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
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
Remember that was back in April!
.. dual band UAT .... more or less expensive that single band 1090ES? 
.
as for TXPDR or an ADS-B ... for the purposes of the discussion the devices do essentially the same thing ... except one is far more reliable and accurate
.
GTX330D ... what do you reckon their price will do as soon as other manufaturers announce?
.
... when do you reckon other manufacturers will announce?
.
... reread the comments re the driver behind the proposal
.
I agree with you 100% re Pilot training ..... but then that problem has been around for years .... and is getting worse as GA moves further away from mainstream aviation ....... IMHO of course
.
Anyone know which 129a will or will not be approved after 2012?
.
And that is all UAT, not 1090ES, ie; as used in Capstone and the Ohio Valley trials--- which was UPS.
.
as for TXPDR or an ADS-B ... for the purposes of the discussion the devices do essentially the same thing ... except one is far more reliable and accurate
.
GTX330D ... what do you reckon their price will do as soon as other manufaturers announce?
.
... when do you reckon other manufacturers will announce?
.
... reread the comments re the driver behind the proposal
.
I agree with you 100% re Pilot training ..... but then that problem has been around for years .... and is getting worse as GA moves further away from mainstream aviation ....... IMHO of course
.
Anyone know which 129a will or will not be approved after 2012?
.
ITT Team Wins ADS-B Contract
The FAA today named ITT Corp. as the prime contractor for the roll-out of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) in the United States, a contract valued at $1.86 billion over 18 years. Matched against proposals by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, the ITT bid “combined the best value and the least risk,” FAA Deputy Administrator Robert Sturgell told reporters in a teleconference.
The first phase of the contract, costing $207 million over three years, will see the development, testing and deployment of ADS-B, initially in the Gulf of Mexico, Louisville, Ken., Philadelphia and Juneau, Alaska. In six years, ADS-B “will be available everywhere we have radar,” Sturgell vowed.
ITT has proposed a dual-frequency approach to the ADS-B architecture that will involve the use of Universal Access Transceivers on GA aircraft and 1090 MHz Extended Squitter transponders on airliners and other large aircraft.
The ITT team includes AT&T, Thales North America, WSI, SAIC, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Aerospace Engineering, Sunhillo, Comsearch, MCS of Tampa, Pragmatics, Washington Consulting Group, Aviation Communications and Surveillance Systems, Sandia Aerospace and NCR Corp.
“The ITT team is proud to have been selected by the FAA as its partner in the establishment of this technology that will form the basis for the transformation of the air transportation system under the FAA’s NextGen vision,” said Steve Gaffney, president of ITT Defense. “ITT and its premier team of industry partners are committed to working with the FAA to ensure this NextGen cornerstone program delivers its full potential for enhanced National Airspace System safety, efficiency and capacity.”
The FAA today named ITT Corp. as the prime contractor for the roll-out of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) in the United States, a contract valued at $1.86 billion over 18 years. Matched against proposals by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, the ITT bid “combined the best value and the least risk,” FAA Deputy Administrator Robert Sturgell told reporters in a teleconference.
The first phase of the contract, costing $207 million over three years, will see the development, testing and deployment of ADS-B, initially in the Gulf of Mexico, Louisville, Ken., Philadelphia and Juneau, Alaska. In six years, ADS-B “will be available everywhere we have radar,” Sturgell vowed.
ITT has proposed a dual-frequency approach to the ADS-B architecture that will involve the use of Universal Access Transceivers on GA aircraft and 1090 MHz Extended Squitter transponders on airliners and other large aircraft.
The ITT team includes AT&T, Thales North America, WSI, SAIC, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Aerospace Engineering, Sunhillo, Comsearch, MCS of Tampa, Pragmatics, Washington Consulting Group, Aviation Communications and Surveillance Systems, Sandia Aerospace and NCR Corp.
“The ITT team is proud to have been selected by the FAA as its partner in the establishment of this technology that will form the basis for the transformation of the air transportation system under the FAA’s NextGen vision,” said Steve Gaffney, president of ITT Defense. “ITT and its premier team of industry partners are committed to working with the FAA to ensure this NextGen cornerstone program delivers its full potential for enhanced National Airspace System safety, efficiency and capacity.”
US is going with UAT/1090ES ground transmitters. US$1.86billion for coverage the same as radar within 6 years.
Folks,
The verdict is in:
FAA elects to go CDMA Broadband for the majority ---instead of planning to mandate the "black telephone"---- what a decision ---- why would anybody possibly want broadband communications in this day and age --- Australia knows best ---- lets stick with the tried and true --- IFF as it was known in WWII, and tarted up to the limits of its inherent technology.
Seriously, as I have already said on this thread --- The ICAO intention, years ago, to have available a modern broadband multi-access transceiver for all the uses to which it could be put, ADS-B/C being only one use --- being sidetracked by ATA/IATA pressing for the equivalent of 1200 baud dial-up--- because it was going to be "cheap", which has proved to be anything but the case for retrofits. Now we will see a few chickens come home to roost.
Where are we going to see the frantic competition for the "mass market" --- that will drive prices down ---- as Creamy agrees with me, 7/9/11000 units (take your pick) is cottage industry, not a mass market ---- and no other country has flagged any intention of making ADS-B mandatory for VFR or low level IFR.
Scurvey--
--- I don't quite understand what you are trying to say --- is it that some SSR doesn't permit 5nm separation? If so, do you really think we have so much traffic in high level airspace that no having a 5nm separation available across the country is critical?
---announce what? Competing Mode S transponders ---- Bendix/King already have GA box size available, about the same price now, whether they or Garmin will produce a DO260A version remains to be seen.
The TDR94-108 has been on the market for quite a while, I haven't noticed a rush to compete for that market.
Compared to the US, a few thousand extra sales prospects in Australia isn't going to excite anybody ---Garmin have already made that clear to "those who should have listened", but didn't, around the ASTRA table.
The lack of interoperability between UAT and 1090ES has never been seen as a problem by FAA, despite the 10 to 15 times traffic numbers, compared to Australia FAA have never seen ADS-B/C as an aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance device, just air/ground position information for ATC. Hence (in part -- the other is that TCAS II works fine) the total lack of interest in anything but ADS-B OUT by Boeing and Airbus.
That FAA would dump "CDMA Broadband" (UAT) in favour of "1200 baud dial-up"(1090ES) never was realistic, but I am better off by two cases of beer, and a case of my favourite cab-sav, from several old mates who bet otherwise.
Tootle pip!!
The verdict is in:
FAA elects to go CDMA Broadband for the majority ---instead of planning to mandate the "black telephone"---- what a decision ---- why would anybody possibly want broadband communications in this day and age --- Australia knows best ---- lets stick with the tried and true --- IFF as it was known in WWII, and tarted up to the limits of its inherent technology.
Seriously, as I have already said on this thread --- The ICAO intention, years ago, to have available a modern broadband multi-access transceiver for all the uses to which it could be put, ADS-B/C being only one use --- being sidetracked by ATA/IATA pressing for the equivalent of 1200 baud dial-up--- because it was going to be "cheap", which has proved to be anything but the case for retrofits. Now we will see a few chickens come home to roost.
Where are we going to see the frantic competition for the "mass market" --- that will drive prices down ---- as Creamy agrees with me, 7/9/11000 units (take your pick) is cottage industry, not a mass market ---- and no other country has flagged any intention of making ADS-B mandatory for VFR or low level IFR.
Scurvey--
as for TXPDR or an ADS-B ... for the purposes of the discussion the devices do essentially the same thing ... except one is far more reliable and accurate
GTX330D ... what do you reckon their price will do as soon as other manufacturer's announce?
