Airservices GBAS announcement – a disaster for GA
Unless I'm reading the reports incorrectly, The Airservices Annual Reports 1998 (can't find an earlier one) and 2006 show the following:
1998
ATC: 211
FSO: 23
2006
ATC: 981
Flightwatch: 81
I'm not an accountant, but I don't see a lot of savings there.
1998
ATC: 211
FSO: 23
2006
ATC: 981
Flightwatch: 81
I'm not an accountant, but I don't see a lot of savings there.
As pointed out by a fellow Pruner, I DID misread the document.
Should be more like this:
1998
ATC: 1174
FS/Flightwatch: 275
2006
ATC: 981
Flightwatch: 81
Anyone lend me a towell ... so I can wipe this egg off my face ??
Should be more like this:
1998
ATC: 1174
FS/Flightwatch: 275
2006
ATC: 981
Flightwatch: 81
Anyone lend me a towell ... so I can wipe this egg off my face ??
... the clock ticks !!
Bloggs,
My dear chap, you really shouldn’t let your Richard Harold prejudices get in the way of the facts.
When the 1996 CASA Review started, Mr. Justice Bill Fisher was the Chairman of the CASA Board, RHS and his offsider basically opposed the whole shooting match.
When Dick became Chairman (one M. Vaile Esq., Minister) he didn’t exactly encourage the continuation of the Review, it was terminated.
Tootle pip!!
My dear chap, you really shouldn’t let your Richard Harold prejudices get in the way of the facts.
When the 1996 CASA Review started, Mr. Justice Bill Fisher was the Chairman of the CASA Board, RHS and his offsider basically opposed the whole shooting match.
When Dick became Chairman (one M. Vaile Esq., Minister) he didn’t exactly encourage the continuation of the Review, it was terminated.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I prepared this reply for Bob Murphie's thread on the same but it dissappeared before I hit the send button. It provided a bit more detail to dick's usual hysterical dot points. Well I'm posting my reply here anyway.
All sounds sensible and reasonable, but how reliable are the assumptions involved?
What comprises 'adequate'? What portions of the country would not have adequate coverage?
It would seem most likely that these northern hemisphere countries would arrange the footprint of what coverage there is to suit them rather than us. Geostationary sattelites are not omnidirectional AFAIK. I'm sure they COULD be pointed in such a way to facilitate coverage, but is there any evidence to suggest they MIGHT? If not, how are the costings looking then?
All sounds sensible and reasonable, but how reliable are the assumptions involved?
Japan and Europe are producing WAAS compatible satellites which will ensure adequate coverage for Australia
It would seem most likely that these northern hemisphere countries would arrange the footprint of what coverage there is to suit them rather than us. Geostationary sattelites are not omnidirectional AFAIK. I'm sure they COULD be pointed in such a way to facilitate coverage, but is there any evidence to suggest they MIGHT? If not, how are the costings looking then?
Folks,
Just a tip for the unwary.
Don't confuse GBAS and GRAS (ain't acronyms accurate).
The way I understand it, GBAS is the new name for LAAS, the limited area cousin of WAAS, and works with a wide range of existing production equipment.
GRAS is quite different, and requires a VHF datalink to a suitably equipped aircraft, I don't think the GBAS mentioned in Germany has much to do with the GRAS Airservices is promoting.
The total number of available GRAS receivers suitable for GA aircraft is precisely zero, in contrast to WAAS as GBAS.
If I misunderstand, I am certain somebody will point it out.
Tootle pip!!
Just a tip for the unwary.
Don't confuse GBAS and GRAS (ain't acronyms accurate).
The way I understand it, GBAS is the new name for LAAS, the limited area cousin of WAAS, and works with a wide range of existing production equipment.
GRAS is quite different, and requires a VHF datalink to a suitably equipped aircraft, I don't think the GBAS mentioned in Germany has much to do with the GRAS Airservices is promoting.
The total number of available GRAS receivers suitable for GA aircraft is precisely zero, in contrast to WAAS as GBAS.
If I misunderstand, I am certain somebody will point it out.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly would not agree with Bob's assessment of the article being excellent or with a lot of the assertions the article contains.
However, the point does remain that if Australia is to gain acess to APVs then some form of augmentation is needed. What form that augmentation takes?.......well I believe that is being investigated.
JFJ,
Have a look at here. It shows the MTSAT satellite systems as having an area of coverage over Australia. Whether the MTSAT Satellite Augmentation System (MSAS) will cover Australia...who knows.
