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
The ATA gear is available today
If I don’t want any more moss to grow on me, I can presumably buy, fit and turn this gear on now.
There are three transponders to fit Airbus and Boeing to enable 1090ES transmission-
xs950
Honeywell
Honeywell Support TRA-67
TPR-901
EDIT just to add a link to an ICAO paper that Scurvy was refering to at the start of this thread. Take note of page 6 first paragraph.
AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE –
BROADCAST (ADS-B) SEMINAR AND THE SIXTH
MEETING OF ADS-B STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION
TASK FORCE
xs950
Honeywell
Honeywell Support TRA-67
TPR-901
EDIT just to add a link to an ICAO paper that Scurvy was refering to at the start of this thread. Take note of page 6 first paragraph.
AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE –
BROADCAST (ADS-B) SEMINAR AND THE SIXTH
MEETING OF ADS-B STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION
TASK FORCE
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 18th Sep 2007 at 07:16.
Thanks OBD
I hope you won’t consider me churlish, but:
- I couldn’t find any prices at the links you gave (although there were some nice pictures of very large aircaft at some of them); and
- At present don’t care what any ICAO 'paper' says.
I want to know how much it will cost me to fit a CAO 20.18-compliant ADS-B system to an Australian bugsmasher today - to avoid unsightly moss accretions.
Ballpark?
I hope you won’t consider me churlish, but:
- I couldn’t find any prices at the links you gave (although there were some nice pictures of very large aircaft at some of them); and
- At present don’t care what any ICAO 'paper' says.
I want to know how much it will cost me to fit a CAO 20.18-compliant ADS-B system to an Australian bugsmasher today - to avoid unsightly moss accretions.
Ballpark?
OK, misunderstood you there, Creamy. U fly bugsmashers like me. Right now, we will get by with a Garmin GTX330 and a 430/530W or a 480 at the top end of the market. If there is a go, MicroAir could start producing the complete unit in one package. Someone told me that the GPS engine they use from FreeFlight had been demoted back to 129a from 145a, (I do not see that lasting too long.) There is also another unit from Italy that does all the bells and whistles including IN. I have yet to get a price from them.
When you asked for ATA gear I thought u waz talking about a jet. That stuff starts at about $16000 to $20000 a box and U can see there is about two minimum in each install. Outa my league.
Off the Aircraft Spruce and Specialty site.
Garmin GTX330 mode S $3526.00US (?$7056.00US with"IN"?) these units will be available with 1090ES
GNS480 $9165.00US ALL the bells and whistles.
MicroAir has their package only for mode A/C but supplied AirServices with the trial kits. Some grumble about costs. I think they will supply at around the $5000 to $7000 XPDR and GPS with an IN function.
BECKER BXP6401 modeS $2793.00US
There is also an Italian unit, no price or details from www.Selex-Comms.com
When you asked for ATA gear I thought u waz talking about a jet. That stuff starts at about $16000 to $20000 a box and U can see there is about two minimum in each install. Outa my league.
Off the Aircraft Spruce and Specialty site.
Garmin GTX330 mode S $3526.00US (?$7056.00US with"IN"?) these units will be available with 1090ES
GNS480 $9165.00US ALL the bells and whistles.
MicroAir has their package only for mode A/C but supplied AirServices with the trial kits. Some grumble about costs. I think they will supply at around the $5000 to $7000 XPDR and GPS with an IN function.
BECKER BXP6401 modeS $2793.00US
There is also an Italian unit, no price or details from www.Selex-Comms.com
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 18th Sep 2007 at 11:25.
Grandpa Aerotart
Remind me again about LPV under the current AsA plans?
If this ATM transformation ocurrs without LPV it will be an absolute travesty.
If we can't get 'ILS like' vertical guidance approaches on 1090ES then it has to be WAAS and UAT/VDL4 or whatever for GA.
Our company Boeings have been fitted with Mode S transponders recently...presumably 1090ES...to be JAR compliant. Obviously they are TCAS2 v7 compliant and I believe that is all they will ever be. Can't see any other airline beancounter springing for any other clever boxes because there seems no benefit. Between ACARs (inflight weathers/notams++, TCAS (self evident) and Mode S (outputs IAS/ALT/VS/Callsign/type etc) the big end of town seems well and truly covered.
I honestly cannot see ADS-B being attractive to the non subsidised top end of town within the Australian FIR. Nor do I see a convincing and demonstrated urgent need within the Aus FIR in RVSM airspace. Even if QF/J* and VB became ADS-B compliant most foreign carriers won't be so the benefits won't flow to the compliant aircraft operators in RVSM airspace....which as I have stated in the past is hardly what you would call crowded now.
With Cat 3 operations coming to ML and Sydney, and surely PER sooner rather than later given it's remote nature and fog issues, you'll never see lower minimas. You're not going to see, despite the rhetoric issueing forth, significant increases in terminal airspace utilisation without more runways.
