TCAS safety deficiency and the AIPA, AFAP and GAPAN
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know you will say, in your fundamentalist way, that we should do all things that improve safety.
fundamentalism
.
noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
.
noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
.
Back to the discussion you seem to be incapable of reading I am saying that (finite) money should be spent where it is most effective!
I agree.
But if you are going to have the air passenger pay for this level of safety, once the costs are too high people will either decide or be forced to travel by other means, or not travel at all.
.
are you going to address anything put forward in this or the other thread or just continue with the empty rhetoric?
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft cost of $1 billion was used as an example by another poster. However lets say all aircraft should be the same safety standard as a Boeing 747 costing $400 million.
It is obvious to you that many airports in Australia would not receive an air service with such an aircraft because the ticket price would be too high.
This is why some airports are serviced by Chieftains.
.
- YBTH would have a full radar TCU, Radar TWR, precision approach monitor etc etc to ensure not one passenger was lost due lack of safety services (10tril) .... flawed and inconsistant with your other views on allocation of services ..... how do you reconcile this?
.
In reality, the safety systems available to each should reflect a baseline and then scaled according to the number of persons exposed to the operations risks! . I say again, why mandate TCAS without corresponding TXPDRS why not subsidized ADS-B (including IN for RPT) so all targets can be alerted! ... it can be done for modest cost and will provide real savings in infrustructure and improved safety across all sectors!
In relation to the value of a human life at $10 trillion, if you are simply comparing safety improvements i.e. whether to fit TCAS or whether to increase the coverage of radar you can use any figure in the comparison as the answer will be the same.
That is, where best to spend the money to save the most lives.
.!
. It is disingenuous to suggest that anyone is saying airspace serviced by PA31s should be the same as SY serviced by B747s!
. Similarly, Regional airports servicing 30 odd daily RPT jet movements (+ GA etc) might not be CTAF with Centre E above or SY type primary high density infrastructure, rather D TWR/App!
. Similarly regional airports with RPT turbos and moderate levels of other traffic might be F AFIZ!
. and remote rarely used airports might be CTAF with pilot separation based on ADS-B/VHF provided traffic information pilot to pilot!
.
. Allocation based on need not by how many dollars Pollies decide is available (surely you do not want that)! ... not ridiculous unnecessary investment where it is not effective . It is common sense whether you choose to agree or not!
Why push for TCAS ( I or II) when ADS-B will do the same job better. Dick, think of it this way. TCAS will only provide aa accurate resolution in the vertical.(Depending on how accurate the opposing aircraft's encoder is) The parameters are near impossible to provide an advisory for a horizontal deviation. ADS-B furnishes course, speed, whether climbing and descending ACCURATELY. A deviation (taken far enough away from a conflict to be a minor course change) is a simple matter of altering a path to avoid the conflicting traffic in any plane. Much the same as ATC giving vectors. In these days of spiralling costs wouldn't it be far more sensible to allow a system that gives a pilot and ATC a better tool to separate yourself from everyone else. Rather than have them diving all over the place. With WAAS the position is known within 8m at its very worst and nominally 1.5m X1.0m.
If you use your favorite argument with regard to conflicting traffic in class E. Approaching B737 sees that an ADS-B equiped aircraft is approaching their position, climbing through their level and passing from left to right. The crew alerts ATC that they have a conflict with approaching traffic and are altering course to the left of track to pass behind the target aircraft whilst keeping the same descent profile into BN. The crew and ATC know that there are no other aircraft in the vicinity. It doesn't really matter if the climbing aircraft has ADS-B in. Unless the climbing aircraft goes vertical or manages to fly backwards there is less chance of a collision than getting into a diving contest like in Switzerland. Note that Switzerland was due to the Russian crew NOT following their TCAS RA as they were supposed to do.
I may be naive with some points but on the aspect of accuracy ADS-B leaves TCAS of any variety in the weeds. Even with an encoding transponder there is a discrepancy. With a TSO146 GPS with WAAS coverage there will be another source of reliable flight level information. Embrace the technology, Dick. Stop trying to push old world technology on us.
If you use your favorite argument with regard to conflicting traffic in class E. Approaching B737 sees that an ADS-B equiped aircraft is approaching their position, climbing through their level and passing from left to right. The crew alerts ATC that they have a conflict with approaching traffic and are altering course to the left of track to pass behind the target aircraft whilst keeping the same descent profile into BN. The crew and ATC know that there are no other aircraft in the vicinity. It doesn't really matter if the climbing aircraft has ADS-B in. Unless the climbing aircraft goes vertical or manages to fly backwards there is less chance of a collision than getting into a diving contest like in Switzerland. Note that Switzerland was due to the Russian crew NOT following their TCAS RA as they were supposed to do.
I may be naive with some points but on the aspect of accuracy ADS-B leaves TCAS of any variety in the weeds. Even with an encoding transponder there is a discrepancy. With a TSO146 GPS with WAAS coverage there will be another source of reliable flight level information. Embrace the technology, Dick. Stop trying to push old world technology on us.
Thread Starter
Scurvy.D.Dog, you say in relation to safety standards:
This is not so. In fact, a B767 is not as safe as a B747. That is why there are restrictive ETOPS requirements for aircraft of less than 3 engines.