The TDR94-108 has been on the market for quite a while, I haven't noticed a rush to compete for that market.
Compared to the US, a few thousand extra sales prospects in Australia isn't going to excite anybody ---Garmin have already made that clear to "those who should have listened", but didn't, around the ASTRA table.
The lack of interoperability between UAT and 1090ES has never been seen as a problem by FAA, despite the 10 to 15 times traffic numbers, compared to Australia FAA have never seen ADS-B/C as an aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance device, just air/ground position information for ATC. Hence (in part -- the other is that TCAS II works fine) the total lack of interest in anything but ADS-B OUT by Boeing and Airbus.
That FAA would dump "CDMA Broadband" (UAT) in favour of "1200 baud dial-up"(1090ES) never was realistic, but I am better off by two cases of beer, and a case of my favourite cab-sav, from several old mates who bet otherwise.
Tootle pip!!
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
FAA elects to go CDMA Broadband for the majority
---instead of planning to mandate the "black telephone"---- what a decision ----
why would anybody possibly want broadband communications in this day and age
--- Australia knows best ---- lets stick with the tried and true --- IFF as it was known in WWII, and tarted up to the limits of its inherent technology.
Seriously, as I have already said on this thread --- The ICAO intention, years ago, to have available a modern broadband multi-access transceiver for all the uses to which it could be put, ADS-B/C being only one use --- being sidetracked by ATA/IATA pressing for the equivalent of 1200 baud dial-up
because it was going to be "cheap", which has proved to be anything but the case for retrofits. Now we will see a few chickens come home to roost.
are we going to see the frantic competition for the "mass market" --- that will drive prices down ---- as Creamy agrees with me, 7/9/11000 units (take your pick) is cottage industry, not a mass market
and no other country has flagged any intention of making ADS-B mandatory for VFR or low level IFR.
Scurvey—
--- I don't quite understand what you are trying to say
as for TXPDR or an ADS-B ... for the purposes of the discussion the devices do essentially the same thing ... except one is far more reliable and accurate
--- is it that some SSR doesn't permit 5nm separation? If so, do you really think we have so much traffic in high level airspace that no having a 5nm separation available across the country is critical?
- Both emit data for positional purposes
- One has far less positional error tolerances (ADS-B)
- One has far less opportunity for air-to-air error irrespective of ground station in LoS (ADS-B)
- One has the ability to provide access low cost 3rd party surveillance services (that do not currently exist in regional RPT areas)
The list goes on
GTX330D ... what do you reckon their price will do as soon as other manufacturer's announce?
The TDR94-108 has been on the market for quite a while, I haven't noticed a rush to compete for that market.
Compared to the US, a few thousand extra sales prospects in Australia isn't going to excite anybody ---Garmin have already made that clear to "those who should have listened", but didn't, around the ASTRA table.
The lack of interoperability between UAT and 1090ES has never been seen as a problem by FAA,
despite the 10 to 15 times traffic numbers, compared to Australia FAA have never seen ADS-B/C as an aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance device, just air/ground position information for ATC.
Hence (in part -- the other is that TCAS II works fine) the total lack of interest in anything but ADS-B OUT by Boeing and Airbus.
.
The FAA was never going to select other than dual band UAT, but IMHO it is more to do with where the work and the doe goes … as any argument that dual band is better than single from a collision mitigation point of view is rubbish!
.
‘Black Telephone’ …..bwahahah ....... bit like not carrying a ‘serviceable' VHF and/or TXPDR’! …. Dear oh dear!
Scurvey,
As you've "got old time religion" about this, I sometimes wonder why I bother with such a closed mind, but here goes---
Who said anything about just GA --- and you are so far-sighted that you can seed that there will be no future developments for (CDMA) Broadband in aviation (despite ICAO plans, and recent FAA/Eurocontrol mandate for VDL-2 --TDMA Broadband, for routine ATS comms) so you advocate sticking with an ancient bit of kit, which is actually proving more expensive to retrofit than UAT (you go look at the Garmin prices -- I have already pointed you to where)
How about the bulk of the world's Regional/Commuter fleet, like Eastern, who knows all about the real cost of achieving ADS-B OUT in the (older-not ADS-B delivered ex-factory) Dash 8 fleet. Go look at the AsA web sites, reports on Eastern plans, and problems, published ASTRA etc. reports ---- Non so blind as those who don't want to see!!
Something close to AUD$300,000, just a tich more than the $25,000 in the JCP.
As reported to ASTRA/AERU, when approached about producing a transponder to the Australian ATSO ---- go look it up --- it's public information.
Because FAA have done the risk analysis --- which has not been done here.
.
Is it really ----- I have continually pointed you at the RTCA docs. that show that this has already been done ---- go look it up, yourself, and verify. In terms of a standard to process ADS-B signals into TCAS II --- Long since complete --- but you do seem to have a quite severe comprehension problem, when such a simple fact is presented to you.
As to the lack of interest in "-IN", I really don't care whether you believe me of not, but I am rather looking forward to the Booz Allen Hamilton Report, which will include this information, as part of a study on WAAS, also of no interest to Boeing and Airbus, because it doesn't produce any lower minima than they can achieve without WAAS, now. But of great interest to the rest of Australia.
OK, You're the self-confessed expert ---- in terms that a lay reader of this thread can understand ---- baud rate or K/Gbits/s ---- give us a comparison of the capacity of the DF17/15 slots in the Mode S signal, (or a country telephone line v. Telstra CDMA or Hutchison 3 ) compared to UAT/VDL-2/4.
And explain to the lay readers why the ancient and strained technology (that others have no difficulty seeing as the equivalent of "the old black phone"), is going to be a better choice ---- Than an up to date data transmission system---you are so wise and foreseeing that you "know" Australian aviation will never need such a development*.
Actually, your sarcastic references to Eastern Europe is quite appropriate, although that is not what you intended.
You are claiming that all we will ever need, for ATC air/ground, however non-airline aviation may develop, is VHF voice and iron curtain era telephone standard datalink called 1090ES.
Such is the blinkered approach to change, so evident in a sclerotic Australian aviation community thinking --- aided and abetted by a rather misguided anti-US attitude. Very sad really, you only have to go across the Tasman to see what a bit of open minded change can achieve for the whole aviation sector, but particularly the non-airline sector.
Tootle pip!!
*: Reminds me of Sir Robert Menzies Chief Scientist, who advised Ming that there was no future application for "an electric adding machine", when Ming sought advice as to the application of the new CSIRO "transistor".
As you've "got old time religion" about this, I sometimes wonder why I bother with such a closed mind, but here goes---
.. In GA aircraft ... good question!
The TDR94-108 has been on the market for quite a while, I haven't noticed a rush to compete for that market.
… and what market would that be then?
… and what market would that be then?
Something close to AUD$300,000, just a tich more than the $25,000 in the JCP.
….. have they indeed … have you something tangible on this … or is this more hypothesising?
un-be-liev-able ….. why would you bother then?
.
that has been been proved here to be absolute rubbish ICAO would not be building the ADS-B TCAS standards if that were true .. it is horse feathers!
As to the lack of interest in "-IN", I really don't care whether you believe me of not, but I am rather looking forward to the Booz Allen Hamilton Report, which will include this information, as part of a study on WAAS, also of no interest to Boeing and Airbus, because it doesn't produce any lower minima than they can achieve without WAAS, now. But of great interest to the rest of Australia.
