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
OZBUSDRIVER,
What does the Italian unit cost including the display and an audio call out feature – if there is one? What would the cost of certification and installation be? I have a feeling you are probably talking of about $30,000. If there is not an audio call out feature are you suggesting the pilot flies along looking down at the screen?
Regarding the Garmin unit, it is interesting I have a Citation Mustang on order with the latest Garmin 1000 equipment.
It will be arriving April 2008 and they cannot supply ADS-B “out” in any form. So do not hold your breath.
What does the Italian unit cost including the display and an audio call out feature – if there is one? What would the cost of certification and installation be? I have a feeling you are probably talking of about $30,000. If there is not an audio call out feature are you suggesting the pilot flies along looking down at the screen?
Regarding the Garmin unit, it is interesting I have a Citation Mustang on order with the latest Garmin 1000 equipment.
It will be arriving April 2008 and they cannot supply ADS-B “out” in any form. So do not hold your breath.
peuce,
I don’t think you have thought about this.
If the pilots are going to become the air traffic controllers and do the separation when in IMC using their ADS-B units, why do you need the expense of ADS-B ground stations?
Are you really suggesting that air traffic control is not involved? Have you checked this with Civil Air – or Scurvy.D.Dog? I think you will find their support for ADS-B will suddenly stop.
By the way, in anything other than very low-density airspace such as Bourke or Birdsville, I would prefer to be separated by an air traffic controller using a proper standard using either radar or ADS-B.
Normally I do not care if it costs me $5 or $10 more to have a proper ATC service provided from the en route controller when flying into terminal airspace at say Port Macquarie or Proserpine.
This “do it yourself” system is fraught with problems in the higher density airspace and there have already been some serious incidents. I suggest you look at what happened at Orange with the Rex aircraft.
I don’t think you have thought about this.
If the pilots are going to become the air traffic controllers and do the separation when in IMC using their ADS-B units, why do you need the expense of ADS-B ground stations?
Are you really suggesting that air traffic control is not involved? Have you checked this with Civil Air – or Scurvy.D.Dog? I think you will find their support for ADS-B will suddenly stop.
By the way, in anything other than very low-density airspace such as Bourke or Birdsville, I would prefer to be separated by an air traffic controller using a proper standard using either radar or ADS-B.
Normally I do not care if it costs me $5 or $10 more to have a proper ATC service provided from the en route controller when flying into terminal airspace at say Port Macquarie or Proserpine.
This “do it yourself” system is fraught with problems in the higher density airspace and there have already been some serious incidents. I suggest you look at what happened at Orange with the Rex aircraft.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 17th Aug 2007 at 02:46.
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
.. once IFR (Regional RPT particularly) have ADS-B ‘in’ … the opportunity to reduce third party intervention (OCTA) becomes a reality … why would you not want that?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a significant amount of Australian airspace below 5000FT without RADAR coverage or with unreliable RADAR coverage. More importantly, there are large areas of unreliable or nil VHF coverage with ATS. The sooner ADS-B is in use by the entire fleet of Australian registered aircraft the better, for everyone.
My personal opinion as a controller... ATC should not be providing any services to aircraft in regional areas that do not have continuous, reliable VHF coverage in the entire airspace that the service (Class E or G) is "advertised" to be provided, down to ground level.
My personal opinion as a controller... ATC should not be providing any services to aircraft in regional areas that do not have continuous, reliable VHF coverage in the entire airspace that the service (Class E or G) is "advertised" to be provided, down to ground level.
Grandpa Aerotart
Indeed...and perhaps some of the savings from not replacing radars can be used to extend the VHF network.
Still relying on HF radio in the 21st century seems a little silly.
How interesting.
Still relying on HF radio in the 21st century seems a little silly.
I can assure you all I will get the Class E extended. Just watch – despite all the resistance to change!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can assure you all I will get the Class E extended. Just watch – despite all the resistance to change!
If we had Class E down to A1200 everywhere an RPT regularly went and ADS-B out in all IFRs and the majority of VFRs or you could make ADS-B a requirement for flying in E... Then you only come across VFRs without ADS-B in a circuit.
