Flawed advice from Transport Minister McCormack’s office regarding SBAS

[Dick Smith]

The Australian newspaper on Friday April 13, 2018 in a major article headed “Satellite system heralded for its safety benefits” stated the following:

“A spokesman for the Infrastructure and Transport Minister Michael McCormack said an SBAS had “the potential to transform air transport in remote and regional Australia.””

Surely that is a load of codswallop as it would be possible to put Baro-VNAV approaches in remote and regional Australia. The only advantage SBAS would have would be a lower minima – I think it works out to be about 100 feet.

Does anyone have any idea of how this lower minima is going to “transform air transport in remote and regional Australia”?

The last figures I saw is that SBAS is going to cost about $150 million. The only way you could go ahead is if there are many other industries in Australia, other than aviation, who are going to receive a financial benefit from it. I would love to know what they are and I would also love to see the proper figures.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a really strong supporter of SBAS as long as it reflects a positive cost benefit study. Otherwise, I would like the Government to consider putting $150 million into the flight and LAME training industry. Now that could have a real benefit for aviation – both in participation and safety.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Baro-VNAV is only avialable to FMS equipped aircraft. LNAV-V is a different animal...non certified guidance. ...Advisory vertical guidance...Dick, do not fall for that trap. The best way and the only way for vertical CAT 1 equivalent guidance for the likes of Lockhart river is augmented SBAS. Do not fall for the trap that only aviation benefits from a geostationary signal augmentation.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

150 million is bs, by the way. Have another read on ground station coverage...other than the ADS-B sites and coms sites. Have another read of the trial under way, covering east coast...if you are being advised that Baro is the way...just turn quietly and walk away from these people. Baro was only instigated so CASA could tick an ICAO box to provide for vertical guidance about eight years ago. Baro is not the answer!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, no one in DoT is going to listen to this truck driver. They will listen to you. Augmented SBAS is being trialled now. Agriculture, autonomous vehicles(NEVER, IF I HAVE A SAY!), individual tracking for detention purposes, more accurate gps guidance for transport, maritime, scientific surveys, local governments, asset management, basically any industry that doesnt require millimetre accuracy as provided by expensive DGPS systems.

DO NOT ALLOW ONLY AVIATION AS THE BENEFICIARY!

[Dick Smith]

Ozbusdriver you state:

“Baro-VNAV is only available to FMS equipped aircraft.”

I find this quite mysterious. Would you consider the Cirrus SR22 to be “FMS equipped”? I thought it had simple Garmin equipment and without doubt it provides Baro-VNAV.

Virtually all Garmin equipped aircraft from now on I understand will have Baro-VNAV – that is, including C172s, C182s and so forth.

So what are the facts here?

Ozbusdriver, if $150 million is not right, what is the correct figure? Surely someone must have done a figure. Has anyone put on the back of an envelope the actual cost to our country and the benefit?

It is a pretty simple request.

I think everyone will agree we have to make sure this is not another ADS-B fiasco. At that time, lots of boffins raved on about how fantastic ADS-B would be for general aviation in Australia. They tended to forget about the colossal cost of the installation.

Now that it is all installed, I have never been able to find anyone who has come up with one measurable cent of a cost saving. Also, people I have spoken to say there has been no measurable improvement in safety.

Of course, the $30 million that was claimed to have been spent on the early ADS-B mandate has nearly destroyed general aviation in this country – or it is the prime reason for the destruction. We don’t want more of that happening.

That is why I believe someone by now should have a very simple and accurate cost benefit study done in relation to SBAS. How many ground stations are planned for the system and where are the costings?

[rjtjrt]

As Ozbusdriver wrote, it is not just aviation that will benefit from SBAS, but many sectors.
So to write that the cost is on aviation to justify is hard to disingenuous.
Also, you have used a figure of $150M - where does that figure come from and how reliable is it, and what does it include when adding up to the $150M?

[Capn Bloggs]

Now that it is all installed, I have never been able to find anyone who has come up with one measurable cent of a cost saving. Also, people I have spoken to say there has been no measurable improvement in safety.

You have been told but you choose to ignore what you hear/read.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. I understand this. My C 208 has LNAV + V using Garmin 750 equipment

But the aircraft I have mentioned are Baro V Nav equipped.

I understand all new Garmin equipped IFR aircraft in the near future will have full Baro V nav at no extra cost.

So how will SBAS transform aviation in the outback?

[rjtjrt]

.......

I understand all new Garmin equipped IFR aircraft in the near future will have full Baro V nav at no extra cost.

.......

I have frequently heard “in the near future” used in reference to various things, such as the next generation of GNSS so SBAS will be a thing of the past, but “in the near future” is such a nebulous thing and I for one am sick of the “promises” from people who oppose SBAS in Australia.
Lets just get the tried and tested SBAS for which extensive equipment already exists and has for years, and have something that works, not pie in the sky.
Also, as above, SBAS also will benefit wide ranging areas of the community other than aviation.

[Dick Smith]

Very strange. All these anonymous posters pushing for this new expensive system but not one giving a hint of what the cost benefit shows.

I wonder who is going to make money out of this?

I suggest some figures are necessary.

The Sirrus Sr 22 has Baro V Nav now at no extra cost. Why wouldn’t other manufacturers follow?

[rjtjrt]

Very strange. All these anonymous posters pushing for this new expensive system but not one giving a hint of what the cost benefit shows.

I wonder who is going to make money out of this?

I suggest some figures are necessary.

The Sirrus Sr 22 has Baro V Nav now at no extra cost. Why wouldn’t other manufacturers follow?

Attack the poster, don’t provide any actual costings yourself. Very commendable.
Where did the $150m you put forward come from, and what does it include?
In past I have admired you but now I just wonder if you are just a contrarian by nature.

I am happy to PM you with my name and contact details if you wish.

[missy]

Satellite technology pinpoints regional pilots in new aviation trial (http://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/releases/satellite-technology-pinpoints-regional-pilots-in-new-aviation-trial)
Announced yesterday...

A pioneering new trial led by Airservices Australia will use advanced satellite positioning to guide aircraft to within a few metres, improving safety and efficiency in our skies.

The trial is one of more than 25 being undertaken across multiple sectors, funded through a $12 million Australian Government program. The projects are looking at the benefits of Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) technology.

Australia currently depends on the satellite navigation systems of other countries such as the United States’ GPS, which provides less accurate positioning.

Geoscience Australia is the lead agency for the multi-million dollar program with Airservices Australia overseeing the new aviation project announced today.

Airservices Chief Executive Officer Jason Harfield said the new technology will greatly benefit regional carriers such as REX, QantasLink and the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

“This trial will test three new technologies, first generation SBAS, second generation SBAS and what’s known as Precise Point Positioning,” Mr Harfield said.

“It will improve safety, guiding pilots with greater accuracy, especially those flying into regional aerodromes operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).

“SBAS assisted approaches are eight times safer than those which use ground-based navigation aids.

“This extraordinary new technology, which provides improved navigation and timing over GPS, will also decrease the likelihood of ‘go-arounds’ and cancellations or diversions due to variable weather,” he added.

The broader SBAS program will assess the benefits of improved access to satellite positioning technology across the country, helping many industries which rely on GPS such as agriculture, mining, transport, construction and utilities.

The program is Australia’s first step to joining countries such as the United States, Europe, China, Russia, India and Japan, which are already using SBAS technology.

The two-year program of work is in partnership with global technology companies GMV, Inmarsat and Lockheed Martin.

The Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information (CRCSI) is managing the industry trials, along with evaluation and reporting.

The New Zealand Government is also supporting the SBAS program contributing a further $2 million in addition to the $12 million from the Australian Government.

Over twenty other program trials are already underway, including several across the maritime and agriculture sectors.

For more information about the SBAS aviation trial see the Airservices website.

[Check_Thrust]

Dick, I am confused by your stance on this subject.

On another certain topic you keep raving on how we should be copying the "best" and "proven" system and that you built up DSE also by copying the "best", however here regarding SBAS which is very well "proven" and is also used extensively throughout the airspace system that you wish for us to copy you are against it. Why?

[Vref+5]

LPV is different from Baro VNAV in that the vertical guidance is derived from GNSS information as well, so it’s the equivalent of an ILS glide path. Baro VNAV is a slope calculated by the internal NAV system based on altitudes and waypoint information in the NDB. Any SBAS enabled system (SBAS is the generic name, WAAS is the US’ SBAS, GAPAN, EGNOS are other countries SBAS ) can doLPV approaches, provided the aircraft AND pilot are suitably equipped, trained, qualified. The benefits for aviation are massive, why install an ILS at Wellcamp or the new runway at Brisbane when you can have a LPV to the same minimums? New mine and strip? No problem, LPV approach surveyed and in place straight away.

[Dick Smith]

Yep. It is great technology.

But what will the cost be and who will pay?

How many ground stations will be required for Australia ? What will they cost?

Very mysterious that the government would be financing this trial. I am a businessman and founder of the Australian Skeptics. So far I have never lost any appreciable amount of money on a business deal because I do my homework first.

A person in the industry gave me the $150 m estimate.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Does the minister even HAVE an Aviation advisor?

....other than the Dept weenie that has been keeping the seat warm for the last 4-5 months?

[gerry111]

A person in the industry gave me the $150 m estimate.

So you've been down to the Ku-ring-gai Motor Yacht Club again for a barbie?

[Dick Smith]

This is really interesting.

It looks as if no cost benefit figures are available.

Imagine that. Even getting the Ministers spokesmen to spruke it up without any proper figures being available.

I think it’s obvious that self interest could be involved. Post anonymously when you have the potential to make millions!

Check Thrust. Yes I am consistent. I only copied the best when I could afford it
Many times I could not. That’s just life and the reason I never owned a Gulfstream!