You do not appear to understand my methodology re the $10 trillion. If you are comparing the safety of Chieftains with the safety of B747s, you can put $10 trillion in each figure to do the comparison. It would be more sensible to put $3 million in, however when you are only comparing the safety improvement by spending money on one particular field rather than another, you can use any figure. I can assure you that the mathematicians say I am correct.
OZBUSDRIVER, I dont seem to be able to get anywhere! You state:
Because ADS-B does not yet exist in the in form. You are honest when you say, I may be naοve with some points. You seem to be obsessed with the greater accuracy (i.e. down to metres) with ADS-B. In fact, you dont need that type of accuracy. No one wants to miss another aircraft by 10 or 20 metres we want to remain miles apart where possible.
The other point is that with sunspot activity on the rise there will be times when GPS will drop out, and therefore ADS-B will not have the accuracy you are talking about. The advantage of TCAS is because it is direct aircraft to aircraft, it will work no matter what the state of the sunspot activity.
Dont get me wrong. ADS-B will be introduced in the future Im told by the FAA it is about a decade away. However at the present time we have a fantastic TCAS/transponder system which has never resulted in an accident when the system has been working and the crew has complied with the resolution advisory.
You want to keep talking about something which has the potential to be better, but it is still a decade away, when we can fit units right at this moment which will substantially improve safety.
Remember, modern TCAS has an antenna on the top and bottom of the aircraft, so even when you bank the unit will still work. In my Agusta helicopter, when I do a steep bank the GPS drops out for the Ground Proximity Warning System. This type of problem will eventually be fixed for ADS-B (or it will go into a coast mode), however as stated above, and stated before on this thread numerous times, you seem to be arguing for something that doesnt yet exist.
Yes, I do understand that Airservices is leading the world with ADS-B out (i.e. transmitting an ADS-B signal from an aircraft), however they do not have any certified unit which shows an ADS-B in reply on a screen in an aircraft. Even if it did show on the display, you need something similar to a resolution advisory or an audio call out otherwise it is next to useless. I have flown in the USA in an aircraft with Capstone. Because there is no audio call out you have to look at the screen all the time. After a few weeks of looking at the screen you look away, and that is when you could hit another aircraft.
A B747 is as safe as a DHC8 or SF34!
You do not appear to understand my methodology re the $10 trillion. If you are comparing the safety of Chieftains with the safety of B747s, you can put $10 trillion in each figure to do the comparison. It would be more sensible to put $3 million in, however when you are only comparing the safety improvement by spending money on one particular field rather than another, you can use any figure. I can assure you that the mathematicians say I am correct.
OZBUSDRIVER, I dont seem to be able to get anywhere! You state:
Why push for TCAS ( I or II) when ADS-B will do the same job better.
The other point is that with sunspot activity on the rise there will be times when GPS will drop out, and therefore ADS-B will not have the accuracy you are talking about. The advantage of TCAS is because it is direct aircraft to aircraft, it will work no matter what the state of the sunspot activity.
Dont get me wrong. ADS-B will be introduced in the future Im told by the FAA it is about a decade away. However at the present time we have a fantastic TCAS/transponder system which has never resulted in an accident when the system has been working and the crew has complied with the resolution advisory.
You want to keep talking about something which has the potential to be better, but it is still a decade away, when we can fit units right at this moment which will substantially improve safety.
Remember, modern TCAS has an antenna on the top and bottom of the aircraft, so even when you bank the unit will still work. In my Agusta helicopter, when I do a steep bank the GPS drops out for the Ground Proximity Warning System. This type of problem will eventually be fixed for ADS-B (or it will go into a coast mode), however as stated above, and stated before on this thread numerous times, you seem to be arguing for something that doesnt yet exist.
Yes, I do understand that Airservices is leading the world with ADS-B out (i.e. transmitting an ADS-B signal from an aircraft), however they do not have any certified unit which shows an ADS-B in reply on a screen in an aircraft. Even if it did show on the display, you need something similar to a resolution advisory or an audio call out otherwise it is next to useless. I have flown in the USA in an aircraft with Capstone. Because there is no audio call out you have to look at the screen all the time. After a few weeks of looking at the screen you look away, and that is when you could hit another aircraft.
Dick,
I've been away from this thread for a few days but come back and see that Scurvy Dog (about the fifth time it's been raised) again asks you why you won't mandate transponders for ALL aircraft so that these TCASs that you want in 10-30 seaters will actually work in the greatest threat area, the CTAF/Class G against VFR.
Why do you continue to ignore this question? No wonder people don't believe or you respect your views.
You continue to live with your head in the sand, unable to acknowledge that the greatest threat to paying pax is the VFR lighty flying around with his head in the cockpit looking at all his new gear. Until he has mandatory transponders, don't come bleating for TCAS in 10-30s.
OzBusdriver,
Off thread but your scenario highlights the unworkability of non-radar E airspace:
What if the crew are not able to avoid, because of ATC requirements, this non-speaking, not on frequency VFR who just happens to be transponding? The whole situation turns to worms. Another failing of his ideal E airspace that Dick just cannot accept.