Dick this 'resistance' is mostly about the unknown elements; usually brought about by lack of surveillance.... ADS-B could be a win win for airspace change. The restrictive 'procedural standards' that currently get applied outside radar; i.e. the majority of E airspace (assuming GAFA E is bigger than J curve E geographically) could be effectively avoided.
The worst case for a radar controller is currently TSPDR us; had one a few years back; it was a disgrace; no primary paints outside TMA, so procedural STDs to get it in; horrible.
The way this is headed right now is ADS-B may be effectively useless as the % flying with won't be high enough to risk not using procedural for all; or at least ADS-B won't be more than proving procedural stds.
Are you really suggesting that air traffic control is not involved? Have you checked this with Civil Air – or Scurvy.D.Dog? I think you will find their support for ADS-B will suddenly stop.
Where the controller is responsible for separation, then I can foresee no change; but in class G, or in other classes if you establish clear processes about assigning responsibility for that separation, I would have no concern about handing over that separation; exactly in the same manner in which I hand over 'visual separation' or 'visual headings below the MSA' almost every single day. I would be much more comfortable knowing the pilots has ADS-B -in display and avoiding traffic than willy-nilly going IFR pick-up or VFR climb/decent through the 'unknown'; using mark 1 eyeball, knowing that they are extremely unlikely to sight the traffic in their 5 o'clock high; even if I have passed that traffic.
The Boeing ATM concepts of "free-flight"; is that controllers are not involved in airborne separation, mind you pilots aren't either; it's all automatic, supa-supa TCAS; 4D etc.
Grandpa Aerotart
The part I found 'interesting' was the man is railing against ADS-B on the one hand and 'assuring' us he will get what he wants, expanded E, on the other.
I would have thought ADS-B was an enabler of E airspace...but only if Enough aircraft have it.
That does not mean E should extend down to 1200 agl everywhere...there must be some airspace that is truly G which allows the real towelling hat brigade to excercise their pashion without being crammed into the most dangerous part of the air column...the bottom 1000'.
Dick there is no reason why this technology should be expensive...the whole world is moving towards this system of ATM...the US is moving to 1090 es as is the UK/EU. Pretty soon there will be so many manufacturers producing units the economies of scale will be such that fitment within the budget of the proposed subsidy scheme.
A Mode S transponder is no more expensive than a Mode C really. What % of aircraft don't have GPS these days? What % GPS units don't undate at least once every second?
I would have thought ADS-B was an enabler of E airspace...but only if Enough aircraft have it.
That does not mean E should extend down to 1200 agl everywhere...there must be some airspace that is truly G which allows the real towelling hat brigade to excercise their pashion without being crammed into the most dangerous part of the air column...the bottom 1000'.
Dick there is no reason why this technology should be expensive...the whole world is moving towards this system of ATM...the US is moving to 1090 es as is the UK/EU. Pretty soon there will be so many manufacturers producing units the economies of scale will be such that fitment within the budget of the proposed subsidy scheme.
A Mode S transponder is no more expensive than a Mode C really. What % of aircraft don't have GPS these days? What % GPS units don't undate at least once every second?
Dick, have sent off an e-mail to the people in question. Interested in seeing what costs will be considering the type of aircraft these units are going into in Europe. GA, ultralights and gliders are not known to cost the same as an 850 Hawker. Will let you know.
Dick,
I was slightly tongue in cheek, but my point is ... consider the end game!
You seem to be doing what you accuse all the fundamentalists of doing ... living in the dark ages, putting their heads in the sand.
If Boeing or Airbus or NASA had the policy of not moving forward unless the required new technology was here now, was tried and proven and had a 100% guarantee ... we'd still be flying Sydney to Melbourne in an Electra. In fact, they go out and create the need for the technology, sponsor it, help develop it, test it amd perfect it.
If we wait around for ADS-B, or whatever surveillance technolgy we decide to use, to be perfected ... it never will be ... there would be no incentive for Collins or Garmin or whoever to do that ... because no one is using it. Start using it and they will start improving it and competition will grow and prices will reduce.
BTW, what's wrong with, say, all aircraft above FL300 self-separating?
