Why are we so different to Canada re ADS-B?

[Dick Smith]

I’m just reading the June 2017 issue of AOPA Pilot (USA) magazine. It lists the requirements for ADS-B.

Under Canada it says:

“Canada has no mandate, but operators who voluntarily equip with 109ES (particularly in the Hudson Bay and nearby Oceanic Airspace) can receive a high level of service. However Nav Canada is a lead partner in Aireon, the joint air traffic surveillance venture, installing ADS-B equipment on low Earth orbit satellites.”
What a pity Airservices was not similarly minded here. The Aireon ( iridium based) is going to be equipped on the next satellites that are going into orbit and of course gives coverage everywhere.

It is so sad that this huge impost was put in the industry in Australia, doing untold damage. Whereas a country like Canada, which is very similar to Australia in physical size and radar coverage, can be so sensible.

[thorn bird]

Hear, hear Dick, a complete cockup much like the so called
"regulatory reform" program, hundreds of millions of dollars expended
for NO result except an industry bought to its knees. Add in the loss of PAYE taxes and company taxes lost to GDP over the past thirty years and CAsA and Air services are responsible for quite possibly billions of dollars that should have been accrued by government.
My thoughts are this is as big a scandal as the money wasted on the "Building the Education Revolution", "Pink Batts", and more recently the rorting of child care, the NDIS, the ATO scam, the privatisation of airports scam etc etc. This all leads one to conclude that either the public service is completely and utterly incompetent, or corrupt or both.

[aroa]

thorny....Yes! To all

[Sunfish]

Thornbird:

This all leads one to conclude that either the public service is completely and utterly incompetent, or corrupt or both.

Not corrupt and incompetent, merely powerless and fearful.

The public service used to be able to offer "frank and fearless advice" to Ministers, safe in the knowledge that they couldn't be fired for anything short. of criminal misconduct, and that the PS Mandarins would protect their own from the wrath of a thwarted Minister or tycoon. Those days are over.

Staff are mostly on fixed term contracts and businesses practice "matrix marketing" where they target each decision maker from the Minister down to humble project leaders. With an intimate knowledge of each of the decision makers in a decision tree, it is not hard to threaten, bully, intimidate, blackmail, bribe, browbeat and cajole to get the result one wants if you have the money. Public interest be damned.

I have had a taste of matrix marketing applied to me and I can assure you it is extremely destabilising and unpleasant to be the target when you stand between a company and a bucket of public money. If you don't understand what I am talking about, I would be happy to explain exactly how its done.

[Bevan666]

What a pity Airservices was not similarly minded here. The Aireon ( iridium based) is going to be equipped on the next satellites that are going into orbit and of course gives coverage everywhere.


The Aireon system will only work with aircraft fitted with ADSB out antennas on the top and bottom of an aircraft. (The aircraft will shield the signal from satellite). Testing once hardware is flying will determine the effectiveness of single antenna installations.

Bevan..

[crablab]

The Aireon system will only work with aircraft fitted with ADSB out antennas on the top and bottom of an aircraft. (The aircraft will shield the signal from satellite). Testing once hardware is flying will determine the effectiveness of single antenna installations.

Bevan..

I'm not sure that is necessarily true. GPS works quite well in many orientations. I expect it will be more a case of how big the constellation is.

[KRviator]

While we're on this, why can Experimentals and RAAus not equip with non-TSO'd GPS' like the Dynon -2020 and the Garmin -20A that provide better performance than a Garmin 430?

The US approves it, and they're the damn country that invented the TSO's. The UK has recommended such an approach there too, but here we have to have a GNS-430W at better than $10K or a Trig TN70 for well over $3K

[TBM-Legend]

A big thing missing here is that the Government and CASA hailed harmonisation with other countries for certification and standards many years ago and published those countries however nothing really implemented. The PR at the time stated that our industry would align with the rest of the world now here we go back to the nasty 70-90's...

It's a pity that industry cannot fund an all out challenge to CASA over these issues. We are left in a shambles because of the divisions in our industry and CASA laps this up!

