TCAS safety deficiency and the AIPA, AFAP and GAPAN

[SCE to Aux]

Well done Bob! As I've often said, it will be time for Aus to think about rolling out low-level ADS-B when I can buy one from Garmin.

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, I’ll make it pretty simple with a yes or no answer. If the people at Airservices read my letters to the Minister and postings on my website in relation to ADS-B, and that made them re-think their decision, the answer is yes – I did have an influence on the Airservices decision. If they took no notice of my letters to the Minister and postings on my website, the answer is no – I did not have an influence on the Airservices decision.

You then ask:

WILL YOU OR WILL YOU NOT DEMAND THAT TRANSPONDERS BE FITTED IN ALL AIRCRAFT THAT OPERATE IN AREAS WHERE COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FITTED WITH TCAS OPERATE?

I will say again – my first aim is to get our airlines complying with the safety requirements that exist in other leading aviation countries. When we are up to speed on these safety requirements in Australia, I will certainly look at pushing for more onerous requirements for transponders. However I will not do this if it means that the GA industry is further damaged. That is a pretty simple and straightforward explanation. Do you understand it?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Bob,

The ASTRA "Cross Industry Business Case" for ADS-B was haplessly (and hopelessly) flawed, and effectively disowned by the new management of Airservices.
.
It seems more than likely that the present ASTRA long term plan will go the same way.

.. Serious questions:-
.
- Do you have information on the basis on which the ‘new’ management of AsA ‘disowned’ the business case?, also;
- what made it hapless and hopelessly flawed?
.
Re CASA cost/benefit’s,
.
I remember hearing similar (assumed to be the first CBA), never did have it confirmed nor saw a copy/s … the decimal point explanation is worrying if true. I assume there is some correspondence re same floating around, would be interesting to read!

The second CASA study was equally inept, suddenly discovering all sorts of GA benefits that had been mysteriously missed the first time around.

.. one wonders if CASA consulted with AsA? … the point being, if all the costs and benefits are not captured it is nigh on impossible to get a real picture!

None of the newly discovered benefit accrued to those who had to spend the money, they were all indirect benefits, as I recall saving 1.8 (?) or something similar statistical lives per year from starting searches closer to where "ADS-B" last detected the aircraft,

.. what were the other ‘benefits’ included?

all assuming nationwide low level coverage and every ADS-B return recorded by Airservices -- neither of which was going to be the case.

… I was under the impression it was based on the initial phase of ADS-B coverage below A100?!, the rollout to other areas was to be considered separately given the variable that might affect when other coverage came on line?!

Very fuzzy costs were quoted for ADS-B OUT ONLY, then benefits for ADS-B IN were quoted as benefits, and so it went on.

… Microair are quoting $2,800, how much less do you figure per unit if fleetwide and subsidy applies (less or more than a mode C/S TXPDR)??

Quoting C145/146 GNSS benefits as ADS-B benefits, when you get those benefits right now, with a C145/146 GPS in your preferred aerial locomotion device. In fact, both CASA studies were more about the benefits of C145/146 GPS, not ADS-B at all, [ as was/is the CAPSTONE case] but those responsible (I am told they no longer work for CASA) simply didn't understand the difference, or alternatively, "why let the facts spoil a good story", when " Ye' got 'ol time religion" about ADS-B, with such faith, who need facts.

… and your objection to the navigation, surveillance, and future enhancements available (to GA particularly) are? … what .. I asume you would rather everyone pay less than 100% for the GPS/ADS-B were subsidy available!?

The "left no doubt" case had costs of (again from memory ) for the program study period, $110m-200m v. highly dodgy indirect benefits of $22m -- with zero for those who would spend the money in fitting and maintenance.

.. please correct me if I am wrong … your figures above vary from those I have heard (I have not got them to hand so I will not guess) … they do not include the fitment subsidy for GA, or the savings to the big end of town and the infrastructure reduction of ADS-B(wamlat) vice MSSR radar (including install, maintenance, at life replacement), and not just current MSSR’s, the others that presumably are still required where C approach is above D zones!

