View Poll Results: Which ADS-B scenario do you support?
Scenario 1 (Status quo)
25
12.69%
Scenario 2 (subsidised-60% VFR fleet fitment)
8
4.06%
Scenario 3 (subsidised-90% VFR fleet fitment)
164
83.25%
Voters: 197. This poll is closed
ADS-B + Subsidy - It's on the table - Submn's close 31 Oct
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy's reply is brief and erudite. Sorry gentlemen, you continue to confuse. As an addition, I can't see anything that takes account of RAA-type aircraft. Do they qualify for the subsidy? It's a burgeoning, as opposed to a shrinking, market. What effect does this have on the CBA? If a Jabiru, for example, isn't included, and flys into a CTAF that has ADS-B coverage for VH-registered aircraft (that are subject to the subsidy), what's the point of giving traffic information when the unknown RAA aircraft will make just as big a hole in the RPT. I may be a dumb-ass, and maybe there's an answer, but I can't see it unless everyone has the gear.
I don't have any desire to get into a 'pissing competition', I couldn't hold a candle to people on this forum who are across the technical aspects, but I continue to feel dubious about the benefits. I suppose I ask simple questions and want simple answers. It's a bit like the regs!
I don't have any desire to get into a 'pissing competition', I couldn't hold a candle to people on this forum who are across the technical aspects, but I continue to feel dubious about the benefits. I suppose I ask simple questions and want simple answers. It's a bit like the regs!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cantborough
Age: 58
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies - I'm still working though the reams of information on this and I hope this has not already been covered off.
1. If we are considering this as a National Project (National Airspace System, National ATS System etc) should we not also include the cost to Military (Flying, ATC, ADGE elements) both in $ and in loss of traffic priority and effective surveillance should they decide not to participate (partly or fully). This will provide National cost benefit!
2. Is Airservices the best organisation to administer the voucher system, do they have the skills, knowledge, capability and to avoid an ASIC like debacle? How will appeals be managed - are Airservices the best organisation to provide impartial judgment? Do they have a recruitment plan to cope with this and is the administration cost of this fully contextualized?
3. Has a risk analysis been conducted on the micro and macro effects of removal of enroute SSR and navaids to pilot and ATC workload and complexity both with the advent of increased mix of separation standards, increased mix of aircraft navaids, priorities, both with the new technology working and if the new system implementation is delayed or fails? Do most air traffic controllers have the primary skills to calculate procedural standards that they may lose with the loss of enroute and ADS-B surveillance or will this be another dump a la Flightwatch? Will more staff be required to manage and provide the service. Consequent effect on industry. The normal blowout of costs?
These are some of the things that could become reality and I would like some confidence that the analysis is not reverse engineered to secure some other agenda. The bottom line is that if this is and honest and objective risk based analysis that argues for national benefit then it will stand up on its own merit - if not !!!!!!!!!!!!
1. If we are considering this as a National Project (National Airspace System, National ATS System etc) should we not also include the cost to Military (Flying, ATC, ADGE elements) both in $ and in loss of traffic priority and effective surveillance should they decide not to participate (partly or fully). This will provide National cost benefit!
2. Is Airservices the best organisation to administer the voucher system, do they have the skills, knowledge, capability and to avoid an ASIC like debacle? How will appeals be managed - are Airservices the best organisation to provide impartial judgment? Do they have a recruitment plan to cope with this and is the administration cost of this fully contextualized?
3. Has a risk analysis been conducted on the micro and macro effects of removal of enroute SSR and navaids to pilot and ATC workload and complexity both with the advent of increased mix of separation standards, increased mix of aircraft navaids, priorities, both with the new technology working and if the new system implementation is delayed or fails? Do most air traffic controllers have the primary skills to calculate procedural standards that they may lose with the loss of enroute and ADS-B surveillance or will this be another dump a la Flightwatch? Will more staff be required to manage and provide the service. Consequent effect on industry. The normal blowout of costs?