[Sunfish]

whatever you do Minister, don't let anyone ever connected with managing NBN anywhere near the project.

[Lookleft]

whatever you do Minister, don't let anyone ever connected with managing NBN anywhere near the project.

Wasn't that the Australian Government in the first instance?

[Kral]

Dick, seriously?

A very quick google got me to Geoscience Australia's website on SBAS and answers several of your questions regarding spreading the cost.

ga dot gov dot au /scientific-topics/positioning-navigation/positioning-for-the-future/satellite-based-augmentation-system/profiles

crcsi dot com dot au

Geoscience Australia are a very approachable department, it would be very easy to get in touch with them and the CRC to find out estimated project costs for the options considered. GA on their website state that they are investigating a number of technology options, and they would have that costed. They've engaged EY to do an economic analysis of the options, so maybe give GA a call? Or an email? Or walk in the front door next time you're in CBR?

GA's website list the industries as:
- Agriculture
- Construction
- Consumers and Utilities
- Resources
- Spatial
- Transport

So I'd guess that maybe, if that $150million is accurate (which one of the three technologies they are testing does that number come from?) it could be spread across those industries?

Also I'm not a remote positioning expert, but unlike ADS-B, for SBAS to work you wouldn't have to mandate it. Not like every lil C152 tacking along needs it. but I'm sure that REX, RFDS et al would love it. To me this feels like an opt-in system, where people that would get the benefit out of improved positioning can buy the equipment.

Either way, go chat to Geoscience.

[kimberleyEx]

Dick

With reference to the statement below:


"I find this quite mysterious. Would you consider the Cirrus SR22 to be “FMS equipped”? I thought it had simple Garmin equipment and without doubt it provides Baro-VNAV.

Virtually all Garmin equipped aircraft from now on I understand will have Baro-VNAV – that is, including C172s, C182s and so forth.

So what are the facts here"?

Can you provide me with the literature where it states Garmin equipment (excluding G1000 avionics) is Baro VNAV capable?

From what I understood most Garmin TSO-C146 receivers are LNAV/VNAV capable with SBAS (WAAS) coverage. Without, its LNAV+V (VNAV advisory) where the approach is flown to LNAV minimums.

With reference most TSO-C146 receivers out there in Aus GA or Regional turboprop, would it be safe to suggest most of those are not Baro VNAV capable? Only LPV or LNAV/VNAV with SBAS (WAAS) coverage.

[Dick Smith]

Yes you are correct. Nearly all existing garmin in GA are not BaroVNAv.

In the future this is changing. The Cirrus is equipped with Baro VNAV. Suggest you check with them.

If anyone is purchasing a new aircraft they should insist on Baro V Nav. It probably won’t cost any more .

[kimberleyEx]

Dick.

Your comments in regard to new aircraft owners is correct. If they were purchasing a new aircraft, it would be unwise to not request Baro VNAV capable avionics. Especially if it came at no extra cost.

From the existing owners perspective, where operators have already installed TSO-C146 equipment, having SBAS in this country for aviation is a no brainer. Withstanding your comments about the $150m for the country to achieve this mandate. Why don't you wait until the costs are made public so you can make comment?

As stated from previous posts, aviation will not be the only industry to benefit.

The Regional Carrier I work for has looked at Baro VNAV in the past (currently operating Legacy 1990's type Honeywell FMS). To equip for Baro VNAV is for more costly than equipping for SBAS (WAAS) LPV approaches if that service were to become available.

There are many operators who would benefit from SBAS. Perhaps a more positive outlook for it, whilst the trial is in progress would achieve a more useful discussion than just stating on Prune that there is $150m price tag attached?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I smell a rat somewhere, why all the sudden bureaucratic interest in SBAS/WAAS, what has changed, leading to one of the most bulldust laden Ministerial press releases I have seen in a long time.

Reducing some minima from GNSS to GNSS/WAAS “transforming “ aviation --- somebody had the “superlatives” switch turn too high, when the “bull sh*t generator” was switched on.

Years ago (early 2000’s) the various relevant organs of Can’tborough conducted a very extensive investigation of SBAS/WAAS, including a quite reasonable benefit/cost analysis, it was a non-starter.

Nobody argued that there was not some theoretical benefit to rural and regional aviation, but a benefit/cost justified by aviation use was a non-starter. As for all the other uses, more accurate GPS was well on the way.

However, “Regionals” at the time had no interest in the up-front and ongoing costs, for a small saving possibly generated by the occasional diversion avoided.

The majors had no interest, they had GBAS coming up for quite specific local purposes, the savings then came from reducing alternate minima, not reduction of normal approach minima.

All the uses of very accurate positioning for agriculture/shipping/transport are generally available now, have been for years.

Interestingly, the use of GPS in high speed train control was discounted at the time, based on the view that would be no high speed rail in the near future --- almost 20 years later that has not changed.

Where “centimetre” accuracy is required, that is mostly already available, and has been for years, for surveyors or the like. Where it might be needed at a mine site for auto-navigation of mine vehicles, that can be provided by local GBAS, bought and paid for by the mining company.

As I read it, the satellite being used for the “trial” is time expired, putting two new ones up just for SBAS is not a goer, it will be a package hoisted on another launch.

The only obvious savings I see “to Government” is possibly closing down the existing AMSA system?? We know SBAS/WAAS all works, a trial is going to prove nothing we don't already know.

So, WHAT IS THE CATCH?? What has changed since the last big study, now that SBAS/WAAS is “old hat”.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled...it is plainly simple. You have a newly minted Nat deputy PM who has just inherited the transport portfolio. Before the ink is dry on his ministerial declaration he has the AOPA and Dick becoming very political. The new minister gives the usual boilerplate answer and finds his portfolio erupting...so...now...he trundles out a trial operation to investigate a geostationary satellite equipped with a bent pipe transponder to enhance the gnss network over the eastern seaboard. An appeasment? Not to Dick and you.

If Dick wants researched answers, he can hire me. I am sick to death of finding information pertinent and relevant for free...he has my number. His figures are miles out and information at least two decades old. You are a vested interest, you are on record opposing ADS-B as a means of reinstigating a nm based nav charge. Your information is suspect and biased.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Please note....it is lame of the transport minister to make light of this demonstration as it has been in operation for considerable months before his elevation. He must have an impression that we do not read anything and are quite gullible...not a good look for both side

[werbil]

It appears that Australia will once again end up as an Aviation Galapagos. Unfortunately where most of the sales for airborne equipment is there is SBAS in place, so I can't see manufacturers such as Garmin racing to add BARO VNAV as an option let alone a free option to their TSO146 retrofit equipment (ie Gtn750 etc). IMHO 3D guidance is far safer than 2D approaches.

It seems that the GTN750/650 does not offer the +V option where there is a LNAV/VNAV approach in the database, such as for RWY11 at Darwin.

[Sunfish]

I have to agree with Dick. There is no technology, no system, that the Australian Government will not corrupt or allow to be corrupted in support of private profit or personal gain. Based on experience, there is no chance a universal SBAS based positioning system will be delivered as a public good to Australians at all.

The system will either be:

1. A prohibitively expensive 'for profit" subscription based business model developed by the financial leaches at Macquarie Bank.

2. A bizarre Australian implementation requiring special equipment at stratospheric costs to satisfy academic, defence and OH&S requirements unknown to the rest of the world.

3. A bean counters implementation providing services on a 9 to 5pm basis on the eastern seaboard.

4. A product of a "National Geospatial Commission" yet to be established, who will "roll out' the system at glacial speed over the next 50 years, a la NBN.

FFS give it to Dick Smith and some hobbyists and we will have a working system in 12 months.

To put that another way, buy it off the shelf and just do it.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Sunfish...exactly! The issue is benefit. When a PM can splash around 5billion on boondoggles as a skin saving measure this benefit ,in cost terms, is small cheese.

Dick, you refer to the Garmin Perspective suite. Not sure this does the deal. Suggest you talk to a dealer and ask them where it states BARO-VNAV as a selectable approach and where you input the data and where it excludes all other approaches.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Sunfish, given the information I possess, the costings are way out. The easy bit is the transponder. The other easy bit is the surveyed receiver stations and uplinks...the hard bit is the bureaucracy. Think DSTO on steroids.

[Sunfish]

Agreed OZbusdriver. I havent even watched "utopia" but the foul ups start;

"we need a diverse management committee with transgender, Aboriginal and female buy in".

"The system must have an Aboriginal name, hire consultants!"

"The ground station locations are potential nuclear targets on aboriginal soil or marginal electorates".


"What good will this patriarchal system do for abused mothers and autistic kids?


"This system can be used by terrorists".

"Where is 'user pays' in all this"?

"Governments always stuff things up, leave it to the private sector"..

"This isn’t a free market solution".

"we have a simple cost recovery system".

"Nobody has researched the privacy implications of accurate personal tracking".

"The legal implications regarding liability in the event of system malfunction are considerable".

"criminal penalties must apply to the maintainers of such a system."


it surprises me that we even have NDB and VOR. The current GPS IFR navigators are nothing to do with us, the systems are all American. We have no liability.......

End result "we spent the capital budget on administrative costs, we have no money for satellites or ground stations". Problem solved.

[oggers]

All the Garmin units have been WAAS capable for years now and even the old original 400 series can be upgraded to WAAS if required.

Unless you happen to have a new cirrus there is no way that Baro VNAV is the cheaper option for the GA pilot.

[LeadSled]

You are a vested interest, you are on record opposing ADS-B as a means of reinstigating a nm based nav charge.

Oz,
Spot on about the charging for VFR, but you know bleeding well that my objection to ADS-B, Australian style, was because it was never subject to any risk management justification and benefit/cost analysis, just a crazy determination by a small group, mostly in Airservices, to be "first".