For those of you who think pilot self-separation using ADS-B IN is the panacea for all our ills, have a look at what happened when UPS tried it a few years back. It was a cock-up. Pilots need extensive training in aircraft separation techniques to do it themselves, and that's why the authorities won't be letting us do it anytime soon.
I've been away from this thread for a few days but come back and see that Scurvy Dog (about the fifth time it's been raised) again asks you why you won't mandate transponders for ALL aircraft so that these TCASs that you want in 10-30 seaters will actually work in the greatest threat area, the CTAF/Class G against VFR.
Why do you continue to ignore this question? No wonder people don't believe or you respect your views.
You continue to live with your head in the sand, unable to acknowledge that the greatest threat to paying pax is the VFR lighty flying around with his head in the cockpit looking at all his new gear. Until he has mandatory transponders, don't come bleating for TCAS in 10-30s.
OzBusdriver,
Off thread but your scenario highlights the unworkability of non-radar E airspace:
The crew alerts ATC that they have a conflict with approaching traffic and are altering course to the left of track to pass behind the target aircraft whilst keeping the same descent profile into BN. The crew and ATC know that there are no other aircraft in the vicinity.
For those of you who think pilot self-separation using ADS-B IN is the panacea for all our ills, have a look at what happened when UPS tried it a few years back. It was a cock-up. Pilots need extensive training in aircraft separation techniques to do it themselves, and that's why the authorities won't be letting us do it anytime soon.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compulsory carriage and operations of transponders in Class G Airspace?
Dick,
I refer you to my post on page 4 in regard to the near-collision of an RFDS aircraft and a cropduster without transponder.
Will you call for and support mandatory carriage and operation of transponders in all VFR aircraft operating in Class G airspace in Australia?
Yes or no?
I refer you to my post on page 4 in regard to the near-collision of an RFDS aircraft and a cropduster without transponder.
Will you call for and support mandatory carriage and operation of transponders in all VFR aircraft operating in Class G airspace in Australia?
Yes or no?
Thread Starter
I have never seen such utter selfishness in all my life.
It was I, as Chairman, who introduced the mandatory transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in Class E airspace. This was specially organised with Ministerial approval, without a cost benefit study (as it would not have met one), so that airline pilots would accept Class E airspace.
The quid pro quo with this was that airline pilots would support Class E airspace as used in the USA.
No sooner did the requirement come in that certain airline pilots then said, We are now not going to support Class E airspace and we now want all VFR aircraft to fit transponders in Class G airspace as well. That is, a one-way ratchet of adding costs to general aviation and therefore reducing participation levels. Look at this graph.
I believe it would be a little less selfish for airline pilots such as Capn Bloggs to state that seeing Australian GA has the most restrictive transponder requirements in the world already, the next step in moving to higher safety levels would be to bring the airlines in line with existing international practice.
Once that happens, I will then look forward to leading the world again and supporting even further safety requirements such as additional transponders for GA but only if it is clear that participation levels and the viability of the GA industry is not compromised.
It was I, as Chairman, who introduced the mandatory transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in Class E airspace. This was specially organised with Ministerial approval, without a cost benefit study (as it would not have met one), so that airline pilots would accept Class E airspace.
The quid pro quo with this was that airline pilots would support Class E airspace as used in the USA.
No sooner did the requirement come in that certain airline pilots then said, We are now not going to support Class E airspace and we now want all VFR aircraft to fit transponders in Class G airspace as well. That is, a one-way ratchet of adding costs to general aviation and therefore reducing participation levels. Look at this graph.
I believe it would be a little less selfish for airline pilots such as Capn Bloggs to state that seeing Australian GA has the most restrictive transponder requirements in the world already, the next step in moving to higher safety levels would be to bring the airlines in line with existing international practice.
Once that happens, I will then look forward to leading the world again and supporting even further safety requirements such as additional transponders for GA but only if it is clear that participation levels and the viability of the GA industry is not compromised.
Dick, I think you have brought a lot of this on yourself ... because of the conflicting messages you're giving:
To me, either option is flawed.... TCAS OCTA, without transponder equipped aircraft is un workable ... more TCAS in CTA, well ... show me the figures.
- The point of your original post was that you wanted RPTs to get TCAS installed
- However, you don't want VFRs (argualbly the main un-controlled airspace conflictions) to get Transponders ... thus they can't be seen by the TCAS.
- Perhaps you wanted TCAS for controlled airspace use only ... then show us the cost-benefit figures. "But they do it in the U.S" doesn't cut it any more.
To me, either option is flawed.... TCAS OCTA, without transponder equipped aircraft is un workable ... more TCAS in CTA, well ... show me the figures.
Dick
How much would a transponder in its simplest form cost? Either transmitting the aircraft's call sign or even just 1200.
A box of bits from Dick Smith Electronics should do it!
If I can buy an electronic ear tag for my cows for $5 and GPS for $300, how much should a simple transponder cost?
Even if there was no altitude encoding, at least the RPT stuff (and me in the Bo, cause I would install minimum TCAS gear) would know that a bug smasher was out there.