‘Black Telephone’ …..bwahahah
And explain to the lay readers why the ancient and strained technology (that others have no difficulty seeing as the equivalent of "the old black phone"), is going to be a better choice ---- Than an up to date data transmission system---you are so wise and foreseeing that you "know" Australian aviation will never need such a development*.
Actually, your sarcastic references to Eastern Europe is quite appropriate, although that is not what you intended.
You are claiming that all we will ever need, for ATC air/ground, however non-airline aviation may develop, is VHF voice and iron curtain era telephone standard datalink called 1090ES.
Such is the blinkered approach to change, so evident in a sclerotic Australian aviation community thinking --- aided and abetted by a rather misguided anti-US attitude. Very sad really, you only have to go across the Tasman to see what a bit of open minded change can achieve for the whole aviation sector, but particularly the non-airline sector.
Tootle pip!!
*: Reminds me of Sir Robert Menzies Chief Scientist, who advised Ming that there was no future application for "an electric adding machine", when Ming sought advice as to the application of the new CSIRO "transistor".
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
... old time religion 
.
What exactly will the bandwidth of UAT provide that 1090ES won't, that GA in OZ WANT?
... errm, the JCP for GA 
.
Where does the cost of 1090ES show as higher than UAT? .. a link thanks!
... does the flat earth society believe there will be one unit? 
oh how true!
... on a dual system .... there's a hint!
.... no, it is YOU who will not see and accept the difference between third party alerting and that of automation ..... DO YOU SEE THE COST and SAFETY IMPACTS OF EACH? .. the regionals sure do!
... 'IN' and WAAS .. what has one got to do with the other??
... I have explained the functionality and interoperability of 1090ES across the fleets .... and I have asked you what the extra (although different) bandwidth of UAT provides given the trade off that UAT and 1090ES only know about each other in range of a ground station! ... over to you ... still not answered!
... no you explain what UAT will give the industry that 1090ES won't THAT THE GA INDUSTRY WANT AND CAN AFFORD!
.
..... ancient and strained ....... pfffff ... I know what is, and it ain't 1090ES
... oh yes it is
... never said that!
..... that is hilarious coming from you ol' boy!
.... and UAT is all the rage there is it??
.
.. wheat from chaff mate .... wheat from chaff
.
What exactly will the bandwidth of UAT provide that 1090ES won't, that GA in OZ WANT?
Who said anything about just GA
.
Where does the cost of 1090ES show as higher than UAT? .. a link thanks!
How about the bulk of the world's Regional/Commuter fleet
Non so blind as those who don't want to see!!
Because FAA have done the risk analysis
In terms of a standard to process ADS-B signals into TCAS II --- Long since complete --- but you do seem to have a quite severe comprehension problem, when such a simple fact is presented to you.
As to the lack of interest in "-IN", I really don't care whether you believe me of not, but I am rather looking forward to the Booz Allen Hamilton Report, which will include this information, as part of a study on WAAS, also of no interest to Boeing and Airbus, because it doesn't produce any lower minima than they can achieve without WAAS, now. But of great interest to the rest of Australia.
OK, You're the self-confessed expert ---- in terms that a lay reader of this thread can understand ---- baud rate or K/Gbits/s ---- give us a comparison of the capacity of the DF17/15 slots in the Mode S signal, (or a country telephone line v. Telstra CDMA or Hutchison 3 ) compared to UAT/VDL-2/4.
And explain to the lay readers why the ancient and strained technology (that others have no difficulty seeing as the equivalent of "the old black phone"), is going to be a better choice ---- Than an up to date data transmission system---you are so wise and foreseeing that you "know" Australian aviation will never need such a development*.
.
..... ancient and strained ....... pfffff ... I know what is, and it ain't 1090ES
Actually, your sarcastic references to Eastern Europe is quite appropriate, although that is not what you intended.
You are claiming that all we will ever need, for ATC air/ground, however non-airline aviation may develop, is VHF voice and iron curtain era telephone standard datalink called 1090ES.
Such is the blinkered approach to change, so evident in a sclerotic Australian aviation community thinking --- aided and abetted by a rather misguided anti-US attitude.
Very sad really, you only have to go across the Tasman to see what a bit of open minded change can achieve for the whole aviation sector, but particularly the non-airline sector.
.
.. wheat from chaff mate .... wheat from chaff
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Leadsled
What about the USA?
Try reading http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...6-6-07_APA.pdf
no other country has flagged any intention of making ADS-B mandatory for VFR or low level IFR
Try reading http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...6-6-07_APA.pdf
Why adopt ADS-B?
Although radar technology has advanced, it is essentially a product of 1940s’ World War II technology. Radar occasionally has problems discriminating airplanes from migratory birds and rain “clutter.” Secondary surveillance systems can determine what objects are because they interrogate transponders; however, both primary and secondary radars are very large structures that are expensive to deploy, need lots of maintenance, and require the agency to lease land on which to situate them.
ADS-B, on the other hand, receives data directly from transmitters, rather than passively scanning for input like radars, so does not have a problem with clutter. ADS-B ground stations are inexpensive compared to radar, and are the size of mini refrigerators that essentially can go anywhere, so they minimize the required real estate. In addition, ADS-B updates once a second and locates aircraft with much higher precision.
ADS-B also provides greater coverage, since ADS-B ground stations are so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas where there is no radar now, like the Gulf of Mexico and remote areas in Alaska, will have precise surveillance coverage with ADS-B.
Although radar technology has advanced, it is essentially a product of 1940s’ World War II technology. Radar occasionally has problems discriminating airplanes from migratory birds and rain “clutter.” Secondary surveillance systems can determine what objects are because they interrogate transponders; however, both primary and secondary radars are very large structures that are expensive to deploy, need lots of maintenance, and require the agency to lease land on which to situate them.
ADS-B, on the other hand, receives data directly from transmitters, rather than passively scanning for input like radars, so does not have a problem with clutter. ADS-B ground stations are inexpensive compared to radar, and are the size of mini refrigerators that essentially can go anywhere, so they minimize the required real estate. In addition, ADS-B updates once a second and locates aircraft with much higher precision.
ADS-B also provides greater coverage, since ADS-B ground stations are so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas where there is no radar now, like the Gulf of Mexico and remote areas in Alaska, will have precise surveillance coverage with ADS-B.
The agency also is working to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that will mandate the avionics necessary for implementing ADS-B across the national airspace system. Under the proposal, operators would equip their aircraft with avionics based on the airspace in which they plan to operate. The FAA plans to issue this proposal in the fall of 2007 and expects the rule to be finalized in late 2009.
The full evolution of ADS-B will take up to twenty years, taken in four manageable segments of avionics equipage and ground-station installation, with half of the current system of radars maintained throughout to provide a back-up to the satellite system.
The full evolution of ADS-B will take up to twenty years, taken in four manageable segments of avionics equipage and ground-station installation, with half of the current system of radars maintained throughout to provide a back-up to the satellite system.
To me, that is FLAGGED.
****
CDMA broadband technology cutting edge? I think not. Telstra is about to close its CDMA network (including broadband) to provide spectrum for the HDSPA broadband network (Next G) which has far greater capacity.