As a good mate from Cathay said to me just recently, ADS-B has done nothing for us, we fly the same routes, speed and levels as we always did, the return on investment is zero.

Likewise for most airlines and GA, with the possible exception of a small area in WA, the return on ADS-B investment is zero.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Kimberly:
As stated from previous posts, aviation will not be the only industry to benefit.

Aviation will probably benefit the least. Miners and Farmers are already trialling robot mining trucks*, agricultural tractors and harvesters, that is where the big money savings are to be made.

* Rio apparently trialled one that ended on its back very quickly.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A simple search will tell anyone what coverage there is already over the entire continent for SBAS...and it is not from a soon to be decommissioned bird. In fact, there is a constellation of four already up there doing their thing.

PS, With the new minister. He was at the national press club today. Whilst he didn't spend too much time on aviation REFORM, he did mention it.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dear Leadsled, you do realise there was an ICAO imperative to instigate positive control within our airspace responsibility by a certain date? As pointed out years ago, the only differences to pilots was a few less calls on the radio. Doesn't mean that there was no benefit.

[Dick Smith]

So “ourmutchisit”

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A bit but not that:E

[Dick Smith]

Of course I want SBAS. Who wouldn’t. It’s fantastic

But I would also like a Gulfstream however it would not satisfy a proper cost and benefit study.

How can they be spending millions on this demo when we all know it will work well.

The only catch is cost. But that’s been kept hidden. I say hidden because I bet proper cost benefit studies have been completed.

Kimberly. It doesn’t sound if your regional airline can change that easily to Aus WAAS equivalent..
I understand Baro VNAV would be too expensive. What would the upgrade cost to use SBAS be?

[LeadSled]

Doesn't mean that there was no benefit.

There has been a big benefit to Airservices, but benefit/cost and cost/effectiveness are not the same thing.

As I am quite certain you are aware, and something hardly kept secret, was that mandating ADS-B as has been done in Australia forced many aircraft to be re-equipped with C-145/146 receivers, when they had perfectly good, for their purposes, C-129.

But, the big "but" was that the forced upgrade enabled the program to withdraw ground aids.

Remember, in benefit cost, you incur a cost, for a benefit.
In cost/effectiveness, you incur a cost, somebody gets the benefit.

Or put another way, poor old Australian aviation gets slugged, Airservices reaps the benefits.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled...calling furphy, murphy. ADS-B requires the engine, not the navigator. The withdrawl of ground based aids is a separate issue...even if we only flew behind C129 gear

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled, we are wasting energy arguing about ADS-B. The real game is getting the feds to look at the big picture.

[Jenna Talia]

Aviation will probably benefit the least.

That is nothing more than an asinine statement.:ugh:

[Vref+5]

Check the AIP requirements for Navaids. LS is spot on, by forcing everyone to have 146 GPS units, ASA can justify turning off Navaids.

And ASA has no interest in SBAS, can’t charge for it, unlike ADSB where they can use it to make money via NAV charges for IFR aircraft

[Bograt]

Our FMS (TSO 146) customer service rep told me last week that the transponders on the Geoscience Aus satellite currently up there are 'permanently' switched off to aviation. The handshake protocol is disabled and won't be available for the foreseeable future.

So either the rep, the Minister, ASA or Geoscience Australia has got it wrong and the press release is incorrect.

[Vag277]

TSO146 was not the "excuse" for removing nav aids. Those removed were at or past the ends of their service lives and would have to be replaced. The IFR community said that they were not needed because of the availability of GNSS and inertial nav systems. As a result they were not prepared to pay for them.
The consultation and discussion went on for several years more than a decade ago.

TSO C129 navigators were still acceptable but with limitations due to absence of fault detection & exclusion. TSO146 was required for sole means nav because it includes FDE. See CAO20.18.

ADS-B only needs the "engine" as noted above and that is available at lower cost than the navigator box.

I realise that this is a rumour site site but slagging off as a result of ignorance just belittles the slagger.

[Dick Smith]

That’s why some are anonymous! So they can’t be held accountable and may have an agenda to damage aviation in our country.

[LeadSled]

The withdrawl of ground based aids is a separate issue...even if we only flew behind C129 gear

OZ, Surprising as it may be to some, I do know how these systems work.

For obvious reasons (they are still working for airservices, or around the Canberra) one of the clearly stated (in "private conversation) benefits at the time was the forcing of the fitment as I described.

At the time, there were no transponders on the market that had their own inbuilt GPS receiver, and the "considered opinion" was that the cost of a FreeFlight receiver was not economic, owners/operators would upgrade a whole navigation box.

The PR of ADS-B was an easy sell --- just remember the members of the aviation community who were suckered in, at the time --- remember the PP slid that showed how cheap and simple it all was, just a wire from a GPS box to a transponder box -- too easy!!

Believe me, those "responsible" saw this as a tricky way to force nav. system upgrades and reduce opposition to navaid withdrawal.

but slagging off as a result of ignorance just belittles the slagger.

Vag277,
I was there at the time, heavily involved in several technical sub-committees, and other regulatory matters,when what I have just described was common currency, where you??

I even still have some of the PP slideshows that ever so clearly state that a "benefit" of the adoption of ADS-B (viz. C-146/146 GPS) was closing down navaids.
Tootle pip!!

[alphacentauri]

Gents,

SBAS has not been introduced in Australia. The signal is a trial signal and will not be used by certified avionics. The aviation trial is being conducted using non certified systems to demonstrate benefit to Gov't.

Dick, the purpose of the trial is to let all industry sectors try SBAS and develop their own cost/benefit studies. This will be put together by GeoAus for a nation wide cost/benefit study to aid the decision makers on SBAS post trial.

Bograt, the release information is correct.

Vref+5 you are incorrect in your assertions on AsA.

[DassaultFalcon7X]

My two cents, SBAS is a trial, across both Australia and New Zealand. NZ cannot afford the system in isolation, but can by partnering with Australia.

Aviation is probably not the main beneficiary, it is the trucking industry, mining industry, road vehicles, autonomous (in the future) vehicles, agriculture industry, Geo-science. The cost to aviation should only be a percentage, once they validate or not, through the trial, the implementation of SBAS.

One further point, the introduction of RNP/RNAV approaches improves safety approximately 20x on approaches and departures and with vertical guidance a further 8x.

[neville_nobody]

One further point, the introduction of RNP/RNAV approaches improves safety approximately 20% on approaches and departures and with vertical guidance a further 8%.

That's great but how many Regional Airlines/Charter/Aero Medical/Private aircraft can actually use it?

[DassaultFalcon7X]

Neville, no idea, I would assume the trial will evaluate that type of detail.

[Dick Smith]

How many ground stations approximately would be required so all IFR airports in Australia could benefit from the service?

How much approximately does a ground station cost?

Yes I realise the ground station sends the reference signal to the satellite- not to the aircraft directly!

[Dick Smith]

Dassault

Surely the lower cost ( for equipped aircraft ) Baro VNAV must be almost identical in safety improvement.

Do you agree?

[Dick Smith]

I have recently received a copy of a final dissertation entitled “Financial analysis of vertically guided approach solutions for Australia”. Here is a copy of it (http://rosiereunion.com/file/Financial%20analysis%20of%20vertically%20guided%20approach%2 0solutions%20for%20Australia%20re%20SBAS%20and%20Baro-VNAV.pdf) and I have a precis here (http://rosiereunion.com/file/Vertical%20guidance%20solutions%20precis.pdf).

It really does bring in some problems in relation to the cost of SBAS.

[werbil]

I have recently received a copy of a final dissertation entitled “Financial analysis of vertically guided approach solutions for Australia”. Here is a copy of it (http://rosiereunion.com/file/Financial%20analysis%20of%20vertically%20guided%20approach%2 0solutions%20for%20Australia%20re%20SBAS%20and%20Baro-VNAV.pdf) and I have a precis here (http://rosiereunion.com/file/Vertical%20guidance%20solutions%20precis.pdf).

It really does bring in some problems in relation to the cost of SBAS.

Whilst Baro VNAV has almost the same benefits as SBAS, the reality is that the vast majority of charter operators are unlikely to retrofit the hardware that will be needed to fly BARO VNAV. Most will have just upgraded avionics to equipment that already has LPV capability due to the ADSB mandate. If the 8x safety improvement for approaches with vertical guidance is correct, the value of lives needs to be considered before deciding not to implement SBAS in Australia. Sometimes the role of governments is to do things that don't stack up on traditional commercial criteria.

Does anyone know of any retrofitable BARO VNAV equipment available for GA aircraft? Given the availability of SBAS in the larger aviation markets it wouldn't surprise me if there is not, and if there is it will be at a premium price due economies of scale associated with limited markets.

[Vag277]

LS ....involved fromthe earliest trials in the mid 90s

[LeadSled]

LS ....involved fromthe earliest trials in the mid 90s
Vag277,
If that is the case, all I can say is that you must have been part of the cheer squad that didn't let the facts spoil a good party.

the value of lives needs to be considered before deciding not to implement SBAS in Australia.


But where is the history of lives lost to validate the "assumptions" of lives saved?? This is a seriously big problem in aviation in Australia, all benefit/cost studies should be carried out by unrelated and genuinely independent bodies.

For example, in pushing one particular barrow years ago, Airservices "risk assessments" had pilots making an error in a clearance between 100% and 50% of the time --- ie: pilots got it wrong between always and every second airways clearance. By contrast, the claim was that controllers only got it wrong in less than 1: 1,000,000 times --- the world's most perfect people.

All the CASA ADS-B benefit/cost "studies" where laughably incompetent.

it is the trucking industry, mining industry, road vehicles, autonomous (in the future) vehicles, agriculture industry, Geo-science.

But virtually all the real benefits are already available from existing services, other than aviation. I can already plough to +/- about 200mm, I can already survey to around 20mm.