FTDK
How much would a transponder in its simplest form cost? Either transmitting the aircraft's call sign or even just 1200.
A box of bits from Dick Smith Electronics should do it!
If I can buy an electronic ear tag for my cows for $5 and GPS for $300, how much should a simple transponder cost?
Even if there was no altitude encoding, at least the RPT stuff (and me in the Bo, cause I would install minimum TCAS gear) would know that a bug smasher was out there.
FTDK
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTDK
Mate they are not expensive, and hence my argument everything that flies oughta have one. And ADSB too in the way it was proposed before the airlines allegedly got greedy.
$2860 inc GST gets you the lot, encoder and all!
http://www.microair.com.au/index.aspx
J
Mate they are not expensive, and hence my argument everything that flies oughta have one. And ADSB too in the way it was proposed before the airlines allegedly got greedy.
$2860 inc GST gets you the lot, encoder and all!
http://www.microair.com.au/index.aspx
J
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep in mind with all of this that dick wants E down to 500 odd feet at all aerodromes where these 10-30 seat aircraft operate. If there is selfishness in paying for the G transponders, who is going to pay for all of this E airspace?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
I am looking at your graph and yes it is a BTRE 5 year moving average graph of private and business flying hours.
With respect the decline shown and there is a decline in flying hours, IMHO has little or nothing whatsoever to do with "recalcitrant" airline pilots, alphabet airspace, regulatory reform, Airservices, CASA, the phase of the moon or the dreaded strict liability.
It has everything to do with fundamental changes in our society, the wholesale redistribution of leisure money, LCCs and a whole host of elements out of your and our control. GA aviation is now simply but one other choice amongst several dozens of challenging, fascinating, fulfilling and yes equally often more expensive pursuits. Its a function of that good ol unique Australian airspace and geography again.
Plus, why would anybody but the most hardbitten wannabe aviator even want to come and have a look when for the last 30 years he has been serially assailed with relentless cries of aviation doom and disaster in the halls of the Govt, CASA, and the long suffering Airservices.
It's a whole new world in modern aviation and in the parts where it is, it is going gangbusters.
The RAA world is growing fit to bust and the modern VH world likewise. Business aviation is doing less hours but way more miles.
And I'll support mandatory TCAS for 10-30 seat RPTs and Charter if you support mandatory transponders in ALL aircraft sharing their airspace.
That is the only way the circle of safety can be completed. Surely you must understand that the airspace in which these aircraft spend at least half their flight time is also where the greatest threat from lighties resides.
Or if what tobzalp suggests is the way we must go, what happened to free in G.?
I am looking at your graph and yes it is a BTRE 5 year moving average graph of private and business flying hours.
With respect the decline shown and there is a decline in flying hours, IMHO has little or nothing whatsoever to do with "recalcitrant" airline pilots, alphabet airspace, regulatory reform, Airservices, CASA, the phase of the moon or the dreaded strict liability.
It has everything to do with fundamental changes in our society, the wholesale redistribution of leisure money, LCCs and a whole host of elements out of your and our control. GA aviation is now simply but one other choice amongst several dozens of challenging, fascinating, fulfilling and yes equally often more expensive pursuits. Its a function of that good ol unique Australian airspace and geography again.
Plus, why would anybody but the most hardbitten wannabe aviator even want to come and have a look when for the last 30 years he has been serially assailed with relentless cries of aviation doom and disaster in the halls of the Govt, CASA, and the long suffering Airservices.
It's a whole new world in modern aviation and in the parts where it is, it is going gangbusters.
The RAA world is growing fit to bust and the modern VH world likewise. Business aviation is doing less hours but way more miles.
And I'll support mandatory TCAS for 10-30 seat RPTs and Charter if you support mandatory transponders in ALL aircraft sharing their airspace.
That is the only way the circle of safety can be completed. Surely you must understand that the airspace in which these aircraft spend at least half their flight time is also where the greatest threat from lighties resides.
Or if what tobzalp suggests is the way we must go, what happened to free in G.?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Aus
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs, very interesting quote from your post.
Capn Bloggs, that is exactly why there are many people who would rather have Class E airspace than Class G. With Class E, IFR aircraft are separated by air traffic control to a standard. With Class G airspace (and the Class F that you have in Australia), pilots must do their own separation, usually to no real standard and at best to a variable standard. As you correctly point out pilots need extensive training, and authorities around the world won't be letting airlines do that any time soon.
For those of you who think pilot self-separation using ADS-B IN is the panacea for all our ills, have a look at what happened when UPS tried it a few years back. It was a cock-up. Pilots need extensive training in aircraft separation techniques to do it themselves, and that's why the authorities won't be letting us do it anytime soon.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
old chap.
I'll find the B C & A article for you but UPS are a loooong way up the track and with the blessing of the FAA with their ADSB for traffic flow detrmination to and from their hubs and out ports. Yes it requires training but the benefits are seriously finite.
I'll get the exact quote but one of the experts says that in just the fuel saving (10% of the total fuel??) obtained by this method of "flight idle" type descents to touch down without all the usual low level vectoring could be implemented across the airline system every airline in the world today would be profitable without having to take any further action
Worth following don't you think??
old chap.