Dick,
Leadsled makes a valid point.
Are you seriously objecting to the Honeywell GBAS like that in Sydney that will eventually be certified to provide CAT I approach guidance or is it really the Ground Based Regional Augmentation System (GRAS) that you have a problem with?
Your arguments will have more credibility if you get your facts straight.
However, the point does remain that if Australia is to gain acess to APVs then some form of augmentation is needed. What form that augmentation takes?.......well I believe that is being investigated.
JFJ,
Have a look at here. It shows the MTSAT satellite systems as having an area of coverage over Australia. Whether the MTSAT Satellite Augmentation System (MSAS) will cover Australia...who knows.
Dick,
Leadsled makes a valid point.
Are you seriously objecting to the Honeywell GBAS like that in Sydney that will eventually be certified to provide CAT I approach guidance or is it really the Ground Based Regional Augmentation System (GRAS) that you have a problem with?
Your arguments will have more credibility if you get your facts straight.
Last edited by GaryGnu; 26th Mar 2007 at 07:35. Reason: To account for Leadsleds post
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a pity! While I am never likely to fly an IFR approach, even my $120.00 GPS has WAAS - accuracy quoted as 3.0 m with WAAS and 15m without. We seem to be going down the usual Australian "Not invented here" track so that the boffins concerned can earn their Ph D's.
Frankly, in this case the tail is wagging the dog because there are a heck of a lot of people who would like their GPS's to have WAAS corrections and very few of them are pilots. The Federal Government should be doing a full blown economic analysis of the business case because I suspect the economic impact of WAAS outside aviation would be ten to twenty times the aviation impact. For a start, factor in the costs of the DGPS system used by the marine industry, let alone the agricultural industry.
So I again ask the same old question, beloved of good management, "Why the f&ck don't we simply buy an existing proven solution off the shelf, rather than exposing ourselves to the risk of developing a unique "Australian" solution, whose "advantages" may prove illusory and expensive if they exist at all?"
The usual result is hundreds of millions spent developing a technically brilliant solution that is 100% matched to the Australian environment. We then try and sell it overseas only to find that the rest of the world prefers a system that is a 90% fit to what the rest of the world wants at 50% of the cost of what we are proposing.
I eagerly await an answer. I guess Australian air must be different from the U.S., or maybe signals don't propagate through our brand of ether.
Frankly, in this case the tail is wagging the dog because there are a heck of a lot of people who would like their GPS's to have WAAS corrections and very few of them are pilots. The Federal Government should be doing a full blown economic analysis of the business case because I suspect the economic impact of WAAS outside aviation would be ten to twenty times the aviation impact. For a start, factor in the costs of the DGPS system used by the marine industry, let alone the agricultural industry.
So I again ask the same old question, beloved of good management, "Why the f&ck don't we simply buy an existing proven solution off the shelf, rather than exposing ourselves to the risk of developing a unique "Australian" solution, whose "advantages" may prove illusory and expensive if they exist at all?"
The usual result is hundreds of millions spent developing a technically brilliant solution that is 100% matched to the Australian environment. We then try and sell it overseas only to find that the rest of the world prefers a system that is a 90% fit to what the rest of the world wants at 50% of the cost of what we are proposing.
I eagerly await an answer. I guess Australian air must be different from the U.S., or maybe signals don't propagate through our brand of ether.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices and Wide Area Augmentation System
Many may not have seen the excellent article written by Peter Wordsworth in relation to the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and why Airservices don't seem to be heading in the US direction.
It makes really interesting reading and can be seen here. http://mooney.org.au/files/GPS-the_WAAS_that_WAS_.pdf
Many may not have seen the excellent article written by Peter Wordsworth in relation to the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and why Airservices don't seem to be heading in the US direction.
It makes really interesting reading and can be seen here. http://mooney.org.au/files/GPS-the_WAAS_that_WAS_.pdf
GaryGnu,
Like I said, traps for the unwary.
Airservices has done a deal on GRAS --- not GBAS (nee WAAS/LAAS).
Therefore, unless you have the compatible TSO/STC VHF datalink (and undoubtedly the AA access code for charging you for the service) feeding the GPS you can't yet buy at any price, there will not be any augmentation for you in Australia.
Dick is objecting to GRAS, not the already widely used WAAS/GBAS.
GBAS gives the same result over as small area as WAAS over a large area, the aircraft equipment for WAAS/LAAS/GBAS is all the same.