Don't kid yourself about the benefits of the "5 mile separation standard" back of Black Stump, even the ASTRA 2025 projected traffic won't need "5m" to handle the traffic without delays outside the terminal areas.

…. I would be very interested in seeing the data for this assumption! ….. outside the terminal areas … have you spent much time in the mining triangle or QLD? … or seen the procedural workload of enroute controllers managing these areas? …. mores the point, it is easy to calculate (in isolation, as an estimate), where conflict pairs might or might not be restricted … it is entirely different to measure the delay in relaxing separation when large areas are being serviced (procedurally). Calculations and cross-checking required before ‘proving’ separation! … in other words, the benefits (in this case) flow if you can see the traffic, its is faster, less talk time with crews (position reports etc) and far far more efficient! .. again, I am not sure (as I was not involved in or directly aware of the methodologies used with this stuff) if it is applicable in the context of the information you have, although I have seen those sorts of omissions before! … accuracy is reliant on subject matter expert review across all affected areas!

At no stage was there a defined hazard/risk to which ADS-B was the/an answer, let alone the cost/benefit justified answer, just a raft of un-quantified assertions.

… is this the CASA CBA’s you are referring to?

The savings claimed originally for not replacing some of the remote SSR head, and other "Airservices" benefits of the ADS-B program resulted in a 0.8% savings on the Airservices bottom line, is/was 0.8% going to produce big service fees savings for the big airlines. Hardly.

…. Again, those figures seem odd compared to those I have heard bandied about, not withstanding, what does .8% P.A equate to? …. (in millions that is)

All this is public information.

… I am not being obtuse Bob, could you provide some links as I am having some difficulty finding the stuff you have referred to!

Finally, would somebody please list all the 1090ES ADS-B IN equipment available NOW, for retrofit to, say, Regional aircraft (hint-have a look at the published program for QF Regional -8's, and what it produces in $$$ terms) and GA aircraft, and cost. Unless you are suggesting that retrofitting Collins TDR-94D transponders and new Universal navigators comes cheap. Crikey!

… that’s the heart of the issue! No one is gunna do the hardware/software mod’s unless there is a need (market for it) … the market exist now, it is being announced all over the place (Canada one example), yet we sit and wait! ……. unless you think 1090ES is not going to be the international standard, and a market is not there .. why would we wait? ……. so you can buy one from Garmin (US) for 100% of the cost??

PS The ONLY RTCA standard that exists for using ADS-B/C 1090ES signals in TCAS 11 produces exactly the same readout/display/warnings as would a transponder Mode S input.

…. which confirms Honeywell has seen the writing on the wall! .. if we 'assume' for the sake of argument that existing manufacturers of Commercial avionics have prepared for it, does that not provide a pretty big clue about 1090 intended use?? ..... so what’s the issue for GA … (particularly if scaled by subsidy) for those currently without the baseline gear?
.
… no strings attached Bob, just want to clarify the points you have raised!
.
Cheers
.
Dog
.
Dick
.
.... did you receive a resonse to your letter to the Minister?
.
.... did you talk to the Minister, Advisers or DoTaRS/AsA or AOPA around the time of the letter?

[tobzalp]

Originally Posted by Dick

When we are up to speed on these safety requirements in Australia, I will certainly look at pushing for more onerous requirements for transponders.

So you would also support the compulsory issuing of binoculars to blind persons. Sure they have the gear but they will not be able to see anything

[gaunty]

That is a pretty simple and straightforward explanation. Do you understand it?

yeah it's really simple, whatever tobzalp said.
Whatever gets press.

Bob Murphie mate

Your post sounds too much like it was written by the ghost of Christmas past.

"The time has come the Walrus said to speak of many things
Of ideologues, polemicists and whether pigs have wings"

apologies to Lewis Carrol

[Bob Murphie]

Scurvy.D.Dog: Too socially excited to get back tonight, but will.

gaunty: All my own work. Please don't make me go through another lecture. You know where I stand with this stuff for GA. I have so much data that I am beyond copying and pasting, so give me a bit of editorial originality between the statements.