I'll find the B C & A article for you but UPS are a loooong way up the track and with the blessing of the FAA with their ADSB for traffic flow detrmination to and from their hubs and out ports. Yes it requires training but the benefits are seriously finite.
I'll get the exact quote but one of the experts says that in just the fuel saving (10% of the total fuel??) obtained by this method of "flight idle" type descents to touch down without all the usual low level vectoring could be implemented across the airline system every airline in the world today would be profitable without having to take any further action
Worth following don't you think??
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gaunty is correct in this regard,
To quote the BTRE 5 year moving average graph without removing the variables is to make a fundamental academic error.
To draw a single conclusion as to the cause of the decline in the graph, without measuring, and achieving, a correlation between the raw data and the theory being tested is to make a fundamental academic error.
In respect of why Generation X, Y & Z are not participating in GA to the same extent as the Baby Boomers, there are several reasons, all of which need to be isolated from the graph before a conclusion can be drawn. In fact, the conclusion would include all of the reasons, not just one.
To quote the BTRE 5 year moving average graph without removing the variables is to make a fundamental academic error.
To draw a single conclusion as to the cause of the decline in the graph, without measuring, and achieving, a correlation between the raw data and the theory being tested is to make a fundamental academic error.
In respect of why Generation X, Y & Z are not participating in GA to the same extent as the Baby Boomers, there are several reasons, all of which need to be isolated from the graph before a conclusion can be drawn. In fact, the conclusion would include all of the reasons, not just one.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry folks, war and peace again
. necessary though given Mr Smiths admission that he and a former the minister circumvented safety assessment processes!
.. print this page as it is likely to disappear soon me thinks!
.
.. what utter rubbish!
all jets in the RPT category are required to meet standards, those standards are met uniformly
. dear oh dear
ETOPS are there for the twins to ensure the same relative safety levels within a determined flight time of a suitable lump of tar given the reduced power redundancy!
ETOPS is not there because the type is less safe, the ETOPS requirement is to ensure it is as safe!!
. with respect, your methodology is quite clear .. and it is bollocks!
. are you being deliberately obtuse?
which mathematicians would those be?
. the largest pile of manure thus far!
. ADS-B will provide accuracy of target position for provision of ATS, as well as S.A opportunities for pilots that are unparalleled as opposed to nil TXPDR/TCAS and mark one eyeballs ... outside surveillance areas without pilot to pilot alerting is how we are gunna end-up 10-20 metres apart . or worse!!
.
not wihtstanding the demonstrable benefits ADS-B brings are you seriously suggesting that Australian and O/S avionics/electronic/software companies would not jump at adding in for new installs, and software/hardware for existing glass for reasonable price (given the scale of production) if there is going to be fleet wide fitment?? . why are you not looking to the additional benefits that Oz companies would capture.. not to mention the boost they would receive in international market readiness, ready to go boxes and bits and low cost? . Its obvious isnt it?
.
you keep telling us what a great businessman you are .. how do you reconcile your position on ADS-B (and fitment) with business acumen and plain old patriotism when it appears you would rather our aircraft owners and the Oz travelling public wait for the rest of the world to sell us their off the shelf stuff? . Why would you rather have our aircraft owners and the travelling public pay more in the long run for this technology by buying it from US avionics manufacturers? .. why are you in favour of delaying and therefore reducing or removing the competitive edge this opportunity provides for Australian avionics/electronic/software companies?
.. bloody hell,
. are you now saying GPS is not reliable for precision navigation?
. what rubbish, if a RAIM alert is possible for GPS accuracy monitoring, the same flag can be used with ADS-B output!
. besides, have you heard of differential GPS??? .. there are a few different types, but the basic premise is the same
the GPS is augmented by local ground stations
in other words, even if the GPS went into less accurate modes, the accuracy remains in the terminal areas
.. beautiful!!!
. as will GPS and WAMlat/ADS-B! 
. says it all 
. Who cares what the FAA thinks
we are Australia, and Australians are on the cusp of an aviation revolution that we should/could be leading! (by 10 years apparently)
point to a technical reference for this assertion that GPS/ADS-B is affected this way!
oh it exists
. wishing it didnt is revealing!
.. is that the problem? .. is it simply that your nemisis Airservices Australia (or more properly the first class engineers that designed this) could see the benefit of this and pursued it
would it have been an issue if it had been DSAvionics?
. No??
.
how about this:-
.
Dick Smith said: 27th February 2007 10:50
.. lets just get this straight for the record 
.
.. you have said that a minister of the crown (assumed to be the former deputy Prime Minister), at your insistence/recommendation, set aside the rules/ regs and the Act's (processes) to introduce a transponder requirement that was used to justify the replacement of ATS C services with less safe class E (that also subsequently occured without proper AeroStudy processes under AusNAS 2b)!
.
there is a legal definition for this behaviour .. poignant isn't it .. considering the subsequent Airprox safety incidents that occurred in that tried and failed AusNAS 2b class E airspace
.. I hope you and the government are comfortable with the decision to accept responsibility for the consequences!
.
. you go on to suggest that this was agreed by the airline pilots . Provide support for that assertion, as there are sure to be serious implications if that is true!