****
The advantage of 1090ES over UAT in Australia is for operators who (eventually) equip their aircraft with ADS-B IN. Unlike the good old USA, Australia has huge distances and sparse population. UAT requires both aircraft to be in contact with a ground station, whilst with 1090ES ADS-B IN does not require a ground station. Reading between the lines of the FAA proposal, the broadband communications (which will be owned by private enterprise) will be funding a lot of the ground infrastracture. Seriously, how many aircraft in Australia would be interested in a subscription broadband service?
werbil,
My dear chap, you are exhibiting a bit of a technology knowledge mandatory update requirement.The new Telstra 850 mhz network, Optus/Vodafone 3G, Hutchison 3 are ALL CDMA as the base system. The Hutchison Orange network, now closed, was the same early version CDMA as Telstra. Don't be fooled by advertising names. Because of the very nature of CDMA (V.TDMA) the ability to expand the data stream is the advantaged of CDMA, more so than TDMA.
Same problem, again. Right now, from GARMIN, off the shelf, I can buy a UAT box, IN and OUT, including a display.
What you are probably referring to is that both aircraft have to be UAT equipped to see each other. But the same is true with ANY of the three ICAO ADS-B systems.
And the availability of ADS-B (1090ES) IN is a seriously moot point for any TCAS II equipped aircraft ---- whether others on this thread want to believe otherwise is of little interest to me, the manufacturers of TCAS II equipment and Boeing/Airbus have made it abundantly clear that they do not intend to use the RTCA standard to accept and process ADS-B IN signals, because the result is the same as another TCASII or TXPD/C equipped aircraft.
You don't think (TCAS II) airframe manufacturers/airlines are about to fit two independent collision avoidance systems in the same flightdeck do you ---- with the inevitable conflicting warnings --- or regulatory authorities allow the possibility.
As I have asked on this thread before--- what has Eastern fitted, how much $$$, and is it only out ?? Nobody seem to want to answer. For the Regionals with "smaller" aircraft (Australia does not comply with ICAO on ACAS/TCAS requirements ---- could that be because of Australia's very low traffic levels where these aircraft typically operate) the availability of ----IN is going to be interesting, because the equivalent in US will be using UAT. Even if MicroAir actually produce a set, it would hardly be what you would put in a SAAB 340.
At least two small manufacturers are planning an "ADS-B only" device, not a full TXPD/S, this will be interesting, as described so far, it will not be recognised as a transponder, and will be invisible to TCASII.
In the US, financial reality is starting to bite:
"We've yet to see a business case made for either side of that equation," said Air Transport Association President James May, referring to the $40 billion FAA and the airline industry will collectively spend to build and equip for NextGen.
Tootle pip!!
CDMA broadband technology cutting edge? I think not. Telstra is about to close its CDMA network (including broadband) to provide spectrum for the HDSPA broadband network (Next G) which has far greater capacity.
UAT requires both aircraft to be in contact with a ground station, whilst with 1090ES ADS-B IN does not require a ground station.
What you are probably referring to is that both aircraft have to be UAT equipped to see each other. But the same is true with ANY of the three ICAO ADS-B systems.
And the availability of ADS-B (1090ES) IN is a seriously moot point for any TCAS II equipped aircraft ---- whether others on this thread want to believe otherwise is of little interest to me, the manufacturers of TCAS II equipment and Boeing/Airbus have made it abundantly clear that they do not intend to use the RTCA standard to accept and process ADS-B IN signals, because the result is the same as another TCASII or TXPD/C equipped aircraft.
You don't think (TCAS II) airframe manufacturers/airlines are about to fit two independent collision avoidance systems in the same flightdeck do you ---- with the inevitable conflicting warnings --- or regulatory authorities allow the possibility.
As I have asked on this thread before--- what has Eastern fitted, how much $$$, and is it only out ?? Nobody seem to want to answer. For the Regionals with "smaller" aircraft (Australia does not comply with ICAO on ACAS/TCAS requirements ---- could that be because of Australia's very low traffic levels where these aircraft typically operate) the availability of ----IN is going to be interesting, because the equivalent in US will be using UAT. Even if MicroAir actually produce a set, it would hardly be what you would put in a SAAB 340.
At least two small manufacturers are planning an "ADS-B only" device, not a full TXPD/S, this will be interesting, as described so far, it will not be recognised as a transponder, and will be invisible to TCASII.
In the US, financial reality is starting to bite:
"We've yet to see a business case made for either side of that equation," said Air Transport Association President James May, referring to the $40 billion FAA and the airline industry will collectively spend to build and equip for NextGen.
Tootle pip!!
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
Re the US UAT system .... AOPA US
.
XM Sat WX and all traffic on a 1090ES wavelength (without groundbased dual band conversions) ..... hmmmm wonder what that would cost the US industry vice dual band UAT? .. the billions saved could pay for 'IN', Sat WX and other data services for free, forever! .... wonder where in the world might be looking to that end?
.
.
Gee, wonder if a CIF program might achieve that?
.
... no, the relevent point is the dual band in the US .... if all aircraft are 1090ES equipped, then if 'in' is provided, they will see each other IRRESPECTIVE OF GROUND STATION! .... the systems are fundamentaly different in this regard, and you continue to skirt around that issue!
.. as you mentioned on the other site, yet ommitted here, the US system (dual band) will cost ****e loads in ground stations etc .... FOR WHAT? .. NOTAMS AND WX! .... See my comments above re delivering the same for ****e loads less.
.
So on balance Lead, In the OZ conyext, your fevent support for UAT is waining is it? .... what is it you want, Status Quo with the industry paying for the replacement of MSSR? .... is that postion based on anything other that the Part 103 implications and/or the former minister's RADAR C Directive?
.
The cost of no funded ADS-B .. why would anyone bother when half the fleet have A/C TXPDR's and Half have 1090ES ... who will pay for that dual system whilst technology is picked up over the next 10-20 years?
.
This rubbish about broadband is just that .. rubbish .... what will CDMA (on a different band to 1090ES) provide the industry in OZ? .... and as importantly .. how much would they pay for it?
.
Bazaar!
Some 75 percent of AOPA members have said they would be willing to equip their aircraft with ADS-B if free weather and traffic information were provided,
XM Sat WX and all traffic on a 1090ES wavelength (without groundbased dual band conversions) ..... hmmmm wonder what that would cost the US industry vice dual band UAT? .. the billions saved could pay for 'IN', Sat WX and other data services for free, forever! .... wonder where in the world might be looking to that end?
.
and if the equipment cost was about the same as a transponder, which it could also replace.
Gee, wonder if a CIF program might achieve that?
.
What you are probably referring to is that both aircraft have to be UAT equipped to see each other. But the same is true with ANY of the three ICAO ADS-B systems.
In the US, financial reality is starting to bite:
"We've yet to see a business case made for either side of that equation," said Air Transport Association President James May, referring to the $40 billion FAA and the airline industry will collectively spend to build and equip for NextGen.
"We've yet to see a business case made for either side of that equation," said Air Transport Association President James May, referring to the $40 billion FAA and the airline industry will collectively spend to build and equip for NextGen.
.
So on balance Lead, In the OZ conyext, your fevent support for UAT is waining is it? .... what is it you want, Status Quo with the industry paying for the replacement of MSSR? .... is that postion based on anything other that the Part 103 implications and/or the former minister's RADAR C Directive?
.
The cost of no funded ADS-B .. why would anyone bother when half the fleet have A/C TXPDR's and Half have 1090ES ... who will pay for that dual system whilst technology is picked up over the next 10-20 years?
.
This rubbish about broadband is just that .. rubbish .... what will CDMA (on a different band to 1090ES) provide the industry in OZ? .... and as importantly .. how much would they pay for it?
.
Bazaar!
Scurvy.
I'm not skirting around anything, look back through the posts, FAA do not consider the "aircraft to aircraft" (even if it is via the ground) ADS-B traffic information of pivotal importance --- TCAS works fine, and the US TXPD/C veils around/under all the Class B terminals ensures that all traffic in the high traffic count areas have a Mode C transponder as a minimum.