[Creampuff]

Despite the uncannily Leadsled-like ring to Bob’s post, and the uncharacteristic absence of Bob-like mixed and tortured metaphors, I think the substance of the post deserves serious debate (per SDD’s post).

[CaptainMidnight]

Despite the uncannily Leadsled-like ring to Bob’s post, and the uncharacteristic absence of Bob-like mixed and tortured metaphors, I think the substance of the post deserves serious debate

Agree - if the sources of the allegations are posted.

Otherwise .......

[gaunty]

Bob

You know where I stand with this stuff for GA.

of course and I respect that, lighten up.

But the days of accepting "received wisdom" from our self appointed betters are long gone.

I think Creamy feels a bit like SDD and myself, if there was a debate in the terms you discuss we didn't hear about it. One minute Airservices are selling low level ADSB like Persian carpet merchants, the esteemed and very professional Greg is wandering the bazzaars and souks (inc AOPA AGMs) spruiking the goods, even AOPA is canvassing for subsidised fitment, then KABLAAM It's stopped in its tracks.

Mr Smiths usual alarmist warnings about terrorist spoofing are coincident.

It's all too neat for a cynical old bugger like myself.

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

[Bob Murphie]

Fair go, I'm still in recovery mode and only half way finished the response to Dog. If my writing style hinders the discussion, a lot is copy from emails at hand. The various authors assure me they are not copyright.
How about you blokes dropping the conspiracy theories and blaming Dick, and think what the effect the reconstructed board and new senior management of Airservices has on consideration of ADSB. Is it merely a coincidence that the low level ADSB got 'KABLAAMED" soon after the new Airservices senior management got its feet under the table.
Check out their backgrounds before you blame anyone for my scribblings.
Dog;
At great risk of torturing some more metaphor's or sinning on my tax, I respond with what I can glean from my voluminous files and "lecture" notes, both longhand anectdotal, and copied.
1) Do I have information on the basis on which the 'new' management of AsA 'disowned' the business case.
It's not exactly a secret around the CASA/ SCC Airspace User Group/ Industry delegates/ AERU/ DOTARS/ Ministers Aviation Advisor.
2) What made it hapless and hopelessly flawed?
It consisted largely of unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions with a notable lack of hard facts and analysis. If you have read it and have some knowledge of the conventional processes for compiling a business case, and a reasonably detailed knowledge of Aust traffic distribution and airspace management, (as I think you do), it is all to obvious. One could be forgiven for the assumption that the 'case' started with the conclusion and worked backwards. That ol time religion again. Who wants to operate their aircraft on 'faith' rather than 'fact'. Not unlike over optimistic aircraft owners who decide 'the revenue will be' when what they really mean is 'the revenue must be or we go broke'.
3) Re CASA's cost/ benefits.
Have a really good look around the CASA website, most of the archives are now publicly available. Also the proceedings of the SCC and the Airspace Users group/ AERU. This information has been available to all the delegates to the SCC. Particularly look for Industry comments on DP's.
4) The second CASA study was inept.
No problems with costs there were costs aplenty, the cost/ benefit problem was the complete lack of benefits, starting with any quantifiable safety benefits that could be costed, such as X statistical lives times Y times $M (the value of a statistical life for regulatory purposes) saved from mid-airs that statistically didn't happen because of the ADSB program.
5) What were the other 'benefits' included?
Not much really, the 1.8 lives by the 'value of life' made up most of it, some claims to saved search costs, most of the rest was about GNSS benefits, C145/146 approved as a single aid at an alternate. All very 'constructed'. What was significant was the total lack of quantifiable ADSB benefits to operators. Lots of opinion/ assertation/ faith but little in the way of genuine data. Although masses of data is available, which data does not support the case. Have a look at the C v E levels analysis, that was properly done by Airservices, and the results were disregarded. Faith again, given thanks to ALARP for our deliverance from E-vil.
6) Initial ADSB coverage below A100 etc.
AMSAR/ AusSAR actually disputed the interpretation of their input (SCC records again) as 'interpretaed' by those now departed CASA. More to the point about coverage, if Airservices was not going to to track and record anything but IFR (in the system), and they have never said they were going to track VFR, unless somebody also paid for it, if VFR returns are suppressed, SAR wise the coverage doesn't matter.
7) Microair.
Please give me a written quote for a C145/ 145 GPS ADSB enabled Mode S transponder from Microair (not just their mode S transponder). You know, the 'real deal' and I will order them by the 100's and resell them to a Mate who will strip out the GPS chip and resell it for more than that.
8) Pay less than 100% for the GPS/ ADSB were a subsidy available.