These are some of the things that could become reality and I would like some confidence that the analysis is not reverse engineered to secure some other agenda. The bottom line is that if this is and honest and objective risk based analysis that argues for national benefit then it will stand up on its own merit - if not !!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that 44 Wing's observation is closer to the truth than I previously realised. The term 'reverse engineering' seems to sum it up. Let's build a case for a pre-determined outcome. Would SDDog care to comment?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cantborough
Age: 58
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK done a bit more reading now and this is complex - waaay beyond my lifetime to pick up all the 1090, UAT, 145/146 ad nauseum variables.
One thing that does bother me though is an apparent or otherwise lack of risk assessment. I am getting the feeling that people (!) are choosing not to comply with rule of law (Airspace, CASR Part 171 CASR Part 172). That I just don't get. How can this possibly get past CASA, as the regulator, as the auditor and the compliance watchdog without due process in compliance? Every risk assessment does not need to be quantitative, dependent upon data, otherwise the majority of risk assessments would be after the fact voiding the point. Most of my risk assessments have pushed through the process, used an honest array of stakeholders and a realistic context and outcome has always provided optimum solution and this is proven in outcome. That is why risk assessment is required by law - because it works and it protects. As with NAS I cannot understand why project managers are so reluctant to use risk assessment to support their case; is it the workload or a lack of knowledge of risk assessment or because the outcome may be preordained in a non-preferred direction.
I am neither detractor nor supporter of this but I do want some governance over how my tax dollars are being spent. If project cost is about $200M, without blowout, and without considering national impact for expense of Defence dollars (ie about another $90 to $180M) then a decent risk assessment as required by Australian law and a Cost Benefit Analysis will prove value.
There also seems to be some doubt about compliance by internationals and not just the airline traffic; how will this be managed? Also, I understand (but am yet to analyse) some discrepancy between the JCP and what is actually intended and cost assessed. Were these two documents not cross-matched by the project team prior to publish or is the audience misunderstanding this.
As one who bought an 8 track I am still smarting at the rush I made to a better system that turned out to be the popular dud!
One thing that does bother me though is an apparent or otherwise lack of risk assessment. I am getting the feeling that people (!) are choosing not to comply with rule of law (Airspace, CASR Part 171 CASR Part 172). That I just don't get. How can this possibly get past CASA, as the regulator, as the auditor and the compliance watchdog without due process in compliance? Every risk assessment does not need to be quantitative, dependent upon data, otherwise the majority of risk assessments would be after the fact voiding the point. Most of my risk assessments have pushed through the process, used an honest array of stakeholders and a realistic context and outcome has always provided optimum solution and this is proven in outcome. That is why risk assessment is required by law - because it works and it protects. As with NAS I cannot understand why project managers are so reluctant to use risk assessment to support their case; is it the workload or a lack of knowledge of risk assessment or because the outcome may be preordained in a non-preferred direction.
I am neither detractor nor supporter of this but I do want some governance over how my tax dollars are being spent. If project cost is about $200M, without blowout, and without considering national impact for expense of Defence dollars (ie about another $90 to $180M) then a decent risk assessment as required by Australian law and a Cost Benefit Analysis will prove value.
There also seems to be some doubt about compliance by internationals and not just the airline traffic; how will this be managed? Also, I understand (but am yet to analyse) some discrepancy between the JCP and what is actually intended and cost assessed. Were these two documents not cross-matched by the project team prior to publish or is the audience misunderstanding this.
As one who bought an 8 track I am still smarting at the rush I made to a better system that turned out to be the popular dud!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt, SDD will respond in good time. I've had another look at the JCP and interpret it to mean that RAA-types qualify. So apologies for trawling what might have been a furphy. I still have issues with unit cost and fitment, given the Yanks' decisions on UAT and the possible effects on 1090ES units in a small market vs volume. But after my previous blunder, I am willing to be educated.
I'm in one of those moods
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1st week of leave .... 
.... think I'll go back to work for a rest 
.
My reading
.
Every form of GA (within the weight limits) is included
.
Bushy's point is very valid and needs to be communicated to the powers that be, AND addressed in the process!
.
44
.
1. Military have been included and consulted, and as is written in the JCP for a number of reasons is to be considered separately
.
2. Good question .... I have my doubts .... who should do it??
.