Where is the benefits for hicap domestic/international RPT?
Those relatively few jets that operate regionally have TCAS which as has been stated by the regulator won't be made redundant by ADSB anytime soon.
That leaves everyone who operates below RVSM airspace...the regionals and GA. They need, and with the right system in place, could have, vertical guidance on approaches everywhere and even in cockpit weather data....but it seems they aint gonna get it.
At what cost and who benefits?
If this ATM transformation ocurrs without LPV it will be an absolute travesty.
If we can't get 'ILS like' vertical guidance approaches on 1090ES then it has to be WAAS and UAT/VDL4 or whatever for GA.
Our company Boeings have been fitted with Mode S transponders recently...presumably 1090ES...to be JAR compliant. Obviously they are TCAS2 v7 compliant and I believe that is all they will ever be. Can't see any other airline beancounter springing for any other clever boxes because there seems no benefit. Between ACARs (inflight weathers/notams++, TCAS (self evident) and Mode S (outputs IAS/ALT/VS/Callsign/type etc) the big end of town seems well and truly covered.
I honestly cannot see ADS-B being attractive to the non subsidised top end of town within the Australian FIR. Nor do I see a convincing and demonstrated urgent need within the Aus FIR in RVSM airspace. Even if QF/J* and VB became ADS-B compliant most foreign carriers won't be so the benefits won't flow to the compliant aircraft operators in RVSM airspace....which as I have stated in the past is hardly what you would call crowded now.
With Cat 3 operations coming to ML and Sydney, and surely PER sooner rather than later given it's remote nature and fog issues, you'll never see lower minimas. You're not going to see, despite the rhetoric issueing forth, significant increases in terminal airspace utilisation without more runways.
Where is the benefits for hicap domestic/international RPT?
Those relatively few jets that operate regionally have TCAS which as has been stated by the regulator won't be made redundant by ADSB anytime soon.
That leaves everyone who operates below RVSM airspace...the regionals and GA. They need, and with the right system in place, could have, vertical guidance on approaches everywhere and even in cockpit weather data....but it seems they aint gonna get it.
At what cost and who benefits?
Folks,
Ozbusdriver is "sort of right", partly.
Except that the Mode S ADS-B enabled is the GTX330D with the required coverage --- a couple of ales under US$8000 --- a not insignificant amount of money, and an not insignificant difference. Then there is the GPS feed to the GTX330D that GARMIN have announced, the GDL-90, another US$7-8,000, and that gets you OUT. The IN function, you need a screen ---- and do get your part numbers right, not all GNS430/480/530 are created alike, and GARMIN have (very significantly) NOT announced using the GPS in the 430W/480/530W as the GPS feed to a GTX330D. And then there is the little matter of US$14,000 -$22,000 ( not including fitting or GST) just for 430/530 ---- remember --- think Part Numbers ---!!
Claims for the Italian gear are to be verified, "what" they are TSO's for is somewhat of a mystery.
Microair are being very coy ---- not quoting any availability or prices, and the Freeflight C-145 A-1 GPS they are quoting ( once it's problems are sorted and it gets its certification back) is of limited suitability for instrument approaches, so it won't be be much better than C-129A to IFR operators.
As we already know,( we do know, it was on the ASTRA web site --- but the enthusiasts are not letting on) the "$25,000" for Regionals (in the JCP) is short by a factor of 10. So much for the JCP benefits that the enthusiast don't want questioned, least it is revealed that the Emperor has No Clothes.
All the boxes mentioned for heavy metal are OUT ONLY, with no plans for IN, (because in that environment everybody is quite happy with the performance of TCAS II.) ---- and for new production. As the US Air Transport Association (ATA) have just collectively had the penny drop (the real QF figured this out years ago re. 767/744) as to how expensive a retrofit to the whole US fleet is going to be -- unless it is recent production. For the then B767/744 (ex-ER) QF fleet, it was an estimated AUD$49M. You should be able to find this figure in the early AERU meeting minutes --- but I am certainly not going to waste time digging them out of the archives to prove a point, avalanches of proof of the costs are with us: look back at the statement from the President of the ATA.
The almost religious like beliefs of the starry eyes proponents of ADS-B don't change the uncomfortable facts, and you should all read Ch. 3.10.3 of the Booz Allan Hamilton paper on cost/benefit analysis ---Optimism Bias.
Which ever way you go round the mulberry bush, the answer comes out the same --- the ONLY prices for equipment for GA aircraft, that is ACTUALLY available, that meets the ATSO ---- and meets the ICAO transponder standard for ADS-B, is the GARMIN GDL-90/GTX330D combination, with aerials about US$17,000 or so, fitted in Australia, plus GST, somewhere close to AUD $35,000.
Tootle pip!!
Ozbusdriver is "sort of right", partly.
Garmin GTX330 mode S $3526.00US
Claims for the Italian gear are to be verified, "what" they are TSO's for is somewhat of a mystery.