No objection, but you cannot use the value of the benefits of GNSS that are relevant to ANY C145/ 146 GPS (Garmin 480) as benefits of ADSB, that is an invalid analysis, this is part of the problem, inexperienced people making up their own rules. Departments of Finance and The treasury are very good at cost/ benefit analysis, if you asked them for approval of a subsidy "for this bloody great idea', except that there is no business case, the numbers $$ don't stack up, without an almost 100% subsidy, nobody would buy it, what do you think the answer would be. ADSB isn't middle class welfare votes so forget it. There is no GNSS benefit of C145/ 146 to VFR, which is the vast bulk of aircraft in Aust, so you can't assert it in a cost/ benefit study for VFR. Please don't forget, no subsidy case was ever presented to the Airservices board, talks (propaganda) is cheap. Will there ever be a subsidy, I certainly don't know, nor does anyone else despite early assurances.
9) Big end of town and Infrastruction reduction.
Actually what savings to the big end of town? that was where the CASA first cost/ benefit fell down, when corrected for the decimal point error.ie. one tenth the originally claimed figures, the savings to major airlines were negligible. More to the point, even with all the original Airservices claimed cost saving, both capital and ongoing of fewer remote radars etc., with impressive $$$MMM claimed (now since greatly reduced because of that bloody decimal point), the net to Airservices was less than 1%, about 0.8%, for Airservices as a business. Who is going to turn a company on it's head, when it already has a very effective cash flow, for 0.8%. Certainly not the present management of Airservices I would bet. ADSB as long term evolution for it's major customers, yes certainly, but GA and the low level program well ?? Where is the data, the genuine demonstration of a problem to which 'mandated' ADSB is the answer.
10) The ASTRA 2025 projected traffic won't need 5m to handle the traffic.
Not an assumption but a conclusion by a major operator based on present and projected traffic levels. Perhaps the proper answer to this is not regulatory, but straight business, if there is a case for a change brought about in an area due to the mining boom, why not the same as roads and railways- everybody gets together to decide what they can all agree upon to do, and go spend the money and do it. The whole of Aust does not need to be visited with a solution needed in one area. Airservices is a commercial business, let it make an offer to provide the services claimed to be needed, if there is money to be made by the operators, won't they jump at it? High level en-route savings- if there are $$$ in it (like FANS-1 and RVSM) Qantas would be in like a shot, are they retrofitting ADSB to the big aircraft? No. If they come fitted great, but retrofit ??? ???
11) Is this CASA CBA I am referring to?
Start with the voluminous traffic data, and run the conflict models available. Not including the NAS 2b windback case- airline pilots with a 50% ATC error rate, but controllers with an error rate of 1:1,000,000 save me. No pilot is that bad, and the claimed controller standard is superhuman, ie bull$hit. See Professor O'Neills report for CASA on the NAS 2b safety case- A hazard for which mandatory ADSB is the mitigation simply doesn't emerge. And before you say it, I know NAS2b windback was not anything to do with ADSB but there was a lot of data analysis of actual collision data, the Airservices one was fun, 'somebody forgot' that most of the mid west of the USA is 5-6000' AMSL, all (but one) of the en-route collisions were at circuit height. What a 'Barney'. The VORTAC at Denver isn't called 'Mile High' for nothing. Gives a whole new meaning to the Mile High Club. Go to Leadville, you can join the Mile and a half High Club. (no I haven't been there).
12) SSR heads.
See above, just take the original wildly inflated claimed savings, as they were, and get a copy of the Airservices Annual Report, use their own figures, the usual conventions, DCF, capital return etc., you might well be surprised. Look also at the NZ example of radar replacement programs.
13) Public information.
Mostly look at the CASA archives publicly available, most will be there. Most of the ASTRA stuff is not too hard to come by, got any mates with a password to the AERU site for their information. Have a look for the published DP responses from AOPA, ASAC and other alphabets, particularly ASAC. It's a mass of stuff, but it's all there.
14) Standards and markets.
Thats not an answer to the question,is it. There are three ICAO ADSB standards. Most of the ATA standards equipment doesn't need anything better than C129A GPS because they are hybrid systems- IRS/ FMCS, where GPS is just an update, where the C129 stand alone RAIM limitations don't apply. There is no doubt that 1090ES will become/ is the international airline standard, for a new build aircraft, but what price for GA. There will be plenty of UAT, USA is the only 'mass market' but that won't be much use here. Don't discount VDL-4, it's vying with multi-lateration for the ground collision avoidance market, we wouldn't want every moving object on the airport squittering Mode S would we, given the very limited number of transponder codes. What would be cheaper, Airservices using dual/ triple mode re-transmitters (like FAA), allowing a choice of system for operators, or the subsidy route for 1090ES, because there is no non airline mass market to get the price down. So once again, where is the C145/146 ADSB enabled 1090ES transponder, OUT and IN/OUT I can buy now, at any price. A handful of aircraft in Aust isn't a market. As for subsidies where are they??
15) The issue for GA.
The whole point of the comment you refer is that most -8's and up will get no more than they get now with other aircraft having a Mode A/C transponder, and so far the 1090ES equipment you speak of is "only just around the corner' -- still.