[underfire]

Aireon LLC, a 2012 joint venture between Iridium and Nav Canada, with the Canadian ANSP contributing $150 million for a 51% ownership. Since then, Aireon has raised an additional $120 million by signing additional partners Irish Aviation Authority (6% ownership), Italy’s ENAV (12.5%) and Denmark’s Naviair (6%)

Aerions and Nav Canadas ADSB coverage.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/11/ADSB_Map-rev-EN.jpg

In addition:

From 2015

In early October, Aireon and Airservices Australia jointly announced that their MOU would not only explore facilitating smoother transitions with neighboring FIRs, reducing costs to operators and enhancing safety, but introducing ADS-B services to the majority of the 20 million sq. nm. (51.7 sq. km.), or eleven percent of the globe, that Airservices manages that constitutes oceanic airspace. (As the accompanying sidebar explains, Australia was the first nation to install a network of ADS-B ground stations across its continent. Currently, more than 60 percent of aircraft operating under IFR in Airservices Australia airspace are ADS-B-equipped.)

According to Airservices’ Greg Hood, executive general manager for ATC, the ANSP is interested in determining “the potential safety benefits and the technology and efficiency benefits [Aireon] may offer to our customers, especially for oceanic services and in cross-boundary coordination with our neighbors.”

[Bevan666]

I'm not sure that is necessarily true. GPS works quite well in many orientations. I expect it will be more a case of how big the constellation is.

Its not the GPS that is the problem, its the Aerion receivers on satellites being able to see a signal from a low power, bottom mounted antenna on an aircraft.

The aircraft will obscure the ADSB transmission.

[Tankengine]

Its not the GPS that is the problem, its the Aerion receivers on satellites being able to see a signal from a low power, bottom mounted antenna on an aircraft.

The aircraft will obscure the ADSB transmission.

Why would a gps antenna be bottom mounted? If better instalation is needed that is small change compared to new TSOd equipment.

[swh]

"Why would a gps antenna be bottom mounted? "

Oh dear, is this the level of intelligence pilots have in Australia these days ?

The dear chap is of course talking about the transponder antenna, many aircraft only have them on the underside as radar is ground based. Aircraft fitted with TCAS or similar have transponder antennas on the top and bottom so aircraft above and below are within line of sight.

[Sunfish]

Why did Australia implement ADS-B before everyone else? Because we could. We have a lousy regulator and a rotten air traffic control system management, so nobody asked "what is the cost of this system and how will it affect the entire industry?".

There were no doubt some technical specialists with time on their hands who thought ADS-B would be "nice to do" and add a fillip to their careers - being able to go to International conferences and condescendingly say "my experience of ADS-b is....", "Our Australian system does....". Then there are all those technical papers to write and publish in support of a doctorate.

I have seen this behaviour before, also at great expense to the community, when Melbourne water outfitted its offices with optical fibre circa 1970. The IT folks admitted that they did it for their careers and out of curiosity. Damn the expense. The technology was then so new that they had to get American defence department clearance to buy the fibre and equipment...

So now the Australian aviation industry is saddled with expense and most probably a substandard implementation of ADS-B that will never fulfil its promise to anyone but a few, and will probably have to be reworked again at great expense as the technology matures. I thought of fitting it, but it makes no sense.

[thorn bird]

Just another rort Sunnie,
along with Pink Bats, School Halls for all, Airport privatisation et al.

[swh]

Why did Australia implement ADS-B before everyone else? Because we could.

I think you mean why did "Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Cambodia, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Kiribati, Korea, Hong Kong, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vietnam, and UAE" implement ADS-B before everyone else?

[tpng conehead]

ADSB mandated in PNG by April 2017.

[TBM-Legend]

Good to see Australia joining with dozens of other third world countries!

[Capn Bloggs]

Rubbish Sunfish. ADS-B has ben a safety godsend over here. Get out of your Sydney mansion and smell the bush roses.

[LeadSled]

safety godsend over here.
Bloggsie
Iszzatso, could you please provide the statistics/reports/justification for your assertion.
It wouldn't just be personal perception, by any chance??
I didn't realise WA airspace was so dangerous before ADS-B, I wonder why the various airspace reviews in recent years have not picked up such a critical situation.
Just in your case, how many near hits (I prefer that to near misses, seems to me that a near miss is an almost miss, a hit) have you avoided thanks to ADS-B, that you wouldn't otherwise have avoided, and does your aircraft have ADS-B in displayed on the flightdeck?.
Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

I think you mean why did "Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Cambodia, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Kiribati, Korea, Hong Kong, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vietnam, and UAE" implement ADS-B before everyone else?

This is misleading.

Australia is the only country in the world implementing ADSB for ALL IFR aircraft in ALL airspace types at ALL altitudes.

Other countries have exempts below a specific altitude, in class G airspace and or for private IFR flights.