Right now, there are something like 7800 approx. "airline" aircraft in the US fleet, including commuters, (Part 121)** out of a total active fleet of something like 226/227,000, so the differences in the size of the markets for 1090ES versus UAT is obvious, without taking any guesses at the take up in the "non-airline" fleet. I would expect to see many of the "Commuters" opt. for UAT, because of the uses beyond just ADS-B. It will be interesting to see if the FAA broadens the "VDL-2 CPLDC" mandate to allow UAT/CPLDC as a substitute, for US domestic operations, it would be a logical move. I wouldn't bet against it.
Don't expect to see ADS-B IN of any variety fitted to aircraft with TCAS II, and that is a wider catch than in Australia. The way it is shaping, the only market for ADS-B IN will be in GA, with aircraft that do not have TCAS, and if I was asked to guess, I would say the market is the same one that Ryan TCAD and others aim at. But that is a guess, there are some smooth talking salesmen around.
When we looked at the possibility of putting 1090ES and UAT boxes in the one cabinet at the various sites planned for ADS-B ground stations, the cost was not daunting, guesstimated by Airservices as the same price, broadly, as the 1090ES box, with enough room that a new cabinet or power supply was not needed.
Would the end result have been better for GA in Australia?
Who knows, the prices being quoted then, for a GPS/TXPD/S with ES were guesses, now known to be wildly optimistic, and way below the cost of what is actually available now, years later, for either system (or VDL-4).
And less than UAT, but not much. The Garmin GDL 90 (https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=201&pID=6436) "does it all" and is about $7-8000 US. At least in the ballpark, compared to a modified GDL90 + GTX330D + display for IN.
One thing was certain, the marginal cost of operating the dual system was minimal, once the ground based hardware and software was in place.
I am amazed that you can predict that there will be no demand for broadband datalinks in Australia, in the future, just like Menzies' Chief Scientist advised there was no demand for an "electric adding machine" vice the CSIRO transistor. How wrong he was.
Tootle pip!!
** FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2007-2020, based on 2006 numbers.
... no, the relevant point is the dual band in the US .... if all aircraft are 1090ES equipped, then if 'in' is provided, they will see each other IRRESPECTIVE OF GROUND STATION! .... the systems are fundamentally different in this regard, and you continue to skirt around that issue!
Right now, there are something like 7800 approx. "airline" aircraft in the US fleet, including commuters, (Part 121)** out of a total active fleet of something like 226/227,000, so the differences in the size of the markets for 1090ES versus UAT is obvious, without taking any guesses at the take up in the "non-airline" fleet. I would expect to see many of the "Commuters" opt. for UAT, because of the uses beyond just ADS-B. It will be interesting to see if the FAA broadens the "VDL-2 CPLDC" mandate to allow UAT/CPLDC as a substitute, for US domestic operations, it would be a logical move. I wouldn't bet against it.
Don't expect to see ADS-B IN of any variety fitted to aircraft with TCAS II, and that is a wider catch than in Australia. The way it is shaping, the only market for ADS-B IN will be in GA, with aircraft that do not have TCAS, and if I was asked to guess, I would say the market is the same one that Ryan TCAD and others aim at. But that is a guess, there are some smooth talking salesmen around.
When we looked at the possibility of putting 1090ES and UAT boxes in the one cabinet at the various sites planned for ADS-B ground stations, the cost was not daunting, guesstimated by Airservices as the same price, broadly, as the 1090ES box, with enough room that a new cabinet or power supply was not needed.
Would the end result have been better for GA in Australia?
Who knows, the prices being quoted then, for a GPS/TXPD/S with ES were guesses, now known to be wildly optimistic, and way below the cost of what is actually available now, years later, for either system (or VDL-4).
And less than UAT, but not much. The Garmin GDL 90 (https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=201&pID=6436) "does it all" and is about $7-8000 US. At least in the ballpark, compared to a modified GDL90 + GTX330D + display for IN.
One thing was certain, the marginal cost of operating the dual system was minimal, once the ground based hardware and software was in place.
I am amazed that you can predict that there will be no demand for broadband datalinks in Australia, in the future, just like Menzies' Chief Scientist advised there was no demand for an "electric adding machine" vice the CSIRO transistor. How wrong he was.
Tootle pip!!
** FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2007-2020, based on 2006 numbers.
Actually, someone who went by the name Black Jack killed off CSIRO work on computers to concentrate on cloud seeding. Funny how life works. He was also instrumental in blocking the application for import protection for Victa. Narrow minded agri-socialists
Thread drift <off>
"The Ozbusdriver Scenario"
JCP submissions for ADS-B cross subsidisation is going to frustrate the process. AirServices will continue with the groundstation roll-out through 2008 as advertised. 28 stations through the UAP and 11 fitted alongside enroute SSR. (My guess is a further 10 units to give full coverage down to 10000ft for the Goldfields/Pilbara as business gets hotter with the resource boom)
As the enroute SSR come up for replacement refurb in 2019 and armed with the data obtained from nearly 15 years of operations using returns from RPT aircraft. CASA mandates fitment in ALL aircraft requiring fitment of radio and transponder by 2016. ALL aircraft must comply with the current TSO in force at that time.
Noncompliance risks being locked out of ALL airspace except G. Restrictions placed on NVFR operations. As well as operations into any CTAF serviced by RPT or with a published approach procedure.
AirServices will be able to provide a class E service down to the MSA for most major aerodromes with published procedures. Class E will lowered to 8500ft through the entire east coast inland as far as a line from the Gulf through to Port Lincoln. UNICOM will be available at selected major aerodromes, armed with ADS-B receivers, will be able to give non directed traffic information for a 30nm area surrounding the aerodrome.
GA cries poor! Too Bad, we had our chance back in 07.
Thread drift <off>
"The Ozbusdriver Scenario"
JCP submissions for ADS-B cross subsidisation is going to frustrate the process. AirServices will continue with the groundstation roll-out through 2008 as advertised. 28 stations through the UAP and 11 fitted alongside enroute SSR. (My guess is a further 10 units to give full coverage down to 10000ft for the Goldfields/Pilbara as business gets hotter with the resource boom)
As the enroute SSR come up for replacement refurb in 2019 and armed with the data obtained from nearly 15 years of operations using returns from RPT aircraft. CASA mandates fitment in ALL aircraft requiring fitment of radio and transponder by 2016. ALL aircraft must comply with the current TSO in force at that time.
Noncompliance risks being locked out of ALL airspace except G. Restrictions placed on NVFR operations. As well as operations into any CTAF serviced by RPT or with a published approach procedure.
AirServices will be able to provide a class E service down to the MSA for most major aerodromes with published procedures. Class E will lowered to 8500ft through the entire east coast inland as far as a line from the Gulf through to Port Lincoln. UNICOM will be available at selected major aerodromes, armed with ADS-B receivers, will be able to give non directed traffic information for a 30nm area surrounding the aerodrome.
GA cries poor! Too Bad, we had our chance back in 07.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA and all their apologists fiddling whilst Rome burns comes to mind.
I suspect that the Airsevices folks will make the right decision notwithstanding the enthusiast lunatic fringe.
I suspect that the Airsevices folks will make the right decision notwithstanding the enthusiast lunatic fringe.
Gaunty,
M'old mate, again you have shown just how out of touch you are ---- even you (despite your rather blinkered approach to such matters - understanding AS/NZ 4360/2004 never was your strong point) should have been able to figure out, from the Airspace Act 2007 and associated Regulations, including the Minister's Policy Statement, which is incorporated in said Act and Regulations, that it is not Airservices who will make the decision.