So I ask again, what is the catch, we know the capabilities of SBAS/WAAS, have done for years, we learn nothing of practical value from this "trial" ---period, not just aviation.
Who is pocketing quite large amounts of money to tell us what we already know.
Remember that definition of a "consultant": "Somebody who borrows your watch to tell you the time -- then send you a big bill".
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Without giving out free information....Leadsled, you would be wrong in your assumption on inaccuracies.

Regulation written with the blood of victims has no meaning in your world, I would guess.

By Dick's find...well done, sir. You are learning. However, the author appears to be a vested interest pushing one side of an argument. Why would you have two different cfit rates and, by extension, costs. All the fatalities are in small rpt or ga. No argument is made for a general benefit...then again, outside of aviation what use is a barometric correction, so why cloud your thesis with contradictions?

Since the MTSAT was available over our skies...according to Dick's author and to "plagiarise" his calculations for another purpose...we have cost our economy over $44,000,000 in approach cfit deaths...considering the authour says some $216,000,000 to set up a SBAS and run it...20% of the cost in deaths that would have been needless...blood of victims! Enough emotion...pay up, you are running out of time! Or would you prefer your arguments in more than 14000 words?

[LeadSled]

Regulation written with the blood of victims has no meaning in your world, I would guess.

Oz,
Play the ball, not the man!!

Re. the above, you are quite wrong, and you know it. You well know I have long called for genuine and honest benefit/cost analysis for all matters aviation regulatory --- for the guidelines of the Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation to be mandatory for CASA.

Indeed, we almost got there, once, when Laurie Brereton, as Minister, issued a S.10 directive to observe the "then" conditions of the Legislative Instruments Bill as an Act, which in real terms meant full on genuine benefit/cost analysis.

So where are all the CFITs that will be prevented??

But nobody wants to take at tilt at the "why" of the present "trial", what does it tell us that we don't already know about a system that has been around for how long?? Almost 20 years??

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

So where are all the CFITs that will be prevented??

Being stored up for a big crash. As Richard Feyneman wrote in his minority report on the Challenger disaster, NASA management falsely believed that just because something hasn’t happened yet, the probability of it happening in future approaches zero. This is a fallacy. The probability of CFIT is finite and not zero.

[mgahan]

And when it does happen, the clock does not reset.

This is something operational managers who demand reliability standards of "many nines, five" fail to realise. When the system at 99.995 fails at 0200 in the air traffic centre it is the worst 26.5 minutes of the controllers long career of shifts.

In sympathising with the poor lad or lass after rectification, the manager must remember that tomorrow night the same thing can happen - and the reliability standard is still 99.995!

MJG
Been there done that - both Australian centers some years ago.

P.S. Some posters should be careful in selectively "remembering" discussions in the GIT in the 1990's. Some of us still have the minutes and papers on file.

[le Pingouin]

Familiar with the term "black swans"? Rare and catastrophic events are difficult to include in any modelling. Economists and their ilk are very good at ignoring them.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A sad story of CBAs. 12 Squadron RAAF, operators of the CH-47C Chinook...mothballed! The helicopter, known as the most effective medium lift helicopter ever...was too expensive to run. The RAAF is the only outfit ever to withdraw a Chinook from service. The means...the people doing the CBA loaded up the costs of running the entire base of Amberley on 12 Sqn...thats 1 and 6 Sqn, 9 Sqn 482 wing The three messes plus the ADGies plus the dogs....everyone was there only for 12 Sqn...not hard to work out that for every hour flown of 12 frames the cost of running an entire base just doesnt cut it...so the Chooks were mothballed. If DoD can do that...I do not trust anything with a vested interest.

So, Mr Leadsled, in front of everyone present. If a SBAS stacks up as a general benefit....do you oppose LPV in the GAFA? Because IT WILL SAVE LIVES!

[Dick Smith]

Would others like to comment on the “ financial analysis “. Is it accurate.?

I do not know the person who wrote it. It was sent to me as a private post through pprune!

Surely it shows that it would be more effective to subsidise the small number of Regional aircraft into BaroVnav?

[le Pingouin]

What proportion of that cost is likely to paid for by aviation interests? 5%? !0%? Until that is established, who knows? The study assumes it will be 100%. Without providing any justification for that other than saying other industries already have solutions so won't be interested.

[mgahan]

As posted on 18 Mar 18 on the GA ILS training thread:
That bit of history prompted me to look back in my "Completed Projects" folder where I found the Report dated 2 October 2002, "STUDY REPORT
Global Navigation Satellite Systems Technical Audit and Cost Benefit Analysis
Australian Air Traffic Management Infrastructure Working Group".

Interesting reading, particularly after some of the technology I saw in Madrid at WATM week before last. Amazing the foresight we had in hindsight these days.

Guess that report and the Benefits of Surveillance in Airspace report got filed in the bottom drawer of the same filing cabinet at CASA.
MJG
Back in my outdoor office at the George Hotel Betio

My project notes and review of the report show SBAS was certainly part of the study.

Wonder if the latest CBA authors took a look at the previous work - I'll bet not.

MJG
Getting plenty of memories looking back through my files.

[LeadSled]

If a SBAS stacks up as a general benefit....do you oppose LPV in the GAFA? Because IT WILL SAVE LIVES!

Oz,
Of course I don't "oppose" LPV, and nothing I have written on this thread suggests such a silly notion.

What I have continually asked is: "What is the catch??"

What is different, this time, in this trial, that the outcome will be different ---- why will it stack up this time, what "general benefit" when the benefits of SBAS/WAAS years ago didn't stack up, not even close, and many of the then non-aviation benefits are now already available --- have been for years.

A lot of money being spent to tell us what we already know.

"IT WILL SAVE LIVES" ----statistically, yes, but thankfully the occurrence of CFIT in Australia is extremely rare, that is why the value of a minor reduction in minima is difficult to sensibly evaluate.
If you look at the accident record, UFIT --- uncontrolled flight into terrain can be seen, in the circumstances having LPV would not have altered the outcome.

Two examples come to mind, the Citation that crashed out the back of Mareeba, and the Lockhart River Metro.

As to the latter, much has been written, there are many opinion, but I was involved in part of the investigation, including flying the whole sequence per the flight recorder trace in a simulator.

What the flight recorder showed (regardless of anything else) was an approach that was no where near conforming to the published letdown, and the approach was wildly unstable. If the PIC is going to demonstrate such "behavior" why would LPV make any difference. If the PIC had conformed to the published letdown, there would have been no crash.

So, back to my question: "What is the catch" ---- that millions of taxpayers $$$$ are being spent. Why are we going to learn anything new about a rather mature and well understood aid.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The yank farmers are enjoying 90mm accuracy FOC from WAAS....with equiped machinery?

Our farmers are slowly taking up guidance. A huge drag is the ongoing cost of subscriptions. Setup and maintenance of a reference station for kinematic stations. Savings of 10 to 20% just in reducing overlap on each pass, longer, more accurate passes...even at up to 30km/hr...big differences in productivity.

Kondinan says only 20% uptake so, savings to those who have taken the plunge and possibilities of a five fold improvment in productivity if more uptake across the board

Am amazed the Nats havent listened to their constituents. However, as one CAD salesman said in an article I read...I never sold much software until the old school drafters started to retire...maybe the same for old school farmers.

Transport and logistics....really, these guys only need to know what road the load is on...however, what would be a killer app for SBAS in the centimetre accuracy range is accident investigation out on country highway/freeway situations. Kinematic information as well as where the vehicles are on the road deck dovetail with available software to give very accurate interpretation of the accident sequence....lots of money to be saved by eliminating common accidents and injuries...ask insurance companies about that. Not to mention, reducing the reliance on the recollections of witnesses.

One hour on google, access a few sites, download some pdf...and probably justified savings to Australia's economy in the billions. Productivity in the billions...alway for a general cost of...as reported..$216,000,000.... not even one quarter of a white elephant airport railway line.

[Sunfish]

Driver is correct, agriculture and mining are the big winners with WAAS. The aviation argument is irrelevant because the savings are miniscule by comparison. We will probably get WAAS but CASA and Airservices, never to be proved wrong, will prohibit its use for aviation.

[LeadSled]

Sunfish, OZ,
I think you need to update with what Australian agriculture is doing, RIGHT NOW, perhaps pay a visit to the next AgQuip at Gunnedah.
Accurate (much better than most aviation applications) GPS positioning is already being used, has been for years. All the comments about SBAS/WAAS and transport/agriculture was true 15 or more years ago, but things have moved on.
Remember we had differential GPS available for surveying when?? Twenty five plus years ago, with a modern equivalent now. Have a look at the navigational accuracy that is available now, for safe transit of shipping through the Reef, Torres Straight etc.
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK, Leadsled...money...mouth...I know exactly how and what DGPS can do with RTK (https://survey.crkennedy.com.au/categories/_products/smartnetaus-rtkcors) on civil jobs. A surveyor looks pretty bored on his own running around with his pancake. No rodman to yell at when things stuff up. Even ten years ago we had D11s with pancakes on each end of their blades carving out a freeway onramp without a survey peg or batter board in sight. All site specific and no more than 15000m range line of sight.

Care to let us all know what the penetration is on broadacre farming? Everything I am finding from within three years to the present is the farming community want in on the QZSS (https://www.spaa.com.au/pdf/315_Lamb.pdf).

[OZBUSDRIVER]

As much as I love reading anything put out by Sinclair Knight Merz...

ACILAllen Augmented GNSS (http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACILAllen_AugmentedGNSS.pdf)

...seriously, we should pull every GPS out of every aeroplane..TODAY! How could we fly behind such wildly inaccurate devices...whats WAAS, no mention. No matter what system it all suffers from inaccuracies. Spend money on rolling out Continuously Operating Reference stations.