[gaunty]

Bob

And a right fine lot they are too. And without demeaning their obviously high level skills and abilities, how many Boards do we have to change before we get one that fully aligns with certain individuals views?

You'll forgive, us but you must agree we have been fed a steady diet of rhetoric, polemic, horsefeathers and self belief by sometime airspace enthusiasts for too long.

Leave the professionals alone to do what they are good at and selected for, second guessing and running a half baked Greek chorus alongside their efforts is not productive.

The continual sniping and media heroics does nothing to promote the industry nor participation in it and the assumption that we somehow need "saving" from "them" is IMHO not only ill founded but extremely arrogant.

On the one hand we are told the US airspace system is the "gold" standard and on the other hand some of it "remains to be seen", confused I am.

Nobody, not one single individual has a right or mandate to dictate what should or should not be happening in any area of Govt or Public Service. That right belongs to Government and the professional Public Service ultimately at the ballot box. I think you and I might agree that the only way one can really make a difference in that regard is to take personal responsibility by standing up and actually being counted and that can only happen at the ballot box. There are only two ways to go, either hector and bully from the sidelines or get elected and take the responsibility and your chances. All else is puffery.

Back to the thread, so far we are still waiting for the circle of safety to be closed on TCAS for ALL Australians, including those that work in the mining industry who whilst very small number in relation to the total population produce a very significant portion of the GNP.

So far we are up to the point where Mr Smith is demanding TCAS for all Public Transport aircraft which includes the 10-30 seat FIFO operators, a move that would be difficult NOT to applaud, but will not unequivocally demand the very same safety standards from GA aircraft flying in their immediate vicinity tobzalp got it in one.

[propnut]

I had a friend who was threatened to receive a fine by CASA for not having a radio operators certificate. Eventually he contacted the person direct to tell them that his Piper Cub does NOT have a radio as it has no electrical system. He was told that they assumed all aircraft had radios(and electrical systems)

I have several friends in this class of aircraft and they want to continue in this way.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!
AND if you aren't paying for it, don't expect me to!!

[bushy]

Luscome ?

Some years ago I flew a Luscome which also did not have radio, or a gyro instrument, a starter motor, or any electrical system. It's a bit hard to fit whizzbang electronics in those, just because someone else wants you to.

[peuce]

Bob Murphie, you said about the ADS-B Business Case:

"It consisted largely of unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions with a notable lack of hard facts and analysis. If you have read it and have some knowledge of the conventional processes for compiling a business case, and a reasonably detailed knowledge of Aust traffic distribution and airspace management, (as I think you do), it is all to obvious. One could be forgiven for the assumption that the 'case' started with the conclusion and worked backwards."