If you saved the Industry a gazillion by closing Flight Service, surely we could save 2 gazillion by reducing the ATC requirement... which we can't staff anyway.
I was slightly tongue in cheek, but my point is ... consider the end game!
You seem to be doing what you accuse all the fundamentalists of doing ... living in the dark ages, putting their heads in the sand.
If Boeing or Airbus or NASA had the policy of not moving forward unless the required new technology was here now, was tried and proven and had a 100% guarantee ... we'd still be flying Sydney to Melbourne in an Electra. In fact, they go out and create the need for the technology, sponsor it, help develop it, test it amd perfect it.
If we wait around for ADS-B, or whatever surveillance technolgy we decide to use, to be perfected ... it never will be ... there would be no incentive for Collins or Garmin or whoever to do that ... because no one is using it. Start using it and they will start improving it and competition will grow and prices will reduce.
BTW, what's wrong with, say, all aircraft above FL300 self-separating?
If you saved the Industry a gazillion by closing Flight Service, surely we could save 2 gazillion by reducing the ATC requirement... which we can't staff anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is the proposed subsidy only for ADSB-OUT equipment ?
I wouldn't expect the cost of the -IN gear to add a lot to the total hardware and installation costs, and if the GPS has moving map then it's a relatively minor feature addition to decode the -IN datastream and display any local traffic.
I wouldn't expect the cost of the -IN gear to add a lot to the total hardware and installation costs, and if the GPS has moving map then it's a relatively minor feature addition to decode the -IN datastream and display any local traffic.
Folks,
WHAT ADS-B IN??
I thought I might inject a few bits and bytes of information.
All current Boeing/Airbus products can be delivered with a 1090ES ADS-B OUT capability, this has only been the case relatively recently, we all know that.
Neither Boeing no Airbus have any planes to offer ADS-B IN, any time soon, and the reason is quite straightforward ---- as a collision avoidance device, their customers are quite happy with TCAS II, and have no interest in paying for ADS-B IN that produces the same functionality as TCAS II. Thus, these manufacturers of “airline standard” equipment have no plans to offer “ADS-B IN”. If any of you have any doubts that this is fact, ring them and ask. As for Embraer, my Spanish/Portuguese ain’t that hot.
Most of us know that, potentially, a form of ADS-B would produce more accurate azimuth on threats, but a form of TCAS with turning, as opposed to pitching, RA escape manoeuvres, is not even on the horizon. You wouldn't want TCAS II and another device in the conflict, would you. The RTCA standard to process ADS-B signals into TCAS II exists, none of the TCAS manufacturers/ licensees have any plans to take advantage of this standard ---because there is no benefit, you get exactly the same flightdeck functionality --- nothing that you don't already get if the other aircraft has a Mode C or TCAS transponder.
There is quite a range of “ADS-B like” stuff floating around for Sports and Rec. aircraft, gliders, etc., they are “OUT” and “IN”, and all have one thing in common, they don’t meet the TSO/ATSO standards for an ATS-B. Generally, but not only, because they do not have a C145/146 TSO GPS feed. None are suitable for high-utilisation operations.
So far, there is (last quarter 07) one GA offering available, from Garmin, a version of the GTX330D transponder, with a GPS feed from a proprietary Garmin remote box (they have modified their UAT box to feed GPS data to the GTX330D – needs the D, not other versions, for “visibility”, ie; antenna diversity as required for TCAS II). Anybody who is interested can look up the Garmin web site, both boxes are estimated a titch under $8,000 each, plus fitting, at today’s exchange rate, probably no change out of AUD$30,000, assuming that the ADS-B enabled version are "only" the same price as the existing boxes.
Makes the $10-15,000 “subsidy” (ADS-B out for existing aircraft, only, after 2013 you're in your own -- and we complain about the cost of fleet replacement --- just add $30-40,000) a bit sick, doesn’t it?? As the equipment doesn’t differentiate between VFR and IFR, VFR pays $5g more.
Can anybody here actually claim that all the modifications to Eastern Dash 8 will give “ADS-B IN” (as opposed to OUT) and how much have the modifications (new transponders, encoders, FMCs, wiring) actually cost?? How is the ADS-B IN, if it is there, displayed??