Rant over. This is what the government already have in front of them regarding augmented GNSS. The productivity gains are impressive.

[Vref+5]

Alpha Centauri, when you say I am incorrect about Air Services, did you mean they have already found a way to charge for LPV approaches?

It does amaze me that the rest of the developed world has gone SBAS , for years now, before ADSB, safety then efficiency. The benefits to all the various industries, particularly primary industries, have easily paid the system off several times by now But Australia knows better right!! We need Efficiency before safety.

The ADSB cost benefit was crap, I don’t know anyone who’s installation was even close to the estimates used, normally 2 to 3 times the cost, And I doubt the equipment meets the ICAO PBCS requirements, which came out last year and are now being implemented around the world. Equipment might be capable, but any current installation will need a re-assessment to confirm this, which equals $$$$.Thread drift, apologies.

[LeadSled]

OZ,
I could not find any date on that piece on the Japanese WAAS satellite, how old is it? Last I heard, negotiations to use that for aviation purposes over Australia fell over quite a while ago, and that system plays no part in the present so called "trial".

In isolation, everything in it is, of course, quite correct, but we are already doing all of those things, with "centimeter" or close to accuracy, now, that is the point I have been trying to make ---- it is not in the future, it is now. See one of my previous posts.

I can plot bore hole positions in surveying an ore body to 2-3 cm position right now, just like a survey I just had done of a hangar site for title purposes ---- on an aerodrome for which no acceptable survey was available.

EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT (in the absence of high speed trains) what new does SBAS/WAAS provide. That is why I said: Visit AgQuip at Gunnedah, see what's available right now. In the road transport business, for all navigation and fleet management purposes you don't even need SBAS, the average 3M accuracy of current non-aviation GPS is quite good enough. And 3M is quite good enough for parcel delivery.

For mine site management (not exploration) the preferred solution is company owned GBAS, because that gives the mining company complete control.

That is why I keep asking, what is the catch, what is different this time, given the services already available??

“Having a complete understanding of how the aviation industry sector can fully benefit from SBAS technology is crucial to the success of this trial,” Mr McCormack said.


The whole McCormack press release, also available of the Geoscience Australia web site, only blathers on about aviation, NO OTHER USE of SBAS/WAAS GPS was mentioned.

So, as we all know the press release is a load of old bollocks, what is really going on. What is the catch??

Tootle pip!!

PS: Whoever suggested it would save large overlaps plowing/sowing/harvesting --- are you serious, I could and did (and so could everybody else) run right along the furrow of the last pass before I was old enough to legally drive, and that was when all equipment was towed, not the great gadgets now ---- with GPS aided steering. I don't have to sit half sideways in the seat any longer, and the speaker phone, air conditioning and stereo is great ---- and I don't have to hop off the tractor and get underneath if there is thunderstorm and big hail.
Perhaps you could read up on soil science, and see how it is now possible to map a paddock, and meter fertilizer and trace elements to individual parts of a paddock for maximum even yield --- all done with current GPS positioning.

[Sunfish]

Leadsled:

In isolation, everything in it is, of course, quite correct, but we are already doing all of those things, with "centimeter" or close to accuracy, now, that is the point I have been trying to make ---- it is not in the future, it is now. See one of my previous posts.

I can plot bore hole positions in surveying an ore body to 2-3 cm position right now, just like a survey I just had done of a hangar site for title purposes ---- on an aerodrome for which no acceptable survey was available.

EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT (in the absence of high speed trains) what new does SBAS/WAAS provide. That is why I said: Visit AgQuip at Gunnedah, see what's available right now. In the road transport business, for all navigation and fleet management purposes you don't even need SBAS, the average 3M accuracy of current non-aviation GPS is quite good enough. And 3M is quite good enough for parcel delivery.

You are deliberately disingenuous. Yes, you can have "centimeter accuracy" at present, with survey grade GPS, and post processing and perhaps DGPS but not at speed in real time everywhere provided by WAAS which is where the money is - drones and autonomous vehicles.



For mine site management (not exploration) the preferred solution is company owned GBAS, because that gives the mining company complete control.

This is BS. Mine sites currently have no choice but to use their own or subscription based high accuracy solutions. As for "3M being quite good enough" this is also BS.


PS: Whoever suggested it would save large overlaps plowing/sowing/harvesting --- are you serious, I could and did (and so could everybody else) run right along the furrow of the last pass before I was old enough to legally drive, and that was when all equipment was towed, not the great gadgets now ---- with GPS aided steering. I don't have to sit half sideways in the seat any longer, and the speaker phone, air conditioning and stereo is great ---- and I don't have to hop off the tractor and get underneath if there is thunderstorm and big hail.
Perhaps you could read up on soil science, and see how it is now possible to map a paddock, and meter fertilizer and trace elements to individual parts of a paddock for maximum even yield --- all done with current GPS positioning.


Disengenuous again. "GPS aided steering" and fertilizer management has been around for at least fifteen years. What we are talking about is centimeter accuracy at speed in real time for the latest generation of autonomous tractors, seeders, sprayers and harvesters that have no human driver at all and rely on WAAS. Accuracy affects profits, do I need to explain that?

Then there is going to be the multitude of personal applications, including self driving cars, drones and others unimagined that will rely on ubiquitous WAAS.

Why the &*^& are you suggesting that Australia should again wall itself off from what is already world wide common consumer technology????? The bloody "not invented here" syndrome is killing this country.

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
Obviously, to you at least, I haven't made it clear enough that I have differentiated between stationary or slow moving sites, and fast moving.

That is why, in the last post I had "Except for aircraft" in capitals. The point is that all the benefits of SBAS/WAAS that we would have got years ago, we get now without it, EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT ---- and we don't have high speed trains.

That was the major point of the major study done by then DoTaRS and others years ago, that GPS developments -- WITHOUT SBAS/WAAS --- was going to give augmented levels of accuracy --- WITHOUT the augumentation, for stationary or slow moving receivers, and "slow moving" was put at less than 50km/hour at the time.

That is why the CBA was negative, in then future years, all the SBAS/WAAS "benefits" --- EXCEPT FOR AVIATION ---- would be achieved without SBAS/WAAS.

And aviation in Australia was and is so small, that governments were not going to put the system in for aviation, which, statistically compared to aviation in USA, is little more than a rounding error.

Are you in the mining business these days? For sites that want driverless vehicles, my mates who have been involved in the development tell be that GBAS is the preferred technical solution, "competition" is not an issue, "subscription" ie: Galileo, is not an issue, but possible disruption of SBAS very much is.

Accuracy affects profits, do I need to explain that?

Do you really think you need to explain that to somebody whose family has been in the "farming" business since the Liverpool Plains was opened up to selectors? In a previous post I quoted lane accuracy possible now.

As for fertilizer use, thank you, you confirmed exactly what I said, we do it now, and have been doing it for quite a while, all without SBAS/WAAS.

"Please explain" why road transport services NOW and in the immediate future (which future will not include driverless B-Doubles or road trains in yours or my lifetime) needs better than 3m positioning.

BUT ----Get back to the Minister's statement, it was all about aviation, nothing else. So, how is SBAS/WAAS going to revolutionist aviation by lowering the minima for GNSS approaches marginally.

Remember the complex rules/costs for designing any instrument approach, particularly "semi" precision approaches, starting with only being available at certified or registered airfields, none of that helps the RFDS or similar at many of they places they go.

I ask again, what is the catch this time, what has changed for aviation??

Tootle pip!!

PS: The studies of driverless equipment in broad acre farming don't quite stack up like they do in an open cut mine site, and let's face it, BHP is not quite so gung ho as Rio Tinto on mine sites, despite the enthusiastic promotion of such developments by manufacturers of such equipment.

[Sunfish]

That was the major point of the major study done by then DoTaRS and others years ago, that GPS developments -- WITHOUT SBAS/WAAS --- was going to give augmented levels of accuracy --- WITHOUT the augumentation, for stationary or slow moving receivers, and "slow moving" was put at less than 50km/hour at the time.


Disingenuous again , "was going to give" says it all. WAAS/SBAS gives us that accuracy right $#@%ing NOW! Without waiting for some peculiar Australian solution. Without waiting for the next generation of gadgets that "might' get built.

Do you not understand the concept of time to market? Do you not understand that WAAS/ SBAS is a world industry standard right NOW!

I am sick of the marketers who promise a cheaper and better solution RSN (real soon now!). We need to adopt world standards for positioning NOW!

To put that another way, all your promised solutions are marketed as "almost as good as WAAS/SBAS". SBAS is the gold standard. Adopt it NOW!

[Vref+5]

The added benefit of having NZ in on the project is that some of the setup costs and ongoing running costs can be classified as third world foreign aid!!!😂

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Logically, the Japanese government would have talked to the Australian government went they first indicated they were going to launch a geobird with capability for SBAS prior to 1999....any surveyor or engineer would have informed the bureaucrats this would be a good thing to get on board. Remembering, this was in the days of SA. Engineers at my old school at QIT were studying the Navstar signal with the intent of defeating SA..an augmented signal would do exactly that!

The Japanese government, once again have involved Australia with the development of the QRSS. I am at a loss trying to understand the mindset.

Interesting, first MTSAT crashes on launch. there is a loss of met coverage so the US move one of theirs here in 2003 and then move it back after 2005. Isn't that about the same time we had the first "trial"

The bottom line? The argument remains the same, except it is now asking for an answer nearly twenty years down the track. Australian industry could have had WAAS decades ago. Imagine the technology that could have been developed on such a scaffold?

What is the catch?

[LeadSled]

Disingenuous again , "was going to give" says it all. WAAS/SBAS gives us that accuracy right $#@%ing NOW! Without waiting for some peculiar Australian solution. Without waiting for the next generation of gadgets that "might' get built.