. Errm, when during the AusNAS 2b debacle did certain airline pilots say they wanted TXPDRS in G??
.a quote or link perhaps??
. bet there isnt any forthcoming!
no, what is a one way ratchet is forcing class E and TXPDR requirements without saving the industry a cent... even the removal of C saved them no money as E and C cost GA exactly the same .. it WAS and IS FREE to VFR!
. bit the same as ratcheting up costs to GA via location specific charging eh
. you know the jingle
. pay our own way, have our own say
winner
not really .... and which industry has paid for this folly?!
only in E ... thanks to you, the minister and a wing and a prayer!
... rot ... your so called 'international practice' is in areas of dence radar airspace where most if not all GA aircraft have transponders and they are checked every flight by ATS verification ... spread out regional locations in Australia are not so equipped! .... it is basic stuff, why don't you get it?? ... what is in this for you?
.. ah OK then ... I get it ..... you are leading the world 
... thank our lucky stars! 
.. just what GA want, old tech they have to pay for and fit
. Idiotic compared to the alternative!
really? 
why?
. you have admitted circumventing past assessment processes that clearly cost the whole industry (including GA) a fortune, why would you give a ****e now?
.
.. nup, tis still a 'dead cat'! .... nite all
.
Scurvy.D.Dog, you say in relation to safety standards:
This is not so. In fact, a B767 is not as safe as a B747.
A B747 is as safe as a DHC8 or SF34!
That is why there are restrictive ETOPS requirements for aircraft of less than 3 engines.
You do not appear to understand my methodology re the $10 trillion. If you are comparing the safety of Chieftains with the safety of B747s, you can put $10 trillion in each figure to do the comparison.
It would be more sensible to put $3 million in, however when you are only comparing the safety improvement by spending money on one particular field rather than another, you can use any figure.
I can assure you that the mathematicians say I am correct.
.... seem obsessed with the greater accuracy (i.e. down to metres) with ADS-B. In fact, you dont need that type of accuracy. No one wants to miss another aircraft by 10 or 20 metres we want to remain miles apart where possible.
. ADS-B will provide accuracy of target position for provision of ATS, as well as S.A opportunities for pilots that are unparalleled as opposed to nil TXPDR/TCAS and mark one eyeballs ... outside surveillance areas without pilot to pilot alerting is how we are gunna end-up 10-20 metres apart . or worse!!
.
not wihtstanding the demonstrable benefits ADS-B brings are you seriously suggesting that Australian and O/S avionics/electronic/software companies would not jump at adding in for new installs, and software/hardware for existing glass for reasonable price (given the scale of production) if there is going to be fleet wide fitment?? . why are you not looking to the additional benefits that Oz companies would capture.. not to mention the boost they would receive in international market readiness, ready to go boxes and bits and low cost? . Its obvious isnt it?
.
you keep telling us what a great businessman you are .. how do you reconcile your position on ADS-B (and fitment) with business acumen and plain old patriotism when it appears you would rather our aircraft owners and the Oz travelling public wait for the rest of the world to sell us their off the shelf stuff? . Why would you rather have our aircraft owners and the travelling public pay more in the long run for this technology by buying it from US avionics manufacturers? .. why are you in favour of delaying and therefore reducing or removing the competitive edge this opportunity provides for Australian avionics/electronic/software companies?
The other point is that with sunspot activity on the rise there will be times when GPS will drop out, and therefore ADS-B will not have the accuracy you are talking about.
The advantage of TCAS is because it is direct aircraft to aircraft, it will work no matter what the state of the sunspot activity.
Dont get me wrong. ADS-B will be introduced in the future Im told by the FAA it is about a decade away.
. Who cares what the FAA thinks
we are Australia, and Australians are on the cusp of an aviation revolution that we should/could be leading! (by 10 years apparently)
Remember, modern TCAS has an antenna on the top and bottom of the aircraft, so even when you bank the unit will still work. In my Agusta helicopter, when I do a steep bank the GPS drops out for the Ground Proximity Warning System. This type of problem will eventually be fixed for ADS-B (or it will go into a coast mode),
however as stated above, and stated before on this thread numerous times, you seem to be arguing for something that doesnt yet exist.
Yes, I do understand that Airservices is leading the world with ADS-B out (i.e. transmitting an ADS-B signal from an aircraft),
I have never seen such utter selfishness in all my life.
.
how about this:-
.
Dick Smith said: 27th February 2007 10:50
It was I, as Chairman, who introduced the mandatory transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in Class E airspace. This was specially organised with Ministerial approval, without a cost benefit study (as it would not have met one), so that airline pilots would accept Class E airspace.
.
.. you have said that a minister of the crown (assumed to be the former deputy Prime Minister), at your insistence/recommendation, set aside the rules/ regs and the Act's (processes) to introduce a transponder requirement that was used to justify the replacement of ATS C services with less safe class E (that also subsequently occured without proper AeroStudy processes under AusNAS 2b)!
.
there is a legal definition for this behaviour
.. poignant isn't it .. considering the subsequent Airprox safety incidents that occurred in that tried and failed AusNAS 2b class E airspace
.. I hope you and the government are comfortable with the decision to accept responsibility for the consequences!.