Pretty much 12 months on after we spent $40k to fit ADSB to be compliant with the original deadline, what benefit have we seen? PRECISELY NONE. We still get messeed around in CTA frequently routed around the light aircraft lane but just above it to be in CTA. We are not seeing any benefit from reduced separation (in fact I'm told that has never eventuated) and we are not getting any benefit from traffic advisories because in class G about 99% of traffic is non ADSB equipped VFR traffic (even in IMC).

ADSB has been another debacle, along with ELT's and Part 61.

[Dick Smith]

You are correct. I have has ADSB in the C208 for over 2 years.

No measurable advantage at all.

Huge mis allocation of finite safety money .

[Capn Bloggs]

Have a look at AIC 12/17, Leadsled, aka sunshine. :cool:

And this: (Page 8)

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/wa-air-traffic-task-force-apg-phase2pdf

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,
Page 8 ---- So --- do you actually understand what "conflict pairs" are in the TAM program??
"aka Sunshine" ?? Whatever you are smoking must be No1 Good ------.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Class E, non-surveillance, to 700ft AGL. Go for it, Sunshine! :D http://www.smilies.our-local.co.uk/index_files/bow.gif

[Tankengine]

A $1000 flarm installation would probably add more to safety.

[LeadSled]

Class E, non-surveillance, to 700ft AGL. Go for it, Sunshine! :D http://www.smilies.our-local.co.uk/index_files/bow.gifBloggs,
Wunnerful, wunnerful, as Laurance Welk would have said.
The irrational belief that, somehow, Class E airspace is higher risk than Class G, unless you have "surveillance".
Only in Australia, the rest of the civilised world doe not share you belief, staring with ICAO.
And, of course, you haven't told us what you think is the significance of conflict pairs to actual separation.

A $1000 flarm installation would probably add more to safety.

Tankengine,
But only if the genuine risk, as opposed to the perception of something called "safety", genuinely exists.
We keep referring to US, but have a look at the Eurocontrol ADS-B mandate, it is nowhere near as extensive as Australia, and all in an area of far greater traffic, at low level, than anywhere on Australia.

Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Nothing to do with risk of E verses G, Sunshine. The fact that the holy-grail of airspace, non-surveillance E, would be unworkable in the subject area seems to have escaped you.

[Vref+5]

It's attitudes like Bloggs' that are the reason Australian aviation is in the poor state it's in, this idea that Australia is unique and we know better than everyone else. If there is a risk identified in the airspace then we should use the ICAO model to resolve it, not somehalf arsed unique system that requires specialist kit that only works here.

ADSB in Australia is Air Services gold plating the power lines, where they can pass on the entire cost plus a percentage, for no foreseeable benefit other than to themselves. Just like Halliburton did in Iraq, they drove empty trucks around the country simply so they could increase profits

[LeadSled]

Vref+5
Well said and spot on!!
Tootle pip!!

[Vag277]

Vref

You are not correct. ADS-B is the ICAO model and the ADS-B specification is per the international standard.

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes, LS and Vref, it must really rile you to find somebody singing the praises of ADS-B. Continue that teeth-gnashing...

[Vref+5]

The ICAO airspace model is used to ensure there is an appropriate level of service provided to aircraft within a certain classification of airspace, based on flight category/ traffic density etc. Radar and ABSB are tools used to increase the capacity within the designated airspace, by allowing reduced separation minima.

If a problem with traffic mix (VFR/IFR) and/or density is identified, then surely the airspace must be re-classified first, and then the efficiency devices are put in place? That's the way the rest of the world does it.

ADSB technology is great, the rest of the world will be using it with the appropriate airspace in place. I look forward to receiving full ATC services based on ADSB separation rather than procedural standards when I go over to the USA and Europe. But here in Australia, with our "unique" requirements, we put the efficiency tools in place without the underlying airspace model, resulting in IFR HCRPT aircraft still decending towards each other, and losing the ATC separation service at the most vital time of the flight, the approach and landing. Remember - in Class G there is no ATC separation service (traffic information to IFR aircraft is not a separation service) therefore there are no separation standards to be employed, regardless of whether they are ADSB equipped or not.

[Flying Binghi]

Lest we get to caught up in an airspace disaster...

via Vref+5: ...ADSB technology is great, the rest of the world will be using it with the appropriate airspace in place...

And do that "appropriate airspace" have a plan B for when them GPS signals don't work ?

I see them terrorist chappys have refined their techniques for dropping hand grenades from small GPS guided drones. No more needing to walk in the front door of large sporting events.





.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

If ADS-B is soooo onerous, what method of surveillance would appease the oh so mighty, gee you are sooo huge, we are all puny in your greatness, Plumbum?