Indeed, us "lunatic fringe", owning some 90% of the aircraft on the Australian civil register (quite a "fringe") have some remaining confidence that the legislation will prevail ---- as it will, if the requirement for proper risk analysis and cost/benefit justification, as required by the Act, are carried out.
It seems obvious, in you case, that the current Booz Allan Hamilton exercise, on behalf of DoTARS, has not triggered a thought as to why BAH are doing what they are doing, if it was all a foregone conclusion.
If you ploughed through the BAH draft reports (on DoTARS web site - particularly but not only CBA 3.10.3), then re-read the JCP with an open mind, it might be an interesting experience for you --- provide your mind is not open at both ends.
Tootle pip, old chap!!
M'old mate, again you have shown just how out of touch you are ---- even you (despite your rather blinkered approach to such matters - understanding AS/NZ 4360/2004 never was your strong point) should have been able to figure out, from the Airspace Act 2007 and associated Regulations, including the Minister's Policy Statement, which is incorporated in said Act and Regulations, that it is not Airservices who will make the decision.
Indeed, us "lunatic fringe", owning some 90% of the aircraft on the Australian civil register (quite a "fringe") have some remaining confidence that the legislation will prevail ---- as it will, if the requirement for proper risk analysis and cost/benefit justification, as required by the Act, are carried out.
It seems obvious, in you case, that the current Booz Allan Hamilton exercise, on behalf of DoTARS, has not triggered a thought as to why BAH are doing what they are doing, if it was all a foregone conclusion.
If you ploughed through the BAH draft reports (on DoTARS web site - particularly but not only CBA 3.10.3), then re-read the JCP with an open mind, it might be an interesting experience for you --- provide your mind is not open at both ends.
Tootle pip, old chap!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologists????
It is not necessary to apologise for GA. There are a lot of good people in GA doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances, to provide essential services to the outback.
Some city people will never understand this, and many do not care.
I believe the so-called lunatic fringe, and GA apologists voted some years ago not to have Gaunty as their representative.
I can see why.
Some city people will never understand this, and many do not care.
I believe the so-called lunatic fringe, and GA apologists voted some years ago not to have Gaunty as their representative.
I can see why.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK then............. I suspect that the folks at Airsevices/CASA/Government/Minister and whoever else has carriage of the Act and regulations will make the right decision notwithstanding the enthusiast know all lunatic fringe. 
bushy yup all 390 of the lunatic fringe. The rest of the 10,000 plus gave up on it, jeez it must be over 20 years ago now and over $1million or so of their money and asetts up the spout. So how about you putting your money where your mouth is, then, I can gaurantee you'll get around 390 votes too..
Besides the Airservices revenue from that "90%" is probably single figures maybe double at a pinch as a percentage of the total, remember it's "pay your own way have your own say" you're getting.
My advice FWIW is grab whatever you can when it is offered, you don't have any market bargaining power, only political power and precious little of it there either. You're not gonna change anything via PPRuNe, if they are not listening to you in the places it counts and it seems that is so, all the strutting and chest beating here is not gonna play. That's not to say they are not prepared to listen to rational cogent argument and reason. Hectoring and lecturing simply does not work.
I've got my view you've got yours, knock yourself out and deal with it.
Standby for the usual patronising waffle and officious rant from Leadsled it's so freakin predictable.
bushy yup all 390 of the lunatic fringe. The rest of the 10,000 plus gave up on it, jeez it must be over 20 years ago now and over $1million or so of their money and asetts up the spout. So how about you putting your money where your mouth is, then, I can gaurantee you'll get around 390 votes too..
Besides the Airservices revenue from that "90%" is probably single figures maybe double at a pinch as a percentage of the total, remember it's "pay your own way have your own say" you're getting.
My advice FWIW is grab whatever you can when it is offered, you don't have any market bargaining power, only political power and precious little of it there either. You're not gonna change anything via PPRuNe, if they are not listening to you in the places it counts and it seems that is so, all the strutting and chest beating here is not gonna play. That's not to say they are not prepared to listen to rational cogent argument and reason. Hectoring and lecturing simply does not work.
I've got my view you've got yours, knock yourself out and deal with it.
Standby for the usual patronising waffle and officious rant from Leadsled it's so freakin predictable.
I am still confused about this, and have not had any satisfactory answers to what appear (to me at least) to be fairly simple but important questions.
To the extent that I understand what's going on, it seems to me that the proposal is to subsidise a system that is different from what the US proposes to implement, at least for GA, in which case Australian GA might:
(a) miss out on the benefit of the economies of scale that would arise from 'piggybacking' on the system implemented in the US; and
(b) end up with an 'orphan' system.
The alternative is to subsidise a system that is the same as what the US proposes to implement for GA, in which case Australian GA might:
(a) have to pay a substantial cost for the 'delta' between the subsidy and the actual cost of equipment that will meet the US standards; and
(b) bear substantial risk in high ongoing maintenance costs.
How far off track am I, and why? I'm not being deliberately obstructionist here. Long time pruners know I'm one of Gaunty's biggest fans and I've never been backward in giving Leaddy a serve when I think he's spouting cr*p.
But I'm just not getting this.
And it couldn't be a national secret or that hard to find out: Does the ADSB equipment in the trial aircraft comply with 20.18 or have they been exempted from 20.18?
To the extent that I understand what's going on, it seems to me that the proposal is to subsidise a system that is different from what the US proposes to implement, at least for GA, in which case Australian GA might:
(a) miss out on the benefit of the economies of scale that would arise from 'piggybacking' on the system implemented in the US; and
(b) end up with an 'orphan' system.
The alternative is to subsidise a system that is the same as what the US proposes to implement for GA, in which case Australian GA might:
(a) have to pay a substantial cost for the 'delta' between the subsidy and the actual cost of equipment that will meet the US standards; and
(b) bear substantial risk in high ongoing maintenance costs.
How far off track am I, and why? I'm not being deliberately obstructionist here. Long time pruners know I'm one of Gaunty's biggest fans and I've never been backward in giving Leaddy a serve when I think he's spouting cr*p.
But I'm just not getting this.
And it couldn't be a national secret or that hard to find out: Does the ADSB equipment in the trial aircraft comply with 20.18 or have they been exempted from 20.18?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamy touche, as usual.
I think the operative word here is "trial" and for that logic demands we use gear currently available/installed cobbled up to prove, or disprove, the concept, process or the argument and then move on to whatever is the go from there with the latest stuff, backwards or forwards compatible maybe. Seems to me there is no point putting the cart before the horse.
That's what I believe the Doctor is doing at the same time as identifying what software changes may be required to make the current stuff work.
I don't believe its about TCAS or not as well as or instead of ADSB as some have tried to derail the thread with. It's about the future of AN ADSB system on OZ and what is best for, and here it comes again, for Australias unique airspace. It is unique becasue the high and low traffic densities are non uniform, assymetric and incoherently placed, with a relatively thinly populated airways system connecting them.
Hence the request for submissions on how best to deal with it. FANS and how it handled the Pacific route system are IMHO a classic example of the same problem. We produced the people who solved that one and I am sure they or their cohort are still around unless they have been driven mad by the meddlers and second guessers.
Scurvy points out issues.
Smith does the usual paranoid routine about the routine Big Bro Airservices plot to raise revenue. ever constructive.
Leadsled inputs as many technical terms into his patented confabulator as he can think of to turn out the usual dire and prolix predictions in order to stir up the alligators.