As far as I can see, both systems will produce the same accuracies (GBAS is proven, GRAS is in development) for precision approaches.
Tootle pip!!
PS: DGPS is already widely available in Australia.
Like I said, traps for the unwary.
Airservices has done a deal on GRAS --- not GBAS (nee WAAS/LAAS).
Therefore, unless you have the compatible TSO/STC VHF datalink (and undoubtedly the AA access code for charging you for the service) feeding the GPS you can't yet buy at any price, there will not be any augmentation for you in Australia.
Dick is objecting to GRAS, not the already widely used WAAS/GBAS.
GBAS gives the same result over as small area as WAAS over a large area, the aircraft equipment for WAAS/LAAS/GBAS is all the same.
As far as I can see, both systems will produce the same accuracies (GBAS is proven, GRAS is in development) for precision approaches.
Tootle pip!!
PS: DGPS is already widely available in Australia.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope you can read this Dick, and then send a letter to the powers that be because this is a disgrace.
I fail to see why one tiny little Government organisation (ASA) is making decisions about the provision of a service purely on the basis of its own tiny aviation requirements when GPS usage outside of RPT aviation dwarfs that activity.
Try the Mining, Agriculture, Transport and Marine industries for starters. What is the economic value of more accurate GPS to them? Where is the study?
Do you understand that agribusiness now uses GPS in harvesters to continuously monitor yields as it harvests grain? Do you know that this information is then used by similarly equipped fertiliser spreaders to maximise yields?
Do you understand that almost very taxi and truck in the country is fitted with GPS? Do you understand what supply chain management is? Do you understand about rail and road condition monitoring via high speed digital cameras linked to GPS?
There is an infinity of GPS applications being developed for industry and the economic effect of GPS accuracy on the overall economy needs to be estimated before ANY decision is made about WAAS, and it sounds once again that a tiny minority with a particular application that is hardly even needed is dictating policy that will effect everyone.
GPS and WAAS - Its not just about Aviation!!!!!!!!
Again what will probably happen is exactly what happened to Australian DME, and here is how it will happen;
This time overseas software developers will build a raft of software applications that rely on WAAS. Australian software designers will be locked out of this market because we don't use WAAS here.
Then five years from now, the Mining and Agriculture lobbies wanting to use the latest systems to maintain their competitiveness, will force the Federal Government to install WAAS - and then the "Australian" solution gras or whatever it is, will be another expensive waste of time.
DGPS by the way, involves an extra antenna and beacon receiver, both of which are a total inconvenience unless you are on a yacht. I'm not sure that Garmin even makes the GBR 21 anymore.
For fecks sake go for international standards, just about every GPS sold today is WAAS enabled. Japan is on Board, America uses it and I think Egnos may use it too. Why do we always have to be out of step?
I fail to see why one tiny little Government organisation (ASA) is making decisions about the provision of a service purely on the basis of its own tiny aviation requirements when GPS usage outside of RPT aviation dwarfs that activity.
Try the Mining, Agriculture, Transport and Marine industries for starters. What is the economic value of more accurate GPS to them? Where is the study?
Do you understand that agribusiness now uses GPS in harvesters to continuously monitor yields as it harvests grain? Do you know that this information is then used by similarly equipped fertiliser spreaders to maximise yields?
Do you understand that almost very taxi and truck in the country is fitted with GPS? Do you understand what supply chain management is? Do you understand about rail and road condition monitoring via high speed digital cameras linked to GPS?
There is an infinity of GPS applications being developed for industry and the economic effect of GPS accuracy on the overall economy needs to be estimated before ANY decision is made about WAAS, and it sounds once again that a tiny minority with a particular application that is hardly even needed is dictating policy that will effect everyone.
GPS and WAAS - Its not just about Aviation!!!!!!!!
Again what will probably happen is exactly what happened to Australian DME, and here is how it will happen;
This time overseas software developers will build a raft of software applications that rely on WAAS. Australian software designers will be locked out of this market because we don't use WAAS here.
Then five years from now, the Mining and Agriculture lobbies wanting to use the latest systems to maintain their competitiveness, will force the Federal Government to install WAAS - and then the "Australian" solution gras or whatever it is, will be another expensive waste of time.
DGPS by the way, involves an extra antenna and beacon receiver, both of which are a total inconvenience unless you are on a yacht. I'm not sure that Garmin even makes the GBR 21 anymore.
