable. It's not about providing a service, its about arse covering.
Its really a quite cynical view of the world you have 'The name is Porter'. I'm not sure if you know any ATC's, or whether you have been one before or what, but having worked closely with ATC for many years I'm yet to meet one that would simply ignore a person in distress. Sure, I might not always get the clearance I'm after, or they might 'sound grumpy' but this isn't because they're sitting at the console sipping coffee and eating donuts, its because of operational reasons in 99% of the cases.

Flying_higher
10th Jan 2017, 22:07
Under the rule, ADS-B Out performance will be required to operate in:
Class A, B, and C airspace.
Class E airspace within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface.
Class E airspace at and above 3,000 feet MSL over the Gulf of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles.
Around those airports identified in 14 CFR part 91, Appendix D.

UAT 980 below 10,000 feet as well.

It is not part of the story, but some of the reasoning why it is not mandated below 3000 feet. For relevance, in AUS, I dont note any altitude or other caveats to the ADSB rule, is there?
I take your point that there is airspace <3000' where no ADS-B is required however all I'm pointing out is that it IS mandated below 3000' if you're operating WI 30NM of Class B airspace for VFR and IFR. The below info was taken from the FAA website this morning:

"Airspace within 30 nautical miles (nm) at certain busy airports from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL; airports listed in appendix D to part 91." (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/airspace/requirements/)

And mikewil, I'm talking about equipage rather than clearances.

topdrop
10th Jan 2017, 22:53
They only assist because if it's observed on radar, nothing was said and something happened they'd (ASA) be liable. It's not about providing a service, its about arse covering.Usual crap from Porter. I have usually found AWOL57's statement to be pretty accurate: And probably because controllers, like most decent human beings, would try to help if they can

underfire
11th Jan 2017, 02:25
as noted at certain busy airports from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL

again, where does AUS differentiate? If not, why?
Mandating an antiquated protocol that the rest of the World has passed by?

time to evolve:
echo ATT-20B ? uAvionix (http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-att-20b/)

The SkyEcho ATT-20B has been approved for use in the United Kingdom under the Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 1391 Electronic Conspicuity program. What does this mean? You can increase your safety in the air and enjoy the benefits of ADS-B for a fraction of the cost of installing it in your aircraft.
Weighing just 50 grams SkyEcho broadcasts your aircraft type, position, altitude, course and speed to surrounding aircraft in real-time, while the integrated ADS-B receiver allows you receive and display traffic information from surrounding aircraft using an EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) such as Skydemon or a GDL90 compatible EFIS display via Wi-Fi.

cogwheel
11th Jan 2017, 03:40
Some thread drift here....

Do you really believe that any proposal for a 30 mn rule would get legs in this country??

In effect that would screw low level VFR ops at those coastal locations such as BNE, SYD, MEL, ADL and PER. I would like to hear what AOPA and the other representative organisations might have to say to such a proposal... remember what happened to the radar veil proposal?

Now, what about that list of locations....

Flying_higher
11th Jan 2017, 03:54
as noted

again, where does AUS differentiate? If not, why?
Mandating an antiquated protocol that the rest of the World has passed by?

time to evolve:
echo ATT-20B ? uAvionix (http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-att-20b/)

The SkyEcho ATT-20B has been approved for use in the United Kingdom under the Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 1391 Electronic Conspicuity program. What does this mean? You can increase your safety in the air and enjoy the benefits of ADS-B for a fraction of the cost of installing it in your aircraft.
Weighing just 50 grams SkyEcho broadcasts your aircraft type, position, altitude, course and speed to surrounding aircraft in real-time, while the integrated ADS-B receiver allows you receive and display traffic information from surrounding aircraft using an EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) such as Skydemon or a GDL90 compatible EFIS display via Wi-Fi.
Australia differentiates by not mandating it for VFR aircraft rather than by airspace.

I'm not sure why you say "ADS-B is an antiquated protocol that the rest of the world has passed by" either. Most states are going towards this technology instead of replacing expensive radars. In fact ICAO has even recommended this in many cases! And given that most mandates around the world haven't come into effect yet, and NavCanada is pouring millions into Space based ADS-B, I would suggest this is the way forward for ATC surveillance for a long time to come yet.

I support your notion about being time to evolve with regards to the acceptable types of equipment though. And hopefully CASA is looking at it this very minute to allow non-TSO'd equipment for a number of circumstances so these cheaper options can be used in anger here in Oz - at least for VFR situational awareness and for ATC to provide unverified traffic to IFR flights.

BREAK

And apologies for drifting away from the original intent of the thread!!

The name is Porter
11th Jan 2017, 12:40
Flying Higher, 25 years as an ATC. My post is not criticising ATC's it's criticising ASA. This absolute tripe of providing continual traffic alerts to aircraft 3nm apart (5km) when there's not a hope in hell of them hitting is ridiculous. How is an aircraft in distress in this situation? The 'service' that is being provided here is arse covering. It is not required. Listen to the garbage that goes on on 135.7 on a gin clear day in Melbourne. It is the pilots responsibility to see and avoid at all times. How about liberating ATC's from the disgraceful liabilities they are acting under for something they haven't got a hope of preventing.