3. 5nm separation standard will/does apply, same as 'enroute' radar ... as far as procedural approach, this subject is multilayered .... suffice to say, 'surveillance' aids in effective, safe and efficient application of procedural standards without the cost of a full surveillance approach service .... now that said, obviously there are locations and traffic mixes that will best suit one or the other .... the surveillance is largely moot in the context of both, except to say that a busy TMA such as YSSY, YMML, YBBN MUST have TAR and 3nm standard surveillance services.
.
I can expand more on this if you like ..... but I am scared ****less that Mrs Scurv will catch me on this thing (AGAIN) and take to it and me with an axe .... She is a tat fed up with being a PPRuNe widow
... nuf said 
.
Re reverse engineering .... the JCP is that by default in so far as the opportunity to save on infrustructure to spend on new better infrustructure ... I personally cannot see an alterer motive .. but then I see this from the ATC/FS/Pilot perspectives ..... and am unashamedly cynical of gov't freebees .. thus the discussion here!
.
In fact, the fact that so many folk have engaged and read this discussion is the whole point, if there is a hook, you can bet, someone out there will find it and highlight it!
.
As far as RA goes, it was discussed at length previously. You raise some valid points re the taxpayer cost to Mil etc ... questions that need to be asked and answered by those that can .. which ain't me!
.
8 track .. well ... all I'd say is this ... if the big end of town are already using it (1090ES) as given all the variables discussed here, UAT may well be the 8 track of today ...... bottom line .... which ever (globally) is the more widley used will prevail ..... with the big end of town already using 1090ES .. and ground stations using single band 1090ES .... even if UAT comes along down range .... will you still be OK with a 1090ES box ....
.
... in the meantime, and still unanswered, is how would Oz afford the necessary infrustructure for a 'DUAL BAND' UAT system? ..... simple .... it would only happen around CTA/R .... and it would only happen around CTA/R if the big end of town needed it ... which they do not! ..... not to mention ... what benefit for traffic OCTA is there in UAT over 1090ES???
.
..gota go 
.... sprung 
.... think I'll go back to work for a rest .
My reading
.
Every form of GA (within the weight limits) is included
.
Bushy's point is very valid and needs to be communicated to the powers that be, AND addressed in the process!
.
44
.
1. Military have been included and consulted, and as is written in the JCP for a number of reasons is to be considered separately
.
2. Good question .... I have my doubts .... who should do it??
.
3. 5nm separation standard will/does apply, same as 'enroute' radar ... as far as procedural approach, this subject is multilayered .... suffice to say, 'surveillance' aids in effective, safe and efficient application of procedural standards without the cost of a full surveillance approach service .... now that said, obviously there are locations and traffic mixes that will best suit one or the other .... the surveillance is largely moot in the context of both, except to say that a busy TMA such as YSSY, YMML, YBBN MUST have TAR and 3nm standard surveillance services.
.
I can expand more on this if you like ..... but I am scared ****less that Mrs Scurv will catch me on this thing (AGAIN) and take to it and me with an axe .... She is a tat fed up with being a PPRuNe widow
... nuf said .
Re reverse engineering .... the JCP is that by default in so far as the opportunity to save on infrustructure to spend on new better infrustructure ... I personally cannot see an alterer motive .. but then I see this from the ATC/FS/Pilot perspectives ..... and am unashamedly cynical of gov't freebees .. thus the discussion here!
.
In fact, the fact that so many folk have engaged and read this discussion is the whole point, if there is a hook, you can bet, someone out there will find it and highlight it!
.
As far as RA goes, it was discussed at length previously. You raise some valid points re the taxpayer cost to Mil etc ... questions that need to be asked and answered by those that can .. which ain't me!
.
8 track .. well ... all I'd say is this ... if the big end of town are already using it (1090ES) as given all the variables discussed here, UAT may well be the 8 track of today ...... bottom line .... which ever (globally) is the more widley used will prevail ..... with the big end of town already using 1090ES .. and ground stations using single band 1090ES .... even if UAT comes along down range .... will you still be OK with a 1090ES box ....
.