I can't help but also attribute that description to the case put by creator of this thread ...

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I detect some of my arguments against you on another forum, Bob. Mate, you know you are only arguing for your own personal form of aviating. Big brother couldn't really give a fig about what we do. However, what we do COULD cause a lot of heartache whilst we go about aviating with the least amount of costs and regulation.

My arguments on that thread for the case were also gleaned from learned peoples from other lands. The benefits are not fictional, they did exists. The stats are there. LIVES were saved!

Edit-another coincidence, ABIT is sitting again on the 15th to restart dialogue after a year.

[bushy]

Whose airspace??

Quote
And I'll support mandatory TCAS for 10-30 seat RPT's and charter if you support mandatory transpoders in all aircraft sharing THEIR airspace.
Unquote

Who says they own the airspace. I thought the airspace belonged to the Australian public, not any particular group of operators.

[gaunty]

OK lets try it this way then.

And I'll support mandatory transpoders in all aircraft sharing airspace with 10-30 seat RPT's and charter if you support mandatory TCAS for them.

I agree the airspace belongs to the Australian public in the same way as the national road sytem.
But nobody complains about Australian Compliance Standards for the vehicles that use them which although undoubtedly means extra costs undoubtedly saves lives. Or dont we need these excessive costs out there in the GAFA.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Take the time folks, it is all here. Some of the downloads will take a while on slow connections …. Start em and get a coffee … ruff up the kids or whatever in the interim … it will be worth your while.

This will put the technical arguments to bed for ever! …… for UAT .. even the yanks have given it away by the looks!

Raytheon .. Feb 07’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...2007/ROLFE.ppt

ADS-B Benefits for Commercial … Feb 07’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...GROPPFELDT.ppt

GA Avionics Development .. Feb 07’
http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...07/STEVENS.ppt

Sweden GA ADS-B … Feb 07’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...n%20Sweden.pdf

IAOPA Nov 06’ …. Interesting views on freq saturation that has been addressed by Raytheon in the Feb 07 PPT

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...pectations.pdf

Honeywell …. Nov 06’ …… has issues with UAT …. ‘in’ is in for GA!

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...20Aviation.pdf

Rockwell Collins Business Aviation .. Nov 06’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...plications.pdf

Becker Avionics GA … Nov 06’

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...%20to%20GA.pdf

Selex Avionics (commercial and GA) … Nov 06’ Low cost GA Gliders etc

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...e%20System.pdf

Euro Telematik … Nov 06’ …. Avionics GA ….. yet another that saw the opportunities

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...or%20ADS-B.pdf

…….. and a host of other stuff here

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/p..._public.html#5

…… the financial and safety justifications are far and wide .. in the Oz context, there are some revealing insights available …. I need to tin plate my ass before I post it though TBA.

….. I hope the baseless self interested ‘meddling’ of a few has not left our avionics manufacturers and the industry in general out in the cold … if so, heads should roll ASAP!

Cheers

[gaunty]

Scurvy me old.

Thanks for that.

Not sure I saw this one in the above list and it sure is revealing.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/g...louse_2006.pdf

The Airservices link in the last page seems not surprisingly to have disappeared??

I might be missing something but but it seemed to me that not only were we up there with the rest of the world on this but actually leading it in some areas.

Page 31 sorta said it all. I simply refuse to believe that we had it that wrong, but then you are only an anonymous therefore not credible un Australian Class D Tower controller and I'm just a dumb un Australian salesman, so what would we know.?

I do hope the esteemed Mr Dunstone hasn't been banished to Christmas Island as the maintenance officer. perhaps we should send him some care parcels

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ABIT is meeting again on the 15th in Canberra. Mr Dunstone is still the appointed chair. Will be interesting to see what has developed over the last twelve months.

To Dick and Bob and Bill and Tony. Guys, you would have to be blind to see the benefits available now and in the future from this one system. Dick, I cannot understand why you continue to push for a system that may well be going the same way as NDBs.

The Big Sky Theory is dead, compliments of the GNSS. ADS-B plus whatever variety of VDL is going to be the future.