How about freeing up ATC's to do the job they're paid to do, separating traffic. How about running a Class D tower under Class D procedures instead of bullshitting the punters and running it as Class C tower. How about sending a few controllers on an exchange program to the US to see a different perspective (for the more dense of you that want to read more into the previous sentence than is there, go ahead).

Creampuff
11th Jan 2017, 19:37
This absolute tripe of providing continual traffic alerts to aircraft 3nm apart (5km) when there's not a hope in hell of them hitting is ridiculous.It is a joke. (And, like you, I'm not criticising individual controllers for providing this 'service'.)

The blips on the radar screen might look close, but out there in the real world ...

I have related, before, a story about a helpful controller who alerted me and another aircraft as to each of our relative positions on approximately the same track, with me slowly catching up on the other. Severe CAVOK. About 5 minutes later I spot a tiny speck in the distance, to whom I eventually caught up and waved as I passed about half a nautical mile abeam and 500' above. (The other aircraft was IFR.)

The joke? The gliders we whizzed past in closer proximity were, of course, not on the controller's radar screen and therefore not notified as traffic, yet we managed not to collide.

Vref+5
11th Jan 2017, 21:59
Australia's ADSB requirements, the DMEA of the 21st century

bilbert
11th Jan 2017, 23:24
Operations in the Cape York area including regional airlines have no ABS-B cover at all, yet the aircraft will be grounded soon without ADSB. You've got to have it but it doesn't do anything. Real logic there!

le Pingouin
12th Jan 2017, 03:07
Creampuff, I have a radar screen which doesn't happen to include indications of cloud so I can't tell from looking at the picture if you're in severe CAVOK or about to pop out of a white fluffy thing and get a windscreen full of the VFR I'm giving you traffic on after he suddenly turns towards you unannounced. I've given traffic plenty of times on VFRs who are only a few hundred feet below a descending IFR and the response is "we're in cloud". When they pop out they'd likely be bloody close - sure they'd probably miss by random scatter but that's the only reason. Chieftain popping out on top of a 172? Great for unalerted see and avoid.

What's half a mile? Might look a long way but takes very little time to travel that distance at even 120kts. Look down, fiddle with the radio, look up and your half mile is gone.

Creampuff
12th Jan 2017, 06:56
You miss my point.

You naturally and necessarily focus on the risks of which you are aware. (And, as usual, you implicitly exaggerate the probabilities of a collision.)

We all get it that controllers have a bit of a fixation on preventing collisions, and we are very glad and thankful to controllers for that.

My point is there are often greater collision risks - what would in objective terms be more accurately described as less remote collision risks - of which you are blissfully unaware that don't result in collisions despite you not being able to notify it as traffic.

Are you aware, for example, of how many hang gliders have been operating out of places like YFBS in the last couple of weeks, and the altitudes to which they climb and the distances to which they range? Are you aware, for example, of how many gliders are operating out of places like YTEM, YCTM and YBLA at the moment, and the altitudes to which they climb and the distances to which they range? I'll bet folding money that RPT traffic into out of places like YGTH and YSWG have been close enough to a hang glider or glider as to give you palpitations, had they been blips on your radar screen. Yet no collisions.

le Pingouin
13th Jan 2017, 03:42
As you say, I can do nothing about what I can't see - that's your job. Just because there are greater collision risks doesn't mean you ignore the smaller risks as well.

The name is Porter
13th Jan 2017, 09:21
What you're getting creampuff is an ASA motherhood, nanny state explanation for the useless, pointless garbage transmitted on control frequencies. Hell, I used to do it, granted, I would give traffic if it was under 3 miles, watch the paints merge, come out the other side, shit that was close! Nah, they probably saw each other nodded g'day and went about their business.

Meanwhile, ASA tells the world they're saving pilots lives daily (by broadcasting traffic alerts). The horseshit justifying this colossal waste of resources is embarrassing. Any other ANSP that saw this would piss their selves laughing. Way to go ASA, trailblazing, showing the world how it's done. I can see the lineup stretching into the distance, show us how you do it they say, saving lives daily with awesome traffic alerts :ok:

Creampuff
13th Jan 2017, 11:00
It is amusing to consider what would happen if Australia had significant traffic densities beyond the narrow core of the 'J curve' (which isn't that busy by world standards anyway).

It is so easy for government agencies to claim credit for safe outcomes when a credulous public doesn't call for or want evidence of a causal link between the agencies' activities and the safe outcomes. The warm inner glow from the belief that 'the government' is keeping everyone 'safe' is sufficient.

I'm genuinely surprised and happy if I get to see another aircraft within cooee during any flight. (I hasten to add that I don't fail to see other aircraft because I'm blind or only fly around in the back of nowhere).

Plazbot
13th Jan 2017, 14:46
To be fair, Australia probably does deliver the best service by a long way amongst all providers on earth. The problem falls where everyone else actually has traffic and has to prioritise making planes not hit beyond broadcasting TAF AMD on receipt and the 15 and 45

The name is Porter
15th Jan 2017, 08:25
Plazbot, you need to get out more. The allocation of resources to where they should be other than arseguarding would see Australia deliver world class outcomes. The expertise is there (the troops), hampered by a severe lack of talent in leadership roles.