. you go on to suggest that this was agreed by the airline pilots . Provide support for that assertion, as there are sure to be serious implications if that is true!
No sooner did the requirement come in that certain airline pilots then said, We are now not going to support Class E airspace and we now want all VFR aircraft to fit transponders in Class G airspace as well.
That is, a one-way ratchet of adding costs to general aviation and therefore reducing participation levels.
. you know the jingle
. pay our own way, have our own say
winner
not really .... and which industry has paid for this folly?!
I believe it would be a little less selfish for airline pilots such as Capn Bloggs to state that seeing Australian GA has the most restrictive transponder requirements in the world already,
the next step in moving to higher safety levels would be to bring the airlines in line with existing international practice.
... what is in this for you?
Once that happens, I will then look forward to leading the world again
... thank our lucky stars!
and supporting even further safety requirements such as additional transponders for GA
but only if it is clear that participation levels and the viability of the GA industry is not compromised.
why?
. you have admitted circumventing past assessment processes that clearly cost the whole industry (including GA) a fortune, why would you give a ****e now? .
.. nup, tis still a 'dead cat'! .... nite all
Dick,
You are now becoming irrational. For MY part, I never supported E airspace, especially non-radar E, and you know it. The only reason that AIRLINE PILOTS "no longer supported" E airspace is because, even with transponders, it tried to kill a few of them (and hundreds of pax). Or does your memory fail to remember 2004? E airspace is a furphy Yankism. You just cannot have two separate airspace systems mixing it without some sort of coordination.
Anyway, back to your tit-for-tat cost to GA. I'll add to the list above that another reason GA has declined is that because you have changed every rule 10 times in the last 15 years that many have just lost interest. if you can afford to buy a $100k+aeroplane, a $1000 transponder is a detail!
SCE to AUX,
Provision of Traffic Information is an ICAO-approved IFR service aka Class F. In 30 years of flying in Class F (call it what you like Dick) I have never been scared when I have known about other IFR traffic and self-separated from them after having been trained in the technique by my instructors. All I'm saying is that there are tricks to self-separation with ADS-B that we will have to be trained in. Your average Joe Blow with have the TCAS bleating if they say "oh there he is we'll just turn this way a bit and miss him".
It all boils down to what the biggest threat is. IMO, it's VFR in the terminal area, hence the need to have transponders on them.
[B]Gaunty[B],
ADS-B is fantastic, I agree. you just have to listen to the shamozzle over the Pilbara every day. But are we gunna pay for it voluntarily? Nuh! I was just pointing out that in the late nineties it was touted as the panacea of self-separation but when UPS tried it, they got themselves into trouble on quite few occasions (as crew, now instant fighter pilots, tried dodging each other) and if my memory serves me correctly, the trial was stopped on safety grounds. With the benefit of hindsight (and specific training) it is now being trialled for self-separation but we are miles way from "point where you like and play dodgem cars to get there". ICAO are only just now talking about using ADS-B and TCAS for oceanic in-trail climbs!
You are now becoming irrational. For MY part, I never supported E airspace, especially non-radar E, and you know it. The only reason that AIRLINE PILOTS "no longer supported" E airspace is because, even with transponders, it tried to kill a few of them (and hundreds of pax). Or does your memory fail to remember 2004? E airspace is a furphy Yankism. You just cannot have two separate airspace systems mixing it without some sort of coordination.
Anyway, back to your tit-for-tat cost to GA. I'll add to the list above that another reason GA has declined is that because you have changed every rule 10 times in the last 15 years that many have just lost interest. if you can afford to buy a $100k+aeroplane, a $1000 transponder is a detail!
SCE to AUX,
With Class G airspace (and the Class F that you have in Australia), pilots must do their own separation, usually to no real standard and at best to a variable standard. As you correctly point out pilots need extensive training, and authorities around the world won't be letting airlines do that any time soon.
It all boils down to what the biggest threat is. IMO, it's VFR in the terminal area, hence the need to have transponders on them.
[B]Gaunty[B],
ADS-B is fantastic, I agree. you just have to listen to the shamozzle over the Pilbara every day. But are we gunna pay for it voluntarily? Nuh! I was just pointing out that in the late nineties it was touted as the panacea of self-separation but when UPS tried it, they got themselves into trouble on quite few occasions (as crew, now instant fighter pilots, tried dodging each other) and if my memory serves me correctly, the trial was stopped on safety grounds. With the benefit of hindsight (and specific training) it is now being trialled for self-separation but we are miles way from "point where you like and play dodgem cars to get there". ICAO are only just now talking about using ADS-B and TCAS for oceanic in-trail climbs!
Dick you are becoming more and more difficult to follow. Is your desperation to leave a Smith Aviation LegacyTM as you enter your Autumn years so strong that you will change your argument daily?
Why don't you answer MY questions to you?
The same separation that WE HAVE TO DO in circuit areas anyway! Happy to separate myself from known traffic, it is the unknown VFR in E airspace at FL200 that scares me.
What area of aviation operations DOES NOT require extensive training?