For fecks sake go for international standards, just about every GPS sold today is WAAS enabled. Japan is on Board, America uses it and I think Egnos may use it too. Why do we always have to be out of step?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going to talk about big picture stuff, then you need to talk about the basis of policy.
Maybe the government should be doing what's good for the country, rather than what can be cost recovered under user pays? Round and round.....
Maybe the government should be doing what's good for the country, rather than what can be cost recovered under user pays? Round and round.....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost recovery
I wish I could persuade a few million people to pay me lots of money to set up a monopoly business which then sells things to the same people and makes good profits from them.
Our government is involved in "cost recovery".
They should be making enough money to pay costs.
Their purpose is not to make profits from us. It is to provide necessary services to us and recover the costs.
Our government is involved in "cost recovery".
They should be making enough money to pay costs.
Their purpose is not to make profits from us. It is to provide necessary services to us and recover the costs.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
User pays?
It appears that our government agencies
(businesses) are only interested in the big operators that run up and down the east coast. So what's new. They appear to be setting up a unique system that is useful to a few operators, in a small area of the country. So that's where the money should come from. Totally. The major airlines should pay ALL of the cost of the GRAS and ADSB. It's only for them.
Conversly, if they were to install the wide area system (as they should) that is useful to most of Australia's population, and would almost certainly have prevented the Lockhart River accident, then the whole country should pay for it. It is a national asset.
A long time ago, there were many DME equipped aircraft flying around Australia that could not use their DME except in the vicinity of one or two capital cities, because the ground stations were of a unique Australian type that would not work with their on board equipment. Eventually the system was changed to the international system.
It looks like we are going to do the same thing again.
(businesses) are only interested in the big operators that run up and down the east coast. So what's new. They appear to be setting up a unique system that is useful to a few operators, in a small area of the country. So that's where the money should come from. Totally. The major airlines should pay ALL of the cost of the GRAS and ADSB. It's only for them.
Conversly, if they were to install the wide area system (as they should) that is useful to most of Australia's population, and would almost certainly have prevented the Lockhart River accident, then the whole country should pay for it. It is a national asset.
A long time ago, there were many DME equipped aircraft flying around Australia that could not use their DME except in the vicinity of one or two capital cities, because the ground stations were of a unique Australian type that would not work with their on board equipment. Eventually the system was changed to the international system.
It looks like we are going to do the same thing again.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- ADS-B is not an Australian technology, it is an international technology.
- ADS-B is not a new technology. It is currently in use.
- ADS-B in each aircraft is a transponder, a Mode S - Extended Squitter.
ADS-B would have provided Australia something that it will never have with RADAR.... continental surveillance coverage.
And one more thing... RADAR is not, and has never been, an accurate technology throughout the coverage. RADAR is a WWII technology. RADAR is only accurate close to the RADAR site. RADAR accuracy diminishes significantly with range (ie. the further the aircraft or object is from the RADAR site, the less accurate the information displayed to the controller is).
- ADS-B is accurate, regardless of the distance of the aircraft from the ADS-B antenna.
- ADS-B is more accurate than RADAR.
- ADS-B has no moving parts.
- ADS-B in Australia is one letter-from-Dick Smith-to-the-Minister away from reality.
Last edited by Quokka; 29th Mar 2007 at 11:45. Reason: clarification
ADS-B in Australia is one letter-from-Dick Smith-to-the-Minister away from reality.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...including General Aviation. In fact, the Low-Level phase of the ADS-B project would have provided surveillance services to General Aviation across a vast area of Australia that will never see a surveillance service using RADAR
Great post Quokka
Seriously we need to exted this WWII technology; it matches the airspace design; or at least where it is headed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who needs to?
ASA and the airlines need it. They should pay for it.
Also, we have already seen how radio transmissions have been used for commercial purposes for landing fees, and this has reduced trust in what should be a safety system. There are demonstrated errors and problems with this.
Will ADSB be used as a commercial tool? Will this compromise it's percieved integrity, as has happened with radio?
Also, we have already seen how radio transmissions have been used for commercial purposes for landing fees, and this has reduced trust in what should be a safety system. There are demonstrated errors and problems with this.
Will ADSB be used as a commercial tool? Will this compromise it's percieved integrity, as has happened with radio?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much as I agree with what I think are Quokka’s sentiments, I must pick him/her up on the comment that ADS-B 1090ES is not GPS.
Only TSO-C145/146-compliant GPS receivers will be permitted in Australia for use with ADS-B 1090ES. (Refer NPRM 0601AS and draft AC 21-045). There is one (apparent) exception for general aviation, being the Honeywell KLN 94 and KT73 combination used in the Queensland trial, which was included in the last draft of the AC.