A lot of the rational for “mandatory” ADS-B has revolved around Regional airlines aircraft having ADS-B IN and “seeing” other traffic in the flightdeck.
I (and probably many others) will be interested in the answer --- equipment make and model number, relevant TSO/ATSO etc. Please, not personal opinion or Yorta brand, yorta be able to do this or that.
What happens if TSO/ATSO/STC'd airline standard ADS-B IN avionics turns out to be like Lasseter's Lost Reef, a great story, file under fiction.
Tootle pip!!
WHAT ADS-B IN??
I thought I might inject a few bits and bytes of information.
All current Boeing/Airbus products can be delivered with a 1090ES ADS-B OUT capability, this has only been the case relatively recently, we all know that.
Neither Boeing no Airbus have any planes to offer ADS-B IN, any time soon, and the reason is quite straightforward ---- as a collision avoidance device, their customers are quite happy with TCAS II, and have no interest in paying for ADS-B IN that produces the same functionality as TCAS II. Thus, these manufacturers of “airline standard” equipment have no plans to offer “ADS-B IN”. If any of you have any doubts that this is fact, ring them and ask. As for Embraer, my Spanish/Portuguese ain’t that hot.
Most of us know that, potentially, a form of ADS-B would produce more accurate azimuth on threats, but a form of TCAS with turning, as opposed to pitching, RA escape manoeuvres, is not even on the horizon. You wouldn't want TCAS II and another device in the conflict, would you. The RTCA standard to process ADS-B signals into TCAS II exists, none of the TCAS manufacturers/ licensees have any plans to take advantage of this standard ---because there is no benefit, you get exactly the same flightdeck functionality --- nothing that you don't already get if the other aircraft has a Mode C or TCAS transponder.
There is quite a range of “ADS-B like” stuff floating around for Sports and Rec. aircraft, gliders, etc., they are “OUT” and “IN”, and all have one thing in common, they don’t meet the TSO/ATSO standards for an ATS-B. Generally, but not only, because they do not have a C145/146 TSO GPS feed. None are suitable for high-utilisation operations.
So far, there is (last quarter 07) one GA offering available, from Garmin, a version of the GTX330D transponder, with a GPS feed from a proprietary Garmin remote box (they have modified their UAT box to feed GPS data to the GTX330D – needs the D, not other versions, for “visibility”, ie; antenna diversity as required for TCAS II). Anybody who is interested can look up the Garmin web site, both boxes are estimated a titch under $8,000 each, plus fitting, at today’s exchange rate, probably no change out of AUD$30,000, assuming that the ADS-B enabled version are "only" the same price as the existing boxes.
Makes the $10-15,000 “subsidy” (ADS-B out for existing aircraft, only, after 2013 you're in your own -- and we complain about the cost of fleet replacement --- just add $30-40,000) a bit sick, doesn’t it?? As the equipment doesn’t differentiate between VFR and IFR, VFR pays $5g more.
Can anybody here actually claim that all the modifications to Eastern Dash 8 will give “ADS-B IN” (as opposed to OUT) and how much have the modifications (new transponders, encoders, FMCs, wiring) actually cost?? How is the ADS-B IN, if it is there, displayed??
A lot of the rational for “mandatory” ADS-B has revolved around Regional airlines aircraft having ADS-B IN and “seeing” other traffic in the flightdeck.
I (and probably many others) will be interested in the answer --- equipment make and model number, relevant TSO/ATSO etc. Please, not personal opinion or Yorta brand, yorta be able to do this or that.
What happens if TSO/ATSO/STC'd airline standard ADS-B IN avionics turns out to be like Lasseter's Lost Reef, a great story, file under fiction.
Tootle pip!!
Grandpa Aerotart
I think I owe Dick an appology.
By reading more on this subject...both the documentation and the opinions of others I have come to the conclusion that this may not be as simple...cut and dried if you will...as I first thought.