Edit- anyone wonder why the periodic table classification for Lead is Pb?

[swh]

And do that "appropriate airspace" have a plan B for when them GPS signals don't work ?

GPS is a "brand" of one network run by the US, there is essentially the same sort of network run by the EU (Galileo), Russia (GLONASS), China (Beidou), India (NAVIC), Japan (QZSS). Some are bigger, some smaller than GPS. You can get receivers now that receive multiple networks at the same time. Galileo has the best public precision at 1m, compared to 15m for GPS.

Within the ADS-B transmission from the aircraft there is already a position accuracy figure which the ATC system looks at to determine separation. If the position accuracy is down, the target displayed changes and different separation standards apply.

[Flying Binghi]

Via shh: GPS is a "brand" of one network run by the US, there is essentially the same sort of network run by the EU (Galileo), Russia (GLONASS), China (Beidou), India (NAVIC), Japan (QZSS). Some are bigger, some smaller than GPS. You can get receivers now that receive multiple networks at the same time. Galileo has the best public precision at 1m, compared to 15m for GPS.

Within the ADS-B transmission from the aircraft there is already a position accuracy figure which the ATC system looks at to determine separation. If the position accuracy is down, the target displayed changes and different separation standards apply.

Heck! I didn't realise we had so many aviation approved GPS type satellite systems available to Oz airspace.

Anyway, no mater how many "brands" of GPS satalites there are it only takes one military jammer to take them off-line in any particular region. And when them GPS™ guided terrorist drones start turning up un-announced at any time or place then the jammers might be doing some long term operations... So, plan B is ?






.

[swh]

Heck! I didn't realise we had so many aviation approved GPS type satellite systems available to Oz airspace.

CAO 20.91 refers to GNSS systems compliant to either the US or European standard. It does not matter which constellation(s) it is uses as long as the equipment provides the position accuracy and integrity according to the specifications.

The problem with using equipment that uses a single GNSS constellation like GPS (24 satellites of which 8-10 might be "in view at a time") is they require the use of satellites that are at lower elevations to the horizon due to the small number of satellites in the single constellation, so the mask angle (i.e. the elevation angle the receiver will ignore satellites) actually opens up GPS only system up to jamming. Using multiple interoperable GNSS constellations (100+ satellites of which 50+ might be in view at a time), a higher mask angle could be used this ignoring any low elevation "satellites" (which could be a satellite or a jammer). This has two positive effects, first being the low elevation satellites have the greatest position error are ignored (no more RAIM holes), second makes the system less prone to deliberate or accidental jamming.

To give you an idea of where we have gone with this, the state of the art receiver used to be a 12 channel GPS receiver, now you can get 555 channel GNSS receivers that are using multiple interoperable GNSS constellations.

[Vref+5]

Flying Binghy:

And do that "appropriate airspace" have a plan B for when them GPS signals don't work ?


As a matter of fact they do have a back up, it's called procedural separation. The standards currently in use at places like Majuro, American Samoa (unless they have upgraded - been a couple of years), any US Class D tower after the tower has closed for the night (few of those in Hawaii), aerodormes in the Meditteranean outside of radar coverge. I could go on and list others I have been to in Continental Europe, but I'm sure you get my point by now. In those places IFR aircraft are afforded a separation standard, the standard depends on what surveillance tools are available.

Australia has these standards, published in the appropriate ATC manuals, however they are not applied in Class G, regardless of the surveillance equipment fitted to the aircraft. Because it's Class G.

[Capn Bloggs]

Because it's Class G.
Nice label. Love your soup, do you, Vref? Why don't you call it Class F? That is a closer fit. You have heard of an Air Traffic Advisory Service, haven't you?

[Vref+5]

Nice label. Love your soup, do you, Vref? Why don't you call it Class F? That is a closer fit. You have heard of an Air Traffic Advisory Service, haven't you?

You are correct, Australian Class G is more like ICAO Class F. But please remind me again, what separation standards MUST be applied by ATC in Australian Class G?? Any ??? And MUST ATC provide you with that advisory service??

As always Bloggs, if you think you are right then the rest of the world must be wrong, just like the SBAS/ADSB priorities (Safety before efficiency, except in Australia because we know better). But I know which horse the smart money would go on

[Capn Bloggs]

My hamster soup was quite nice tonight... ;)

[gerry111]

My hamster soup was quite nice tonight... ;)

(Low hours commercial pilots, please note that Woolies have Campbells soups on special this week at half price. I'll advise when the 2 minute noodles are likewise.) :E