Do you not understand the concept of time to market? Do you not understand that WAAS/ SBAS is a world industry standard right NOW!


Sunfish,
You really do surprise me, for a long time, your posts have been common sense and seldom have I disagreed with you, but you seemed to be completely unhinged about SBAS/WAAS. You don't seem to be able to recognize what is available, right now, in Australia, not some time in the future.

None of the things I have mentioned involve "peculiar Australian solutions", and there is nothing "peculiarly Australia" about DGPS, which we have been using for years.

I did dig up the executive summary of the Cth 2011 SBAS/WAAS assessment, it made virtually all the same points I have made in one or another posts here.

Yet again, JUST FOR YOUR BENEFIT, I make the point that the present "trial" is ALL ABOUT AVIATION ----- not other well known and understood benefits of GBAS/WAAS.

So, what is the catch, why is the end result going to be any different this time for aviation, compared to 2003 (or thereabouts) and 2011, after all, this is hardly "new" technology.

Where is the REVOLUTION for aviation???

One of the interesting things you will find out, if you do a bit of homework, is that GPS III, using all the new signal channels, is more accurate, for terrestrial applications, that current GPS/WAAS, and the quite wide variety of receivers available for GPSIII often have provision for processing Glonass and other systems. All predicted years ago, and a major factor in Australia not taking up SBAS/WASS, but using GBAS for particular solutions, INCLUDING aviation.

Given the subscription model of Galileo, I can't see it having a big market around here, given the availability models of DGPS that we have RIGHT NOW, and have had for years.

You mention "time to market", sadly for aviation, it will be some time before certified equipment is available that has the capability to take advantage of CURRENT GPS technology. As far as I can see, the TSOs haven't even been published yet, but I did only have a very quick look.

Tootle pip!!

PS: You seem unable to contemplate the idea that others here, beside yourself, have serious high level experience in industries beyond aviation. Everything I have mentioned here is based on my practical experience.

[Sunfish]

Leadsled:

None of the things I have mentioned involve "peculiar Australian solutions", and there is nothing "peculiarly Australia" about DGPS, which we have been using for years.

DGPS is an old maritime system, powered by coastal radio stations, there is no coverage inland and its accuracy according to the website is only "better than 10 metres".

One of the interesting things you will find out, if you do a bit of homework, is that GPS III, using all the new signal channels, is more accurate, for terrestrial applications, that current GPS/WAAS, ...............

............it will be some time before certified equipment is available that has the capability to take advantage of CURRENT GPS technology. As far as I can see, the TSOs haven't even been published yet,

You obviously have never worked with high technology otherwise you would have learned the hard way to distinguish between marketing "spin" and actual available, cheap working technology.

The technology industry does its best to forstall purchase of a competitors technology by promising the imminent release of a cheaper and much better product RSN ("real soon now") this is often achieved by a demonstration of a prototype or mockup termed "smoke and mirrors".

Given the Australian Governments appalling record in implementing technology solutions, the last thing this country needs is to wait for a pie in the sky leading edge solution that doesn't yet exist GPSIII for which there are no consumer electronics available and instead implement a turnkey WAAS solution that is available NOW! As used by the rest of the world.

I am sick and tired of the technical prophets of Australia stuffing up what works for the rest of the world. This goes for communications like NBN, military procurement like Seasprite and so on. We have a proud record of being late, delivering substandard solutions, if we deliver anything, at great cost. In every case the folk like me who say"buy off the shelf, turnkey solutions" are howled down by the idiots who want unique or cutting edge solutions that don't exist now. WAAS is ubiquitous in the rest of the world. Use it.

[airag]

I've mentioned it before in another thread , but here goes .... again !
Precision GPS works perfectly well in the aviation environment , Aerial Agriculture has been using it for decades now at 140kt plus , and with for those with even a basic understanding how GPS systems function , it is easy to comprehend that mach 5 wouldn't concern it in the slightest .
We used to use satellite differential to correct the dither with two correction stations in Australia at the time ( yes subscriptions were expensive ! ) and achieved 5cm accuracy , since S.A was turned off we no longer require any Diff as we still achieve sub 20cm which is fine for our purpose .
Sure ground based systems for tractors require cm accuracy which is provided by B-line etc. utilising ground based differential ... nothing to do with speed ... simply higher levels of precision for the task .
As always aviation is miles behind the technology curve..... actually I will rephrase that , aviation has always had it's share of innovators , it's the Regulator who is miles behind the curve !

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

You are not even close as to the DGPS available, and what position accuracy I can get, pretty much anywhere in Australia, RFN.

Tomorrow, from Australian retailers, I can buy now what I regard as quite an amazing range of ready made circuit boards, from a range of manufacturers, some of whom, I am please to say, are Australia, that are not only GPSIII all signals capable, but can simultaneously process Glonass and Galileo signals. They meet their specification, not marketing hype.

Indeed, if I was in the drone commercial business, ( as a good mate if mine is, if you are in NSW, you are benefiting from his airborne infrared fire mapping) from the same sources I can also buy comparable AHRS systems, giving me the core of a complete flight control system. And, if 3m positioning for commercial transport operations is not good enough, these will easily produce 3-4 cm. Amazon parcel delivery??

BUT, ALL THE WAY THROUGH, you are completely missing the point, we all (or most of us) know what SBAS/WAAS can do, some of us know what alternative currently available systems will do, but this "revolution" is ONLY about aviation, and so, I say again: "What is the catch".

Tootle pip!!

[Vref+5]

Speculation here: when the idea of SBAS was pitched to the government, their first question most likely was; “Who will benefit and who is going to pay for it?” Farming yes, but the union won’t let their members be charged for it, union is too strong. Same for the trucking association. Ok, increased rego charges for all vehicles? Political suicide. Maritime? Maybe. Aviation? Absolutely, and ASA offer to recoup the installation and running costs via their Nav charges process, plus a small percentage for themselves.

okay then, the argument is made that aviation is the major beneficiary and should therefore pay for the system.

Speculation at this time, but I’ve seen this exact process before to justify a pre determined decision

[Sunfish]

Leadsled: You are not even close as to the DGPS available, and what position accuracy I can get, pretty much anywhere in Australia, RFN.

Tomorrow, from Australian retailers, I can buy now what I regard as quite an amazing range of ready made circuit boards, from a range of manufacturers, some of whom, I am please to say, are Australia, that are not only GPSIII all signals capable, but can simultaneously process Glonass and Galileo signals. They meet their specification, not marketing hype.

I don't want "circuit boards", I want a ready made product that works out of the box in an aircraft, car or boat for a few hundred dollars. WAAS already owns that territory globally. I can drive into town and pick up a WAAS enabled gadget in ten minutes for a few dollars. Dynon makes an $800 WAAS enabled receiver that meets the FAA ADSB mandate the equivalent Australian solution is at least $5000 or $10000 if I want a certified GPS navigator. If history is any guide, WAAS enabled technology is only going to get cheaper, Grand Rapids EFIS has announced the ability to construct synthetic LPV approaches and, for better or for worse, the days of the $10000 GPS navigator are numbered.

Australia has a simply shocking record of technology implementation. Look at the disaster that is NBN. So when a Minister has a rare bout of sanity and says " lets use a complete off the shelf positioning solution - WAAS" , the usual idiots come out; "Its too expensive!", "We don't need it!", "Something better is just around the corner!" It's not, we do and it isn't.

[LeadSled]

Australia has a simply shocking record of technology implementation. Look at the disaster that is NBN. So when a Minister has a rare bout of sanity and says " lets use a complete off the shelf positioning solution - WAAS" , the usual idiots come out; "Its too expensive!", "We don't need it!", "Something better is just around the corner!" It's not, we do and it isn't.
Sunfish,
SBAS/WAAS ---- JUST FOR AVIATION ----- has failed benefit/cost twice now, what do you think had changed ---- to justify it??

Unlike years ago, there is no pressing need for non-aviation use, but given what else is IN PLACE,now, and mostly has been for years (note Airag's comment) and the advent of GPSIII. And it is GPS III, then in the future, now a fact, that, along with other augmentation, has effectively eliminated WAAS for other than aviation use. That is fact, whether you accept it or not.

So, how it is SBAS/WAAS going to revolutionist Australian aviation???

Given the costs, and the relatively few airfields in Australia that have OR CAN HAVE an IAP (and decreasing) where, all of a sudden, is the big benefit. There isn't one, period.

I am certain you understand, the FAA had thousands of ILS IAP, where they could simply publish "overlay" approaches, no such thing in Australia.

The majority of runways in Australia are at airfields that are neither certified or registered, so no IAP of any kind ----- so much for helping the RFDS. The majority of certified/registered airfields only have non-precision approaches, so marginal at best minima reductions only. It is not needed for general aircraft navigation.

So, once again, I ask the question, what is the catch, what had changed to create this flurry of activity.

"Follow the money" ----- so where is the smart money on this one, because the "study" cannot tell us anything we do not already know ----- is it rights/patent holders for SBAS/WAAS trying to preserve a market against GPSIII??? In this case, at the Australian taxpayer's expense.
Nobody on this thread has yet come up with a supportable reason for what is going on.
Tootle pip!!

[alphacentauri]

Leadsled,
Have you been to GA website and read the "..supportable reason for what is going on." ?

Here let me google that for you; www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning-navigation/positioning-for-the-future.

The Australian Govt body charged with advising on national positioning infrastructure, has identified that there may be a need for a WAAS. As such they are running a trial to see whether that hypothesis is correct.
This trial has nothing to do with aviation, but just so happens that if the correct signal is commissioned then there are existing avionics that can benefit.
The cost proposal for aviation includes funding from the Federal Govt for design, validation and publication of SBAS app at all eligible airfields.