I am starting to believe that this might be;
a/. Of no great benefit to the very big end of town as we spend 98% of our lives above FL330...and at night...and over water...and in International airspace where no other bastard is except other widebodies...and the odd bit of returning space junk. TAC around capital cities (and J curve upper airspace) will remain primary/secondary radar for obvious, and stated, reasons.
b/. Of benefit to the middle end of town (Dash 8s etc) but the cubic $ for ADS-B in might make it marginally beneficial on any searching cost/benefit analysis,
c/. Not earth shakingly expensive in my Bonanza, assuming subsidised fitment of ADS-B out, but of no benefit to me personally without ADS-B in (cubic $ and not subsidised) and of marginal benefit to Easterns/Sunnies etc because I have a Mode C already, (Mode S sooner or later, subsidy or no) it's always on ALT and they can 'see' me on TCAS...and I know what to say and when to say it on VHF. There is no safety case for ADS-B that is not already mittigated efficiently by the TCAS/transponder interface.
d/. Enormously beneficial to AsA.
Clearly AsA has no plans, nor capability, to subsidise QF/VB/J* etc (let alone foreign carriers) so fleet wide fitout in the big end of town will rely on fleet rollover to new technology aircraft such as 787 or whatever...that could easily be a ten year cycle.
I no longer believe that ADS-B generally has any safety benefit realisable in the medium term....long term, say 20 years, will be a different, but wholly unknowable thing, at this point.
If it has no safety benefit then why the haste from AsA?
Me thinks the time line needs pushing out to around 2025...which apparently is what the FAA is looking at but even they are not talking mandatory anything let alone mandatory within 5 years.
When you compare their national infrastructure and ours I am going to suggest we in Australia cannot afford NOT to sit back and watch...for maybe a decade.
If we were to do that it would not effect our ICAO relationship one bit...the international traffic inbound/outbound to Australia will not be ADS-B capable for the most part for at least a decade.
What we do or don't do in the rest of our airspace is irrelevant to ICAO or foriegn carriers because they don't fly in it...only we do.
I want to change my vote.
By reading more on this subject...both the documentation and the opinions of others I have come to the conclusion that this may not be as simple...cut and dried if you will...as I first thought.
I am starting to believe that this might be;
a/. Of no great benefit to the very big end of town as we spend 98% of our lives above FL330...and at night...and over water...and in International airspace where no other bastard is except other widebodies...and the odd bit of returning space junk. TAC around capital cities (and J curve upper airspace) will remain primary/secondary radar for obvious, and stated, reasons.
b/. Of benefit to the middle end of town (Dash 8s etc) but the cubic $ for ADS-B in might make it marginally beneficial on any searching cost/benefit analysis,
c/. Not earth shakingly expensive in my Bonanza, assuming subsidised fitment of ADS-B out, but of no benefit to me personally without ADS-B in (cubic $ and not subsidised) and of marginal benefit to Easterns/Sunnies etc because I have a Mode C already, (Mode S sooner or later, subsidy or no) it's always on ALT and they can 'see' me on TCAS...and I know what to say and when to say it on VHF. There is no safety case for ADS-B that is not already mittigated efficiently by the TCAS/transponder interface.
d/. Enormously beneficial to AsA.
Clearly AsA has no plans, nor capability, to subsidise QF/VB/J* etc (let alone foreign carriers) so fleet wide fitout in the big end of town will rely on fleet rollover to new technology aircraft such as 787 or whatever...that could easily be a ten year cycle.
I no longer believe that ADS-B generally has any safety benefit realisable in the medium term....long term, say 20 years, will be a different, but wholly unknowable thing, at this point.
If it has no safety benefit then why the haste from AsA?
Me thinks the time line needs pushing out to around 2025...which apparently is what the FAA is looking at but even they are not talking mandatory anything let alone mandatory within 5 years.
When you compare their national infrastructure and ours I am going to suggest we in Australia cannot afford NOT to sit back and watch...for maybe a decade.
If we were to do that it would not effect our ICAO relationship one bit...the international traffic inbound/outbound to Australia will not be ADS-B capable for the most part for at least a decade.
What we do or don't do in the rest of our airspace is irrelevant to ICAO or foriegn carriers because they don't fly in it...only we do.
I want to change my vote.
Chuckles,
Remember, there are two aspects to this:
Remember, there are two aspects to this:
- Providing ATC survellance over most of the country. So that they can seperate you. You don't need IN for that. There is a safety improvement in this as all(most) aircraft will be visible to ATC. There is also a cost saving in this as enroute radar replacement can be reduced.