When all Airservices DOTARS or whoever want to do is try to find out how best to drain the swamp.
I thought that it was inconceivable that NAS2b would ever get to the fiasco it became, I clearly underestimated the power of confabulation.
OZBUSDRIVERS Prediction
therefore is all too probable. 
I think the operative word here is "trial" and for that logic demands we use gear currently available/installed cobbled up to prove, or disprove, the concept, process or the argument and then move on to whatever is the go from there with the latest stuff, backwards or forwards compatible maybe. Seems to me there is no point putting the cart before the horse.That's what I believe the Doctor is doing at the same time as identifying what software changes may be required to make the current stuff work.
I don't believe its about TCAS or not as well as or instead of ADSB as some have tried to derail the thread with. It's about the future of AN ADSB system on OZ and what is best for, and here it comes again, for Australias unique airspace. It is unique becasue the high and low traffic densities are non uniform, assymetric and incoherently placed, with a relatively thinly populated airways system connecting them.
Hence the request for submissions on how best to deal with it. FANS and how it handled the Pacific route system are IMHO a classic example of the same problem. We produced the people who solved that one and I am sure they or their cohort are still around unless they have been driven mad by the meddlers and second guessers.
Scurvy points out issues.
1. Status quo (replace radars and navaids) … no subsidy .. A,C and S TXPDR’s
2. ADS-B (phased withdrawal of some radars and navaids) …Subsidy … resulting in 60% VFR fleet fitment
3. ADS-B (phased withdrawal of all – 2 radars and non back-up navaids) … Subsidy ….resulting in 90% VFR fleet fitment
.
COMPARISON OF NPV OF TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ACROSS SCENARIOS
.
Page 27 of the report is telling … scenario 3 has huge differential benefits for cost and safety!
2. ADS-B (phased withdrawal of some radars and navaids) …Subsidy … resulting in 60% VFR fleet fitment
3. ADS-B (phased withdrawal of all – 2 radars and non back-up navaids) … Subsidy ….resulting in 90% VFR fleet fitment
.
COMPARISON OF NPV OF TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ACROSS SCENARIOS
.
Page 27 of the report is telling … scenario 3 has huge differential benefits for cost and safety!
Smith does the usual paranoid routine about the routine Big Bro Airservices plot to raise revenue.
ever constructive. Leadsled inputs as many technical terms into his patented confabulator as he can think of to turn out the usual dire and prolix predictions in order to stir up the alligators.
When all Airservices DOTARS or whoever want to do is try to find out how best to drain the swamp.
I thought that it was inconceivable that NAS2b would ever get to the fiasco it became, I clearly underestimated the power of confabulation.
OZBUSDRIVERS Prediction
GA cries poor! Too Bad, we had our chance back in 07.
Bushy,
Gaunty really is loosing touch, isn't he ---- quoting numbers about double his vote when he exited the AOPA Board --- when we were talking about people who actually own the aeroplanes and pay the bills.
Whether he likes it or not, about 11,000 aircraft owners (nothing to do with AOPA) are not waxing lyrical about the prospect of being forced to fit very expensive equipment to solve a problem they don't have. That nobody has demonstrated actually exists !!
Creamy,
A good place to start would be to ask ASAC in Canberra for a copy of the paper by R.J.Hall, PhD, "JCP, Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation and Surveillance"
Having digested Dr. Hall's paper, have a close look at the Cost/Benefit methodology paper produced by Booz Allan Hamilton.
Then go back to the JCP paper, and do yourself a table and separate the costs and benefits of C145/146 GPS that are unrelated to ADS-B, and the alleged benefits of ADS-B, whether related to GNSS or not. Pay particular attention to the claimed "SAR" benefits of ADS-B versus the coverage of ADS-B below 10,000'. Pay particular attention to the claimed benefits of C145/146 in the light of the fact that one of the most desirable, precision vertical guidance, also requires WAAS ---- which we ain't going to get ---according to Airservices ----- but the BAH Report may well recommend otherwise, it's not only aviation that uses precision GNSS.
I have fed all the necessary information into my patented technical confabulator, and in my informed opinion, the answers are:
(a) Yes.
(b) For GA, Yes
Second (a)
Actually, the only TSO compliant box that produces C-145/146/Gamma 3 output also is UAT ADS-B OUT/IN, and around the subsidy price, fitted. Compatible equipment already exists to handle UAT ADS-B IN --- base price of ADS-B OUT/IN (UAT) about US$7000. For all those who have GARMIN 430/480/530/MX20 it would be a snap ---- for UAT only.
The only set of boxes that currently meet the ATSO (also from GARMIN) are around US$16,000 plus quite a deal more expensive fitting, just to produce ADS-B OUT. I am excluding from this ATA/ARINC gear, and isn't it interesting that nobody here wants to talk about QANTAS Eastern's Dash 8 costs v. the JCP figures. The missing "zero".
Second (b)
Possibly, but given US volumes and consumer laws, not likely.
However, a small and virtually hand made batch for a tiny 1090ES Australian market, with sod all development budget ---- the real world ----- I would rate ongoing maintenance nightmares far more likely headed in the present Australian direction. Even add the EEC GA market and it's still cottage industry.
One forecast I can confidently make, as it is already happening now, is that the entry of the 1090ES "cheap solution" ---- the last dying gasp of a WWII piece of equipment ---- as the late entry into the ICAO competition eventually will be seen for what it really is---- a very shortsighted push for a "cheap" system by broke US airlines ----- that is turning out to be very expensive for airlines ----compared to fitting stand alone UAT or VDL-4 equipment.
Trying to squeeze the last data pip out of a seriously bandwidth limited lemon, instead of using a modern broadband data transmission system. Nil room for expansion v. all the things that broadband makes possible ---- and the modern (UAT) gear is cheaper.
As far as I have been able to work out, the answer is yes, no or maybe, but those intending to squitter ADS-B have to make arrangements with AsA, otherwise their pioneering emissions are filtered. It also seems to be the case that AsA are accepting signals that do not meet the ICAO (TXPD) standard, which at least raises questions about the use of the 5 mile separation standard.
Gaunty, what an assy metric statement ---- but at least you have admitted that there is no great density of traffic, making the claimed en-route savings a little suss, given the current separation standard available without ADS-B and with TAATS/RVSM ----- you know that trans-continental airways are more or less a thing of the past, do you.
There is absolutely nothing special about Australia airspace ---- except for one thing ----- we have far and away the lowest traffic densities of any western country. Even if the ASTRA 2025 forecasts were reached, total Australian traffic would still be about one fifth of current US traffic levels, in roughly the same area.
Izzatso?? Rooly Trooly --- But, then again, counting and accounting never was your long suite. Creamy, do your own numbers on the raw figures in the JCP, based on the BAH methodology ---- bearing in mind that the risk case required by the Airspace Act 2007 is missing in it's entirety.
"The Doctor" ---- Now we've got Time Lords into the system??
Seriously, ICAO standards are settled for what we need now ---- where do you think the standards in the ATSO's came from. I hope AsA is not trying to re-invent the wheel, they don't have anything like the expertise of the RTCA.
My dear old chap, watch your blood pressure, we wouldn't want you to blow a fooffle valve. We know red wine is good for us, but doubling up isn't double plus good. Have your thought of trying the new wonder drug, Viagozac: "If you don't get a -----, you don't give a -----".
Tootle pip!!
bushy yup all 390 of the lunatic fringe.