... in the meantime, and still unanswered, is how would Oz afford the necessary infrustructure for a 'DUAL BAND' UAT system? ..... simple .... it would only happen around CTA/R .... and it would only happen around CTA/R if the big end of town needed it ... which they do not! ..... not to mention ... what benefit for traffic OCTA is there in UAT over 1090ES???
.
..gota go
.... sprung
Scurvey,
Thinx??
Thales have the contract to make the 1090ES ground boxes for Australia.
Thales have the contract to make the boxes for the UAT/1090ES for FAA.
The actual dual mode electronics are all on the same board, which fits in the same rack as the 1090ES board, so I am reasonably reliably informed. Once the signal/signals are processed for transmission from the ground based box (whether via satellite or landlines) it's all the same data stream format, so once it gets to Eurocat (know locally in Australia as TAAATS) it all looks the same. Likewise in reverse.
So how much would it really cost extra, capital cost ?? To maintain?? Wouldn't that largely depend on how good a deal could be negotiated, because the actual manufacturing cost differences of the (already existing) dual ( or as some will be--- triple) boards and the 1090ES board would be sod all.
Why would "re-broadcast" be any more difficult?? The GARMIN GDL-90 is "here and now", and if it was used by Regionals and GA, indeed most Australian aircraft that never leave Australia, ADS-B IN/OUT is a lot easier to organise and cheaper than 1090ES ---- right now.
As for "aircraft to aircraft", those who think universal 1090ES ADS-B IN is just around the corner are being a trifle optimistic.
Clearly, this has a few holes, but not nearly as many as "universal 1090ES", especially no $$$$ black hole.
Tootle pip!!!
... in the meantime, and still unanswered, is how would Oz afford the necessary infrustructure for a 'DUAL BAND' UAT system? ..... simple .... it would only happen around CTA/R .... and it would only happen around CTA/R if the big end of town needed it ... which they do not! ..... not to mention ... what benefit for traffic OCTA is there in UAT over 1090ES???
Thales have the contract to make the 1090ES ground boxes for Australia.
Thales have the contract to make the boxes for the UAT/1090ES for FAA.
The actual dual mode electronics are all on the same board, which fits in the same rack as the 1090ES board, so I am reasonably reliably informed. Once the signal/signals are processed for transmission from the ground based box (whether via satellite or landlines) it's all the same data stream format, so once it gets to Eurocat (know locally in Australia as TAAATS) it all looks the same. Likewise in reverse.
So how much would it really cost extra, capital cost ?? To maintain?? Wouldn't that largely depend on how good a deal could be negotiated, because the actual manufacturing cost differences of the (already existing) dual ( or as some will be--- triple) boards and the 1090ES board would be sod all.
Why would "re-broadcast" be any more difficult?? The GARMIN GDL-90 is "here and now", and if it was used by Regionals and GA, indeed most Australian aircraft that never leave Australia, ADS-B IN/OUT is a lot easier to organise and cheaper than 1090ES ---- right now.
As for "aircraft to aircraft", those who think universal 1090ES ADS-B IN is just around the corner are being a trifle optimistic.
Clearly, this has a few holes, but not nearly as many as "universal 1090ES", especially no $$$$ black hole.
Tootle pip!!!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Leadsled,
Ever heard of intellectual property? It may be on the same board, but the supplier will normally charge to "unlock " extra features so that they can be used. (Common with PABX's and other communications equipment).
Why do manufacturers do this? Because it allows them to have a number of different products for the R&D costs of just one. It also reduces the per unit manufacturing cost through increased volumes as the cost of the additional components for comparatively small volumes is insignificant.
IMHO the chances of Thales "giving away" UAT enabled boxes for the same cost as 1090ES only boxes would be about zero.
W
Ever heard of intellectual property? It may be on the same board, but the supplier will normally charge to "unlock " extra features so that they can be used. (Common with PABX's and other communications equipment).
Why do manufacturers do this? Because it allows them to have a number of different products for the R&D costs of just one. It also reduces the per unit manufacturing cost through increased volumes as the cost of the additional components for comparatively small volumes is insignificant.