Rest assured, one day out West in the Goldfield/Pilbara, with all the FIFO activity and lots of aluminium mixing in G and E airspace, there WILL be a VFR go sailing through, blissfully ignorant of the IFR waypoints being referenced by the IFR aircraft and there WILL be at best an AIRPROX. When it happens Dick, you will of course turn it around to claim that this dirt road airspace caused the problem. In reality it is VFR's in non radar E that are the issue.
Why don't you answer MY questions to you?
With Class G airspace (and the Class F that you have in Australia), pilots must do their own separation, usually to no real standard and at best to a variable standard. As you correctly point out pilots need extensive training,
What area of aviation operations DOES NOT require extensive training?
Rest assured, one day out West in the Goldfield/Pilbara, with all the FIFO activity and lots of aluminium mixing in G and E airspace, there WILL be a VFR go sailing through, blissfully ignorant of the IFR waypoints being referenced by the IFR aircraft and there WILL be at best an AIRPROX. When it happens Dick, you will of course turn it around to claim that this dirt road airspace caused the problem. In reality it is VFR's in non radar E that are the issue.
Last edited by Icarus2001; 27th Feb 2007 at 23:30.
Thread Starter
Scurvy.D.Dog, as an air traffic controller from a Class D tower, you certainly can become very angry. I can sort of understand why you have been bashing along at this for years and you find that you cannot even put your real name to your beliefs. I would imagine you feel that your career would be affected this is really shocking if so.
You may be interested in knowing that at the time the decision was made to bring in the mandatory transponder requirement in Class E airspace, there was no requirement for a regulatory impact statement or for a safety study. Plain commonsense said that safety would be improved.
Im not sure if things have changed since then perhaps they have. I know there has been a move to bring in the most prescriptive requirements for subjective safety studies which seem to be primarily there to stop any change.
For others who have open minds, I can assure you that the resultant regulatory standards for turboprops like DHC8s and SF34s are different to the resultant certification standard for a Boeing 747.
I realise there is a group of people who constantly deny this fact because to accept the premise means that the law of affordable safety applies. That is, if you have 30 people in an aircraft they cannot pay for the same level of safety that 400 people can. This is the only reason we have different certification standards for aircraft of different sizes.
Remember the primary amount of money for safety in any aircraft comes from the passenger ticket money the higher number of passengers means that more ticket money available for safety improvements. Of course, our regulatory system reflects this quite different level in safety standards between large and small aircraft.
Nowhere have I suggested that the downturn in general aviation is primarily because of our different transponder requirements. What I am showing is that if we now add an additional expensive transponder requirement for all aircraft in Class G, that there will be a further downturn in general aviation participation rates.
The prime reason for the downturn in GA flying (especially when you see the boating market, with boat sales of up to $1 million booming) is the gradual increase of costs and complexity for GA flying. This has forced flyers into lighter aircraft which do not meet the certification standards that we have been able to afford in previous decades.
I am amazed that instead of supporting the idea of airline aircraft having TCAS and thus improving safety even with the existing level of transponders you head off in a direction of saying, Lets add even more costs to GA.
Other countries in the world have mandatory TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers, yet they do not have mandatory transponder requirements in all Class E and G airspace. Why is this so? It is because they know that safety improvements are incremental and that by having more TCAS, which will operate with the existing transponders, that safety is improved.
You may be interested in knowing that at the time the decision was made to bring in the mandatory transponder requirement in Class E airspace, there was no requirement for a regulatory impact statement or for a safety study. Plain commonsense said that safety would be improved.
Im not sure if things have changed since then perhaps they have. I know there has been a move to bring in the most prescriptive requirements for subjective safety studies which seem to be primarily there to stop any change.
For others who have open minds, I can assure you that the resultant regulatory standards for turboprops like DHC8s and SF34s are different to the resultant certification standard for a Boeing 747.
I realise there is a group of people who constantly deny this fact because to accept the premise means that the law of affordable safety applies. That is, if you have 30 people in an aircraft they cannot pay for the same level of safety that 400 people can. This is the only reason we have different certification standards for aircraft of different sizes.
Remember the primary amount of money for safety in any aircraft comes from the passenger ticket money the higher number of passengers means that more ticket money available for safety improvements. Of course, our regulatory system reflects this quite different level in safety standards between large and small aircraft.
Nowhere have I suggested that the downturn in general aviation is primarily because of our different transponder requirements. What I am showing is that if we now add an additional expensive transponder requirement for all aircraft in Class G, that there will be a further downturn in general aviation participation rates.
The prime reason for the downturn in GA flying (especially when you see the boating market, with boat sales of up to $1 million booming) is the gradual increase of costs and complexity for GA flying. This has forced flyers into lighter aircraft which do not meet the certification standards that we have been able to afford in previous decades.
I am amazed that instead of supporting the idea of airline aircraft having TCAS and thus improving safety even with the existing level of transponders you head off in a direction of saying, Lets add even more costs to GA.
Other countries in the world have mandatory TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers, yet they do not have mandatory transponder requirements in all Class E and G airspace. Why is this so? It is because they know that safety improvements are incremental and that by having more TCAS, which will operate with the existing transponders, that safety is improved.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 28th Feb 2007 at 00:18.