Whether he likes it or not, about 11,000 aircraft owners (nothing to do with AOPA) are not waxing lyrical about the prospect of being forced to fit very expensive equipment to solve a problem they don't have. That nobody has demonstrated actually exists !!
Creamy,
A good place to start would be to ask ASAC in Canberra for a copy of the paper by R.J.Hall, PhD, "JCP, Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation and Surveillance"
Having digested Dr. Hall's paper, have a close look at the Cost/Benefit methodology paper produced by Booz Allan Hamilton.
Then go back to the JCP paper, and do yourself a table and separate the costs and benefits of C145/146 GPS that are unrelated to ADS-B, and the alleged benefits of ADS-B, whether related to GNSS or not. Pay particular attention to the claimed "SAR" benefits of ADS-B versus the coverage of ADS-B below 10,000'. Pay particular attention to the claimed benefits of C145/146 in the light of the fact that one of the most desirable, precision vertical guidance, also requires WAAS ---- which we ain't going to get ---according to Airservices ----- but the BAH Report may well recommend otherwise, it's not only aviation that uses precision GNSS.
I have fed all the necessary information into my patented technical confabulator, and in my informed opinion, the answers are:
(a) Yes.
(b) For GA, Yes
Second (a)
Actually, the only TSO compliant box that produces C-145/146/Gamma 3 output also is UAT ADS-B OUT/IN, and around the subsidy price, fitted. Compatible equipment already exists to handle UAT ADS-B IN --- base price of ADS-B OUT/IN (UAT) about US$7000. For all those who have GARMIN 430/480/530/MX20 it would be a snap ---- for UAT only.
The only set of boxes that currently meet the ATSO (also from GARMIN) are around US$16,000 plus quite a deal more expensive fitting, just to produce ADS-B OUT. I am excluding from this ATA/ARINC gear, and isn't it interesting that nobody here wants to talk about QANTAS Eastern's Dash 8 costs v. the JCP figures. The missing "zero".
Second (b)
Possibly, but given US volumes and consumer laws, not likely.
However, a small and virtually hand made batch for a tiny 1090ES Australian market, with sod all development budget ---- the real world ----- I would rate ongoing maintenance nightmares far more likely headed in the present Australian direction. Even add the EEC GA market and it's still cottage industry.
One forecast I can confidently make, as it is already happening now, is that the entry of the 1090ES "cheap solution" ---- the last dying gasp of a WWII piece of equipment ---- as the late entry into the ICAO competition eventually will be seen for what it really is---- a very shortsighted push for a "cheap" system by broke US airlines ----- that is turning out to be very expensive for airlines ----compared to fitting stand alone UAT or VDL-4 equipment.
Trying to squeeze the last data pip out of a seriously bandwidth limited lemon, instead of using a modern broadband data transmission system. Nil room for expansion v. all the things that broadband makes possible ---- and the modern (UAT) gear is cheaper.
Does the ADSB equipment in the trial aircraft comply with 20.18 or have they been exempted from 20.18?
----for Australias unique airspace. It is unique becasue the high and low traffic densities are non uniform, assymetric and incoherently placed, with a relatively thinly populated airways system connecting them.
There is absolutely nothing special about Australia airspace ---- except for one thing ----- we have far and away the lowest traffic densities of any western country. Even if the ASTRA 2025 forecasts were reached, total Australian traffic would still be about one fifth of current US traffic levels, in roughly the same area.
Page 27 of the report is telling … scenario 3 has huge differential benefits for cost and safety!
----I believe the Doctor is doing at the same time as identifying what software changes may be required to make the current stuff work
Seriously, ICAO standards are settled for what we need now ---- where do you think the standards in the ATSO's came from. I hope AsA is not trying to re-invent the wheel, they don't have anything like the expertise of the RTCA.
Standby for the usual patronising waffle and officious rant from Leadsled it's so freakin predictable.
Tootle pip!!
Frame of reference. Leadsled, Hall et al cherry pick argument to resist fitment. Hall et al outright, Leadsled wants UAT because it is cheaper.
AirServices is rolling out ADS-B sations to get the coverage it wants by 2008. AirServices wants to shut down the en-route SSR by 2019. They want a minimum of 85% fitment to ensure level of service is maintained. In effect airservices wants everyone to fit a new transponder to work with the new system. UAt has benn ruled out outright on cost grounds. It may be cheaper to buy UAT units from the states to fit into aircraft(GA only) however, it is prohibitively expensive to rollout UAT in OZ to get the levels of coverage required AND interface between two dissimilar fleets. Without UAT Heavy cannot see GA and visavis. Outside of range of UAT GA doesn't see anything and no one sees GA. RPT still sees RPT but not GA.
1090ES, heavy can see GA regardless. AirServices sees everyone within coverage of the groundstations. Before you sprout off Lead. The ATA gear is available today and by the time this rolls around most of the hulls will have been replaced so moot point, mate. The problem AirServices faces is convincing GA thatthis is a worthwhile thing to be a part of. Chances are your 25yo truck will be 35yo by the time this is mandated and will still have the same steam gauges it was fitted with from the factory.
The way I see this- either we get this in now with help for fitment OR ten years down the track everyone gets slugged at dollar one (FULL PRICE including fitment) UAT is not going to happen. Who is going to pay for your broadband,Lead? I am certainly not and I am damn sure Geoff will take a dim view of subsidising your jollies. UAT is GA only! It would be far cheaper to give every pilot a NextG card a free broadband account and a program for their PDA or TabletPC to access met data from the mobile broadband network than roll out UAT.
Get out your google and do a search for PocketFMS and see what you can get in Australia right now! This argument of real time wx is a furphy. it suits the antagonists to chose this bit as a feature yet deride the idea of a display that shows the position of other aircraft in your vicinity as dangerous as it drags your attention inside the cockpit
Gentlemen, there is moss growing on you!
AirServices is rolling out ADS-B sations to get the coverage it wants by 2008. AirServices wants to shut down the en-route SSR by 2019. They want a minimum of 85% fitment to ensure level of service is maintained. In effect airservices wants everyone to fit a new transponder to work with the new system. UAt has benn ruled out outright on cost grounds. It may be cheaper to buy UAT units from the states to fit into aircraft(GA only) however, it is prohibitively expensive to rollout UAT in OZ to get the levels of coverage required AND interface between two dissimilar fleets. Without UAT Heavy cannot see GA and visavis. Outside of range of UAT GA doesn't see anything and no one sees GA. RPT still sees RPT but not GA.
1090ES, heavy can see GA regardless. AirServices sees everyone within coverage of the groundstations. Before you sprout off Lead. The ATA gear is available today and by the time this rolls around most of the hulls will have been replaced so moot point, mate. The problem AirServices faces is convincing GA thatthis is a worthwhile thing to be a part of. Chances are your 25yo truck will be 35yo by the time this is mandated and will still have the same steam gauges it was fitted with from the factory.
The way I see this- either we get this in now with help for fitment OR ten years down the track everyone gets slugged at dollar one (FULL PRICE including fitment) UAT is not going to happen. Who is going to pay for your broadband,Lead? I am certainly not and I am damn sure Geoff will take a dim view of subsidising your jollies. UAT is GA only! It would be far cheaper to give every pilot a NextG card a free broadband account and a program for their PDA or TabletPC to access met data from the mobile broadband network than roll out UAT.
Get out your google and do a search for PocketFMS and see what you can get in Australia right now! This argument of real time wx is a furphy. it suits the antagonists to chose this bit as a feature yet deride the idea of a display that shows the position of other aircraft in your vicinity as dangerous as it drags your attention inside the cockpit
Gentlemen, there is moss growing on you!