IMHO the chances of Thales "giving away" UAT enabled boxes for the same cost as 1090ES only boxes would be about zero.
W
Werbil,
Tell me something I don't know !! You really should read AND comprehend what I actually said.
Your point was covered, of course Thales will want more money!! How much is the issue.
Tootle pip!!
Tell me something I don't know !! You really should read AND comprehend what I actually said.
So how much would it really cost extra, capital cost ?? To maintain?? Wouldn't that largely depend on how good a deal could be negotiated, because the actual manufacturing cost differences of the (already existing) dual ( or as some will be--- triple) boards and the 1090ES board would be sod all.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Leadsled,
So you acknowledge it would cost more. Who is going to pay? That was Scurvy.D.Dog's point. If you can get me a Holden Calais for $20 more than the cost of a Commodore Executive I'd buy one today - it's the same principle. IMHO Thales will charge a significant amount for UAT functionality.
W
So you acknowledge it would cost more. Who is going to pay? That was Scurvy.D.Dog's point. If you can get me a Holden Calais for $20 more than the cost of a Commodore Executive I'd buy one today - it's the same principle. IMHO Thales will charge a significant amount for UAT functionality.
W
As of SEP27,2007 the Japanese MTSAT is fully operational for supplying a WAAS over the Asia-Pacific region. Australia is squarely within this footprint.
Availability of WAAS is the single impediment for operational TSO145/146a equipment to supply the right NUC value to an ADS-B transmitter.
Availability of WAAS is the single impediment for operational TSO145/146a equipment to supply the right NUC value to an ADS-B transmitter.
Folks,
The major "policy" shortcoming in the whole WAAS "debate" is that it has been left in the hands of Airservices -- It is not "just" an aviation issue.
From a standpoint of national infrastructure policy, there is a broad application of WAAS that has simply been ignored. The applications are too many and varied to even try and cover here, but suffice to say that they are of great importance to the national economy --- a bit like the broadband v. copper wire --- it in not just about 1940s era phone calls.
However, such is the speed with which such "decisions" are made in Australia, and just to complicate any Government level policy decisions, have a read of the planned capabilities of "GPS II". Except for aviation use, and thanks to those much derided yanks, within the next (very) few years, we will have a free to the public GPS that will equal the present "GPS + WAAS". Sadly, it will NOT be suitable for aviation use for LPV etc.
Don't buy shares in Galileo Inc.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: Nothing I have found suggests that WAAS is required for ADS-B OUT with a C-145/146 GPS, but there are question marks over DO260/260A/260x/ transponder standards for 1090ES. Needless to say, such limitations do not apply to UAT or VDL-4.
The major "policy" shortcoming in the whole WAAS "debate" is that it has been left in the hands of Airservices -- It is not "just" an aviation issue.
From a standpoint of national infrastructure policy, there is a broad application of WAAS that has simply been ignored. The applications are too many and varied to even try and cover here, but suffice to say that they are of great importance to the national economy --- a bit like the broadband v. copper wire --- it in not just about 1940s era phone calls.
However, such is the speed with which such "decisions" are made in Australia, and just to complicate any Government level policy decisions, have a read of the planned capabilities of "GPS II". Except for aviation use, and thanks to those much derided yanks, within the next (very) few years, we will have a free to the public GPS that will equal the present "GPS + WAAS". Sadly, it will NOT be suitable for aviation use for LPV etc.
Don't buy shares in Galileo Inc.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: Nothing I have found suggests that WAAS is required for ADS-B OUT with a C-145/146 GPS, but there are question marks over DO260/260A/260x/ transponder standards for 1090ES. Needless to say, such limitations do not apply to UAT or VDL-4.
I stand corrected. It would appear that all that is required for Fault Detection/Exclusion to be operational only requires six satellites to be visible. So WAAS is not a requirment for FDE. TSO145/146 has FDE so can provide the correct transmission to show signal integrity is OK.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Subsidy for GA aircraft
Does anyone know what the story is now? According to the discussion paper, the $15.000 subsidy for TSO 146 GPS and Mode S Transponder comes into effect at the end of this year for GA IFR aircraft, is this realistic?