- Providing self separation between aircraft. This requires IN and is a looong term goal. But the first step is to let the manuafacturers know that we intend to go down that path ... so they can start their creative juices flowing.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I changed your vote for you Chuckles
Anyone else want to modify their vote in light of a different/better understanding of the issues...or should I zero the counters completely and we start again on the poll?
Anyone else want to modify their vote in light of a different/better understanding of the issues...or should I zero the counters completely and we start again on the poll?
AirServices is the beneficiary. GA doesn't need the system. The system needs GA to fit. The system NEEDS to PAY for the fitment. IF CASA mandates then ALL BETS ARE OFF! This has been THE argument all along.
We can get all starry eyed with what the gear can do with all the bells and whistles attached. However, the main goal of equipping ADS-B OUT in an aircraft is to derive an accurate vector in space for ATC purposes.
Me? I can hardly wait! Viva Le Revolution!
We can get all starry eyed with what the gear can do with all the bells and whistles attached. However, the main goal of equipping ADS-B OUT in an aircraft is to derive an accurate vector in space for ATC purposes.
Me? I can hardly wait! Viva Le Revolution!
Peuce,
Providing "surveillances" over "most of the country" ?? To what end, at what cost. Do have a look at the coverage charts in the consultation documents, they don't even come below 10,000ft.
If you are in E (IFR) C or A you are separated now, all ADS-B does is enable reduced separation, a possible economic benefit, nothing to do with "safety", it is safe now, and will remain safe in the future, not safer.
It might save AsA some money. Less than 1% on the bottom line--BFD---from AsA own figures, publicly available but hardly front and centre in the press releases. Most of the money saved in pulling out navaids (not SSR) is a benefit of C145/146 GPS, nothing to do with ADS-B. ADS-B needs C145/146 GPS, C145/146 GPS does NOT need ADS-B, and a large chunk of the estimated savings come form benefits of C145/146 to IFR operations.
ADS-B might (this is yet to be proven in practice) give better economics in cruise for high level operations, but what about the cost $$$$ for the 11,000 or so aircraft that derive no demonstrated benefit, even if there is an initial subsidy that, on present indications, will cover one third to one half of the initial cost,and nothing to ongoing costs.
Quite simply, there is absolutely no demonstrated present risk, by way of a safety case, to which ADS-B OUT, is the cost/benefit justified answer. That is an inescapable fact, not an opinion. Don't mix up economics and "safety". There is no benefit of imposing any of this on low level VFR, or to the SAAbs, Dash8s etc. that mix it with GA in the GAFA, but some bloody big costs.
If AsA and their major customers want to play at high level, that is a commercial decision for the players, if they are right, they make money, if not, money lost..
The Regionals (and there are more than REX) operate on seriously thin margins, if you were a pilot with a Regional, do you think it would improve your career prospects (and the vital service to Rural, Regional and Remote Australia they provide) by hitting the Regionals with big capital and on going costs, for a system that provides no measurable benefits, they don't even get reduced AsA charges, they don't pay any now.
The big benefit touted to Regional pilots, for immediate use, was ADS-B IN, where is it?? Now? 2010?? 2013???
I would suggest that the Australian market is so small that no manufacturer sees it as significant, as for being large enough to produce really competitive prices, we are far too small a market for that. Cottage industry is what the local market is!!
Believe me, a lot of the Regional pilots think they are getting ADS-B IN, real soon now, that's what the RAAA thought, until very recently.
As for pilot to pilot separation, have a look at the ASTRA plan (if you can stay awake) it only ever envisages ever greater ground control, not the slightest suggestion of the original concept of "Freeflight".
I really strongly recommend you do what Chimbu has done, he has got stuck in and checked the sources, rather than accept the blandishments of the spin doctors.
Tootle pip!!
Providing "surveillances" over "most of the country" ?? To what end, at what cost. Do have a look at the coverage charts in the consultation documents, they don't even come below 10,000ft.
If you are in E (IFR) C or A you are separated now, all ADS-B does is enable reduced separation, a possible economic benefit, nothing to do with "safety", it is safe now, and will remain safe in the future, not safer.