This requirement makes GPS a major factor in the ADS-B solution. Aside from the KLN94/KT73 combination, it appears that there are currently no certified general aviation solutions which would meet the requirements. There are a few products in development and there are some uncertified units on the market, but these would not appear to meet the Australian requirements. This is quite apart from the 1090ES transponder component.
It seems that Garmin is the only manufacturer of GPS receivers which can be realistically installed in GA aircraft and satisfy the TSO C145/146 standards. The vast majority of installed GPS navigators were manufactured to TSO-C129a (or lesser/no standard). Some Garmin 430 and 530 units will be upgraded to TSO-C145/146 but even if they all were, that will still only account for a portion of the installed base. It is not possible for any handheld or portable units to ever meet those standards. This means that we can’t have ADS-B 1090ES without replacing most existing GPS navigators or installing another, new, GPS navigator in general aviation aircraft.
I’d suggest that the most significant factor will be what happens to Raytheon’s bid to provide ADS-B services in the US. That company has basically told the FAA to forget UAT and implement 1090ES at lower levels as well as upper airspace. If that succeeds, the availability and cost of 1090ES ADS-B products for general aviation will become much more attractive very rapidly. Without access to the US market, it will be very difficult for 1090ES products in general aviation to succeed.
No matter how influential he or others consider he is, I doubt any number of phone calls from Dick Smith can change the outcome.
This thread is full of very muddled thinking. GBAS/GRAS presents entirely different problems to ADS-B. The same influential person who began this thread seems to think that using WAAS in Australia will only need some “arrangements” to use a Japanese satellite. What he doesn’t say is that for Australian coverage, those “arrangements” would need 25-30 WAAS reference ground stations. The cost of establishing these “arrangements” would be enormous. Who is going to pay for that?
Sadly, there is way too much emotion in this discussion to ever get anywhere. Many exponents, who should know better, seem happy to run these arguments with disregard for the facts of regulatory and market realities in the hope that the support of the naïve and ill-informed will somehow make it right. It won’t.
Only TSO-C145/146-compliant GPS receivers will be permitted in Australia for use with ADS-B 1090ES. (Refer NPRM 0601AS and draft AC 21-045). There is one (apparent) exception for general aviation, being the Honeywell KLN 94 and KT73 combination used in the Queensland trial, which was included in the last draft of the AC.
This requirement makes GPS a major factor in the ADS-B solution. Aside from the KLN94/KT73 combination, it appears that there are currently no certified general aviation solutions which would meet the requirements. There are a few products in development and there are some uncertified units on the market, but these would not appear to meet the Australian requirements. This is quite apart from the 1090ES transponder component.
It seems that Garmin is the only manufacturer of GPS receivers which can be realistically installed in GA aircraft and satisfy the TSO C145/146 standards. The vast majority of installed GPS navigators were manufactured to TSO-C129a (or lesser/no standard). Some Garmin 430 and 530 units will be upgraded to TSO-C145/146 but even if they all were, that will still only account for a portion of the installed base. It is not possible for any handheld or portable units to ever meet those standards. This means that we can’t have ADS-B 1090ES without replacing most existing GPS navigators or installing another, new, GPS navigator in general aviation aircraft.
I’d suggest that the most significant factor will be what happens to Raytheon’s bid to provide ADS-B services in the US. That company has basically told the FAA to forget UAT and implement 1090ES at lower levels as well as upper airspace. If that succeeds, the availability and cost of 1090ES ADS-B products for general aviation will become much more attractive very rapidly. Without access to the US market, it will be very difficult for 1090ES products in general aviation to succeed.
No matter how influential he or others consider he is, I doubt any number of phone calls from Dick Smith can change the outcome.
This thread is full of very muddled thinking. GBAS/GRAS presents entirely different problems to ADS-B. The same influential person who began this thread seems to think that using WAAS in Australia will only need some “arrangements” to use a Japanese satellite. What he doesn’t say is that for Australian coverage, those “arrangements” would need 25-30 WAAS reference ground stations. The cost of establishing these “arrangements” would be enormous. Who is going to pay for that?
Sadly, there is way too much emotion in this discussion to ever get anywhere. Many exponents, who should know better, seem happy to run these arguments with disregard for the facts of regulatory and market realities in the hope that the support of the naïve and ill-informed will somehow make it right. It won’t.