So far as I can see, none if the major costs of SBAS implementation are being borne by the Aviation sector. This is a Federal Govt initiative and so will be funded by all taxpayers (if the cost benefit analysis proves its worth)

You keep asking what has changed? Whats changed is that previously Aviation sector were the only proponent for SBAS in times when no one else knew what SBAS was. Now GA are driving this for a different purpose, Aviation may benefit.

I say may because GA are trialling an SBAS II signal and there are no aviation avionics that can use SBAS II. If SBAS II gets implemented, aviation will get nothing.

[Lead Balloon]

Apparently the problem is that “the majority of Australians can position to only 5 metres accuracy with current technology” and the solution is to implement “ground infrastructure to enhance accuracy to 3-5 centimetres”.

[alphacentauri]

...and what's wrong with that?

[Lead Balloon]

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with that.

There’d only be something wrong with that if:

1. it is not true that the majority of Australians can position to only 5 metres accuracy with current technology; or

2. it is true, but either:

a. the majority of Australians don’t need 3 to 5 centimetre accuracy; or

b. the benefits of achieving that accuracy do not outweigh the costs of achieving it.

[alphacentauri]

Yep. Id say they are fair statements.

[LeadSled]

AlphaC,
On multiple occasions I have referred to the Minister's statement re. SBAS/WAAS being a "revolution" for aviation, all my comments are directed at that.
As for terrestrial use, all the claims for use of SBAS/WAAS are as true now as they were almost 20 years ago.
The big difference is that GPS III is now fact, not something in the near future, while SBAS/WAAS is, as it always was, a solution to the errors of the single channel civil GPS.
And I would suggest that, with what we already have, better than 3-5cm is available now, but, of course, we are getting to the situation of: How do you measure the order of accuracy??
Without going into the mathematics applicable, funnily enough, we are back to a "most probable position" from multiple readings, just like when I first did astro-nav, but now the circle of uncertainty is just a tad smaller.
Tootle pip!!

[alphacentauri]

Yes, but the signal GPS III uses cannot be read by current avionics or other devices. Which means when it is introduced new avionics are going to have to be released to support it. The manufacturers are based in the US.....they have WAAS......do you really think they will jump in first to release new avionics? That will lead us to the ADSB mandate issues all over again.

I think I can say I am agree-ance with you regarding a cost/benefit for SBAS as it relates to aviation. The numbers don't stack up, never did. But if we just happen to geta ccess to a WAAS signal due to other Government initiatives, shouldn't we jump on board?

If GA thought GPS III was a potential solution wouldn't they also be looking at that as well? Perhaps they are? As I mentioned previously GA are looking at many different future solutions. SBAS is just one.

[LeadSled]

Alpha C,

Firstly, as I understand it, all current GPS that work on the US GPS system will be backwards compatible with GPS III, as the primary channel remains the same. Clearly, they will not receive all the new channels/signals of GPS III. I assume, but I do not know, because I have not done any checking, that SBAS/WAAS will still be applicable on the “legacy” signal.

What I do know is GPS III is here now, not “in the future” as it was years ago, when SBAS/GBAS was the “new technology” to improve the accuracy of then GPS to enable, amongst other things, quasi-precision approaches to Cat. 1 ILS minima, with Cat. II/III held out as the future. Which future signalled the end of “microwave” approach systems like Interscan ( is the research antenna still sitting in the middle of Tullamarine?). Read again the post of AirAg.

I will repackage my comments: WHY IS AUSTRALIA SUDDENLY APPARENTLY HELL BENT ON PLANNING TO IMPLEMENT A 20 YEAR OLD VIRTUALLY SUPERSEDED TECHNOLOGY, THAT, APART FROM A MINOR BENEFIT TO AVIATION IN AUSTRALIA, PROVIDES NO NEW CAPABILITY, AND NO CAPABILITY THAT IS NOT ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY, SUCH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY NOW INCLUDING GPS III. GPS III ACCURACY WILL BE FREE TO USERS.

GPS III receivers are widely available for non-aviation use, many of them also process GLONAS and GALILEO signals, with current high speed processors that were not available when the original velocity limits were estimated for GPS III, it will be interesting to see what is possible, given how much better than “theory” “traditional” GPS has been made to perform. I am pleased to see that some of the most technically advanced GPS III gear is Australian made, and being incorporated into Australia made rotary and fixed wing drones.

As a matter of interest, we have reached an interesting situation with position accuracy, whether it is 5/3/2 cm etc. Without going into the mathematics, it reminds me of when I first did astronavigation, with multiple fixes reduced to a “most probable position”, but the “circle of uncertainty” is now just a tad smaller than the “good old days”.

Tootle pip!!
PS:
Sunfish,
As I recall, you are building a amateur built experimental ---- are you expecting to be operating to Cat. 1 ILS minima??
Or, put another way, how is SBAS/WAAS going to make any major difference to you and most of GA.

[Sunfish]

LS: Or, put another way, how is SBAS/WAAS going to make any major difference to you and most of GA.

I would have thought that was obvious; ADSB without fitting anything bigger or more expensive than an $800 puck on the roof, as opposed to a $4000(?) free flight 1202 GPS or $10000 ++ Navigator. Dynon has their ADSB solution accepted by FAA and CASA already has a project that may do the same here as a way of increasing the underwhelming take up of ADSB.

Then there is the possibility in the event of a disastrous mistake by me that the autopilot GPS and system might allow me to survive a VFR into IFR event.

Then of course there is the next generation of AI assisted flight systems relying on WAAS which can't be too far away.

Then as Alphcentauri pointed out, the need for cheap centimetric positioning for the rest of the Australian public to take advantage of new products; self driving cars, robots of all sorts, etc. No subscriptions, cheap GPS units. Then there is the productivity gains in increased accuracy; my $150 Garmin Fortrex 201 is WAAS enabled and htat will give me better than 3m accuracy 95% of the time with WAAS that translates into, among other things on the farm, better purchasing of fencing wire and ag pipes. less digging and broken lines, etc., etc. Accuracy improves productivity in many ways.

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
You have me really puzzled, why is WAAS plus GPS needed for the above, as I asked, do you anticipate Cat. 1 or lower precision approaches??

You don't need WAAS for ADS-B. Why is WAAS going to make any difference to the GPS coupled to your autopilot??

As for the last paragraph of your last post, I do earnestly suggest you acquaint yourself with the characteristics of GPS III, which does everything that "legacy" GPS plus SBAS/WAAS does, and much more. And more reliably.

As I have tried to get across to you, I have been in the farming and mining business for most of a lifetime, longer than aviation, I really do know what is possible RFN, and I am looking forwards to the major benefit to most of us, saving some fees, and perhaps a small increase in accuracy, compared to what we have now. But for most of us, 1-2 cm versus 2-3 cm is not going to make a lot of difference.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled....how about explaining to the plebs what a GPS block III satellite will provide, what it is compatible with and whether it needs ground based signal error correction. How long before at least 21 satellites are transmitting and what accuracies are talked about...including the safety of life signal. AND what other satellites are already doing in our neck of the woods....Then, for encore, maybe an insight into how long we will have to wait for all this tech to make it onto an avionics circuit board.

[Sunfish]

leadsled: You don't need WAAS for ADS-B.

Disingenuous again. At present for ADSB you require a certified TSO 145 or better GPS source. This costs a minimum of $4000 plus installation for a "dumb" one (Freeflight 1201) and takes up cockpit real estate. The alternative is a GPS navigator starting at around $10,000.

Dynon has released an $800 WAAS enabled receiver puck that is not TSO'd but accepted as an ADSB source for American use by the FAA. There are bound to be similar WAAS enabled products in the pipeline.

WAAS enabled products are cheap and available solutions right NOW, not some circuit boards or gold plated survey solutions or pie in the sky GPSIII.

You didn't have anything to do with the development of NBN did you? Your comments regarding what Australia "needs" as opposed to what the rest of the developed world already has reminds me of that same mindset. You continually say we need something less than the international standard so we always suffer from a 10 to 20 year technology gap.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Have to agree with the Leadsled, Sunfish. WAAS and ADS-B are not interrelated. The TSO C145 and on supply a Fault Detection and Exclusion facility, the basis of the Australian requirment.

[Sunfish]

Then why is the Australian ADSBrequirement different from the American requirement?

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
As I recall recently reading, the FAA have written some rules to allow non-TSO boxes to be used, but the GPS position must still be a C-145/146 source. ie; Differentiating between a TSO'd complete system, and TSO's components of the system. If I have got that interpretation wrong, I am certain somebody will clarify.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
To carry the matter a little further, unlike Australia (surprise, surprise) FAA does not require all the equipment required for IFR to be TSOd, for operation conducted under CFR Part 91, roughly what we call Private or Aerial Work operations, as long as they meet calibration requirements. However, some individual components may have to meet TSOs, mostly if they interact directly with ATC equipment.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

the only bit TSO'd is the transponder.The Dynon GPS source is not TSO'd, merely accepted by FAA letter.

[LeadSled]

the only bit TSO'd is the transponder.The Dynon GPS source is not TSO'd, merely accepted by FAA letter.
Sunfish,
Exactly.
Tootle pip!!

[werbil]

It looks like we're going to get SBAS anyway, and funded by the government:

In the budget paper Budget Strategy and Outlook Budget Paper No. 1 2018-19 (https://budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp1/download/BP1_full.pdf)

Better GPS and satellite technology access for Australians
In this Budget the Government will invest $224.9 million over four years to provide accurate satellite-based positional, navigation and timing (PNT) capability which will enhance GPS capability across Australia. This measure will deliver PNT data with an accuracy of three to five centimetres for regional and metropolitan areas with mobile phone coverage and up to 10 centimetres elsewhere.
And in the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia's media release Better GPS and satellite imagery to support a smarter economy (http://minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/canavan/media-releases/better-gps-and-satellite-imagery-support-smarter-economy)
8 May 2018

The Turnbull Government is investing in the global positioning system (GPS) technology that will create jobs and support Australian industry.