It might save AsA some money. Less than 1% on the bottom line--BFD---from AsA own figures, publicly available but hardly front and centre in the press releases. Most of the money saved in pulling out navaids (not SSR) is a benefit of C145/146 GPS, nothing to do with ADS-B. ADS-B needs C145/146 GPS, C145/146 GPS does NOT need ADS-B, and a large chunk of the estimated savings come form benefits of C145/146 to IFR operations.
ADS-B might (this is yet to be proven in practice) give better economics in cruise for high level operations, but what about the cost $$$$ for the 11,000 or so aircraft that derive no demonstrated benefit, even if there is an initial subsidy that, on present indications, will cover one third to one half of the initial cost,and nothing to ongoing costs.
Quite simply, there is absolutely no demonstrated present risk, by way of a safety case, to which ADS-B OUT, is the cost/benefit justified answer. That is an inescapable fact, not an opinion. Don't mix up economics and "safety". There is no benefit of imposing any of this on low level VFR, or to the SAAbs, Dash8s etc. that mix it with GA in the GAFA, but some bloody big costs.
If AsA and their major customers want to play at high level, that is a commercial decision for the players, if they are right, they make money, if not, money lost..
The Regionals (and there are more than REX) operate on seriously thin margins, if you were a pilot with a Regional, do you think it would improve your career prospects (and the vital service to Rural, Regional and Remote Australia they provide) by hitting the Regionals with big capital and on going costs, for a system that provides no measurable benefits, they don't even get reduced AsA charges, they don't pay any now.
The big benefit touted to Regional pilots, for immediate use, was ADS-B IN, where is it?? Now? 2010?? 2013???
I would suggest that the Australian market is so small that no manufacturer sees it as significant, as for being large enough to produce really competitive prices, we are far too small a market for that. Cottage industry is what the local market is!!
Believe me, a lot of the Regional pilots think they are getting ADS-B IN, real soon now, that's what the RAAA thought, until very recently.
As for pilot to pilot separation, have a look at the ASTRA plan (if you can stay awake) it only ever envisages ever greater ground control, not the slightest suggestion of the original concept of "Freeflight".
I really strongly recommend you do what Chimbu has done, he has got stuck in and checked the sources, rather than accept the blandishments of the spin doctors.
Tootle pip!!
If CC says wait, that’s good enough for me from the operational/safety benefit perspective.
I’ve therefore voted for the status quo.
My view of the political context was to wait and see the fine print of the proposed subsidy anyway, after the surreal stupidity of the election silly season had died down.
And I find myself in agreement with Leaddy, and disagreement with peuce, on at least on one point: the size of the potential market in Australia would be lucky to raise a yawn from any serious manufacturer, much less ‘start their creative juices flowing’. No offence peuce, but the demand for a new or improved avionics technology in Australia is never going to determine that the same technology will be demanded or adopted in other countries.
I’ve therefore voted for the status quo.
My view of the political context was to wait and see the fine print of the proposed subsidy anyway, after the surreal stupidity of the election silly season had died down.
And I find myself in agreement with Leaddy, and disagreement with peuce, on at least on one point: the size of the potential market in Australia would be lucky to raise a yawn from any serious manufacturer, much less ‘start their creative juices flowing’. No offence peuce, but the demand for a new or improved avionics technology in Australia is never going to determine that the same technology will be demanded or adopted in other countries.
Grandpa Aerotart
Lets take a logical look at the airspace column and see who is where and what benefits we might logically see within the local context.
First if you take a critical look at the backup radar coverage that is to stay in place in the medium/long yerm it doesn't look a whole lot different to what exists now...savings for AsA?
Sure but they don't look that enormous...not game changer type anyway.
Then if you look at the proposed ADS-B coverage between 10000' and 30000' it looks quite comprehensive at first glance...but!
The only people operating above FL290 are the top end of town...if you think low level outback is GAFA you should try high level outback...it is essentially empty for all practical purposes.
You're lucky to pass 3 or 4 aircraft between YPDN and YSSY/YBBN in the busier times...what on earth would we do with 5nm in trail spacing?