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator the Hon Matt Canavan, said the Government is investing over $260 million to develop the satellite technology.

“We rely on satellite and GPS technology for just about every aspect of our lives - from Google Maps on our individual phones, through to air traffic control at the busiest airports,” Minister Canavan said.

“More precise technology will make Australian businesses more productive, safer and more efficient.

“More accurate GPS will improve productivity by allowing new technology to be created and used across the economy. Growing Australia’s digital economy will also benefit developed sectors such as mining, transport, construction, aviation and agriculture.

“This investment will improve competitiveness and secure jobs across the Australian economy.”

Under the package, $160.9 million will deliver a Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) (the technology underpinning GPS) to improve the reliability and the accuracy of positioning data from five metres to 10 centimetres** across Australia and its maritime zone.

A $64 million investment in the National Positioning Infrastructure Capability (NPIC) will complement SBAS to improve GPS to an accuracy as precise as 3cm in areas of Australia with access to mobile coverage.

“Our investment in this world-standard technology will have direct benefits including virtual fencing for farms and better management of cattle and livestock over vast distances,” Minister Canavan said.

“It also has applications for regional aviation such as improved access to regional areas by enabling planes to land on smaller airstrips and navigate difficult terrain such as canyons.

“The increased reliability provided by better GPS will improve safety for aircraft flying into regional and remote aerodromes, such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service fleet. It will reduce the impact of weather on flight cancellations and diversions, and improve the safety of landings.

“The resource sector will also benefit through better control of mine infrastructure, safety and more precise data for environmental rehabilitation.

“This is a practical investment to improve the lives of Australians and make businesses more productive. This technology provides instant, reliable and accurate positioning information, anytime and anywhere around Australia.”

A further $36.9 million is for Digital Earth Australia, a world-class technology that will give Australian businesses greater access to reliable, standardised satellite data that identifies physical changes to the Australian environment.

“The practical benefits of this investment will extend across our economy. This data will help researchers, governments and business better understand environmental changes, such as coastal erosion, crop growth and water quality,” Minister Canavan said.

“For example, information drawn from satellites is vital to help graziers increase the capacity of paddocks and make their farms more viable and sustainable.

“Our investment in satellite imagery will ensure a range of Australian industries have access to data that can help them tailor their investments, create jobs in target regions and increase their competitiveness.”

Media contact: Minister Canavan’s office 02 6277 7180

[LeadSled]

Sunny,
A bit more about US pricing, make certain the units you are looking at are 1090ES ADS-B prices. Adverts. even from manufacturer's web sites, don't always make it clear.
Remember in US you have two choices, 1090ES ADS-B, a rewarmed version of fifty or so years old technology, (actually closer to 1938), the 4090 channel transponder, and the UAT system, a CDMA broadband current technology datalink that carries far more than just ADS-B.
It is the modern technology UAT system that is dirt cheap, compared to what we are stuck with.
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Don't start this argument again, Leadsled. UAT , a MITRE invention, was a solution looking for a problem to cure. Bandwidth is the enemy. You need a hundred times more ground stations to supply that bandwidth. If you are out of range, you have no bandwidth and you will see nothing. 1090es talks to anything...even out of range of ground stations...Two 1090es equipped aircraft will still see each other 200nm west of Kickatinalong! If anyone wants actual wx in your cockpit in Oz...buy an app for your smartphone or tablet. Because the government..and the airlines...would NEVER allow that type of "investment" to give GA free bandwidth.

[LeadSled]

Don't start this argument again, Leadsled. UAT , a MITRE invention, was a solution looking for a problem to cure. Bandwidth is the enemy. You need a hundred times more ground stations to supply that bandwidth. If you are out of range, you have no bandwidth and you will see nothing. 1090es talks to anything...even out of range of ground stations...Two 1090es equipped aircraft will still see each other 200nm west of Kickatinalong! If anyone wants actual wx in your cockpit in Oz...buy an app for your smartphone or tablet. Because the government..and the airlines...would NEVER allow that type of "investment" to give GA free bandwidth.
Oz,
Howe about you stick with the facts.

Folks,
The below in the interests of historical accuracy, no "false history" please. The adoption of 1090ES as the international standard for ADS-B/C was and remains one of the most technologically regressive and short sighted moves in aviation since WWII. It has cost airlines unnecessary billions of dollars.

Naturally, Australia played a quite prominent role in "looking backwards", something at which, sadly, by international acclaim,we excel. We are stuck with 1090ES ADS-B, high cost of acquisition, high cost of fitting, and very limited in data transmission capability due being ancient technology in the broadband era.

Fact (1) ICAO ran a technical competition for a broadband system for future applications, the main ones, but not the only ones, being what we now call ADS-B/C Out, the other to transfer most ATC routine comms. from voice to the data-link.

Fact (2) There were two major competitors in the "final", VDL-4 (TDMA -- Ericsson patents ) and UAT (CDMA -- Qualcomm patents). Unfortunately, trans-Atlantic politics played a part, a re-run of the VOR/DME versus Decca fight several decades before.

Fact (3) The original "winner" was VDL-4 ---- votes at the UN/ICAO.

Fact (4) The first certified "ADS-B" into service ran on the VDL-4 system in Scandinavia.

Fact (5) ARINC/SITA has adopted VDL-2 as the replacement for VHF ACARS ---- so the great majority of airlines have had to fit a broadband transceiver, anyway, which ICAO originally intended to carry the ADS traffic. One for the price of two, so to speak, instead of two for the price of one.

Fact (6) The ground stations used by Airservices are the same ones FAA uses, except that the card slot for UAT is empty, from the ground station to aircraft, the range is the same, with only a minor difference in the frequencies meaning there is no difference in range -- it is line of sight.

Fact (7) From the ground receiver to the ATC computers it is a common signal format, regardless of whether the "air" part of the signal is 1090ES or UAT. Whoever told you bandwidth was a problem has sold you a furphy, and by the way, I have a big bridge in Sydney I can sell you cheap.

Fact (8) An unholy alliance, at the "last minute", proposed 1090ES as a "quick and cheap" solution to cash strapped US and IATA airlines, in a period when just about all US but Southwest were in/about to be/just emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It proved to be neither quick nor cheap, ask the airlines. QantasLink -8 conversion costs were in the order of twenty (20) times the CASA Cost/Benefit "estimate".

Fact (9) The channel congestion problems forecast by Mitre Corp. for 1090ES is now clearly a problem in the US, but such was the political pressure that a system that had not even been part of the ICAO technical competition was forceably accepted as an ICAO standard,

Fact (8) US domestic political pressure, given the dominance of US airlines/IATA and avionics manufactures, resulted in 1090ES, the clearly antiquated narrow band system was forceably adopted as the "International" standard, despite the fact that several VDL-4 system were up and running in Europe, a number of major US airports had adopted VDL-4 for tracking aircraft on the ground, and the US military, particularly the Marines, adopted VDL-4 for tracking aircraft on exercise ranges.

Fact (8) As FAA/ Mitre Corp. had done all the initial development based on UAT (CDMA), they stuck with UAT, and there are more GA aircraft on the N- register with UAT than 1090ES, the major reason UAT ADS-B is cheap is because of the size of the market, per unit many times the size of the airline market, and for several other reasons, cheap to produce ---- because the core transceiver is fundamentally the same as current mobile phones. The international market for non-airline 1090ES is sod all, by comparison.

Fact (9) UAT was not "invented" by Mitre Corp., if it was "invented" it was by Qualcomm in US for phones, and has become the basis of current generation mobile phones ---- CDMA.

Fact (10) All the early aviation development, including the Alaska and Ohio Valley trials were using equipment from Apollo Corp., later bought out by UPS -- United Parcel Service., which has something in the order of 500-600 freight aircraft.

Fact (11) A range of services are provided via UAT in USA, that can only be provided over a broadband data-link, it is a complete nonsense to suggest that a mobile phone is a substitute.

Fact (12) It is true that the FAA requires the transponder mode C to remain on UAT equipped aircraft, for TCAS availability/visibility to aircraft that do not have UAT, ie most airline aircraft. TCAS DOES NOT require ADS-B/C in or out.

Fact (13) During the relevant period of time, for my sins, I held a number of technical appointments, and attended a number of conferences on the subject, supporting VDL-4, which I have long since realised was was an error, because many of us at the time did not understand the technical capabilities of CDMA versus TDMA , the history of mobile phones and the performance of FAA UAT data-links tell the story of why we were wrong, a case of 20/20 vision in hindsight.

And, folks, by the way, Mitre is not a commercial entity, it is a research and development organisation supported by FAA.

UAT is Universal Access Transceiver, which just about describes the intent of the original ICAO technical competition for a future (not the past) broadband service.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

(Slightly off topic but could be the basis for ongoing on topic debate):
Can somebody tell me what the acceptable flight test error is, laterally and vertically, for VFR private,/commercial Pilot Licence and class 4 instrument rating?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Jesus wept....the only reason this argument can rerun is the original is a dununda godzone thread. TCAS, mode S FRUIT and UAT, frequency congestion and DME....and now its all Australia's fault?

[Lead Balloon]

(Slightly off topic but could be the basis for ongoing on topic debate):
Can somebody tell me what the acceptable flight test error is, laterally and vertically, for VFR private,/commercial Pilot Licence and class 4 instrument rating?
​​​​​Plus or minus 10 centimetres apparently...

[LeadSled]

----.and now its all Australia's fault?
Oz,
That I didn't say, but worldwide we are paying and paying for a really dumb decision.
And please stick to the facts, there are enough myths and old wives tales in aviation already.
Tootle pip!!