You put all those aircraft in 5nm trail and there will be 1000nm in front of and behind them empty.
By the time airline traffic are below FL290 they are well within SSR range of their destination and below FL200 within Primary radar coverage.
The last 80nm into destination are where the dramas start...what technology will increase YSSY capacity beyond what we experience for about 2 hours everyday now...that noise sharing won't nobble straight off the blocks?
Between FL170 and FL290 we have only a few turboprops operating...hardly a need for more airspace capacity there...ditto above when they are on descent into mainports.
Between FL110 and FL170 is essentially empty airspace...there are so few aircraft in this portion of the airspace column as to ignore it.
Below 8000' is 'Indian' country..and the top 3000' of that is fairly barren too...just people like me in Bonanzas/Barons/Chieftains etc.
We will ALL be outside ADS-B coverage virtually always.
Below 5000' is real indian territory...ADS-B out/in or sideways in this region will be essentially non existant with only 28 stations.
I would like to see an ADS-B coverage map for below 8000'...and then below 5000'...and the real kicker?
I want to see how many stations are required to give coverage at circuit height everywhere that is anywhere.
Tell me about the SAR life saving case again?
If the bulk of GA/Regionals spend their lives out of range of ground stations at the critical times how will the aircraft to aircraft self separation happen...assuming ADS-B in gets off the ground...or ATC separation for that matter?
So if to acheive the 'make you feel good about it' pfaff is going to require 200 ground stations and most of the radar installations remain in place where is the claimed huge savings?
First if you take a critical look at the backup radar coverage that is to stay in place in the medium/long yerm it doesn't look a whole lot different to what exists now...savings for AsA?
Sure but they don't look that enormous...not game changer type anyway.
Then if you look at the proposed ADS-B coverage between 10000' and 30000' it looks quite comprehensive at first glance...but!
The only people operating above FL290 are the top end of town...if you think low level outback is GAFA you should try high level outback...it is essentially empty for all practical purposes.
You're lucky to pass 3 or 4 aircraft between YPDN and YSSY/YBBN in the busier times...what on earth would we do with 5nm in trail spacing?
You put all those aircraft in 5nm trail and there will be 1000nm in front of and behind them empty.
By the time airline traffic are below FL290 they are well within SSR range of their destination and below FL200 within Primary radar coverage.
The last 80nm into destination are where the dramas start...what technology will increase YSSY capacity beyond what we experience for about 2 hours everyday now...that noise sharing won't nobble straight off the blocks?
Between FL170 and FL290 we have only a few turboprops operating...hardly a need for more airspace capacity there...ditto above when they are on descent into mainports.
Between FL110 and FL170 is essentially empty airspace...there are so few aircraft in this portion of the airspace column as to ignore it.
Below 8000' is 'Indian' country..and the top 3000' of that is fairly barren too...just people like me in Bonanzas/Barons/Chieftains etc.
We will ALL be outside ADS-B coverage virtually always.
Below 5000' is real indian territory...ADS-B out/in or sideways in this region will be essentially non existant with only 28 stations.
I would like to see an ADS-B coverage map for below 8000'...and then below 5000'...and the real kicker?
I want to see how many stations are required to give coverage at circuit height everywhere that is anywhere.
Tell me about the SAR life saving case again?
If the bulk of GA/Regionals spend their lives out of range of ground stations at the critical times how will the aircraft to aircraft self separation happen...assuming ADS-B in gets off the ground...or ATC separation for that matter?
So if to acheive the 'make you feel good about it' pfaff is going to require 200 ground stations and most of the radar installations remain in place where is the claimed huge savings?
I think I need to change my vote also!
ADS-B does not seem to deliver the benefits to me that I had previously thought.
I hereby allocate my proxies to Chuckles for any future polls. I am clearly struggling to see my way through all the BS.
Dr
ADS-B does not seem to deliver the benefits to me that I had previously thought.
I hereby allocate my proxies to Chuckles for any future polls. I am clearly struggling to see my way through all the BS.
Dr
You're lucky to pass 3 or 4 aircraft between YPDN and YSSY/YBBN in the busier times...what on earth would we do with 5nm in trail spacing?