Microair are being very coy ---- not quoting any availability or prices, and the Freeflight C-145 A-1 GPS they are quoting ( once it's problems are sorted and it gets its certification back) is of limited suitability for instrument approaches, so it won't be be much better than C-129A to IFR operators.
As we already know,( we do know, it was on the ASTRA web site --- but the enthusiasts are not letting on) the "$25,000" for Regionals (in the JCP) is short by a factor of 10. So much for the JCP benefits that the enthusiast don't want questioned, least it is revealed that the Emperor has No Clothes.
All the boxes mentioned for heavy metal are OUT ONLY, with no plans for IN, (because in that environment everybody is quite happy with the performance of TCAS II.) ---- and for new production. As the US Air Transport Association (ATA) have just collectively had the penny drop (the real QF figured this out years ago re. 767/744) as to how expensive a retrofit to the whole US fleet is going to be -- unless it is recent production. For the then B767/744 (ex-ER) QF fleet, it was an estimated AUD$49M. You should be able to find this figure in the early AERU meeting minutes --- but I am certainly not going to waste time digging them out of the archives to prove a point, avalanches of proof of the costs are with us: look back at the statement from the President of the ATA.
The almost religious like beliefs of the starry eyes proponents of ADS-B don't change the uncomfortable facts, and you should all read Ch. 3.10.3 of the Booz Allan Hamilton paper on cost/benefit analysis ---Optimism Bias.
Which ever way you go round the mulberry bush, the answer comes out the same --- the ONLY prices for equipment for GA aircraft, that is ACTUALLY available, that meets the ATSO ---- and meets the ICAO transponder standard for ADS-B, is the GARMIN GDL-90/GTX330D combination, with aerials about US$17,000 or so, fitted in Australia, plus GST, somewhere close to AUD $35,000.
Tootle pip!!
Chimbu,
Your post turned up while I was crafting my last masterpiece.
The minimum C-145/146 for LPV is a Gamma 3 PLUS WAAS. No WAAS, NO LPV --- a little point --- glossed over/missed out/not even known to ---those who did the sales job on why we have to have ADS-B --- so that we will be forced to have C145/146 GPS with LPV ---- Yes, Folks, that is actually said, if a bit obliquely, in the ASTRA conglomeration of paperwork.
Won't it be interesting (based on the many non-aviation uses of modern precision GPS --- the first GPS2 operational satellites have just gone up) if Booz Allan Hamilton recommend Australia have its own WAAS satellites, or have its own WAAS equipment hosted on convenient comms. satellites.
Re. your brand spanking new Mode S on your B767 --- like to have a little bet that they are not 1090ES enabled ---- because achieving ADS-B OUT on most B767 is a huge job, almost a complete new cockpit avionics fit, a new FMCS system, related panel changes (it's all software/memory limitations of the now 20 plus year old gear in a B767 --- it is genuinely the equivalent of an Apple 2E --Motorola 8000 series processors)
In a few years time, we will look back, and see what a dumb decision whole 1090ES was -- internationally.
ICAO intended a common for ALL, modern broadband datalink for the many purposes it can be used ---- ADS-B, CPDLC and the Chief Steward processing credit card on-board duty free sales ( as we have done for years with ACARS), and the competition shortlist was UAT and VDL-4.
Then 1090ES reared its head --- sold as a cheap and easy solution (remember the AsA PP slide --- 1.44 floppy and a cable was to be it) to a broke US (and most of the rest of the world) ATA/IATA membership. As those who are actually involved, as opposed to armchair experts, now know, or as some of us have known for a long time, is that short sighted undermining of the original ICAO intent for a common broadband standard, is neither cheap or simple for a large proportion of the world's airline fleet, aircraft that are going to remain the bulk of the world's airline fleet for many years.
Chimbu, your management will know by now, that if you are your type of aircraft operating in the ECAC (or FAA) area, within the next several years, you will have to have VDL-2 for all routine ATC operations, CPDLC will no longer be optional.
If the ICAO plans had not been shafted, there would have been ONE standard of datalink, whether UAT or VDL-4 would not have made much difference, just as we have one standard for all other aviation avionic (ignoring some CIS legacy equipment). So, the one datalink would have served CPDLC, ADS-B, company comms with ARINC/SITA, much enhanced real time trend monitoring, and whatever good ideas somebody might have dreamt up.
Instead, we are squeezing the last data pips out of a datalink lemon, that hails from WWII. It's barely (but is) adequate for TCAS II, but severely bandwidth limited in the digital broadband age.
And airlines will be faced with the initial and ongoing costs of having to have multiple incompatible datalinks on the one airframe, when it could have been one (duplicated) box.
An Australia, "punching above our weight", as is often our boast, have played a big role on promoting this technologically regressive standard, 1090ES.
Tootle pip!!
Your post turned up while I was crafting my last masterpiece.
If this ATM transformation occurs without LPV it will be an absolute travesty.
Won't it be interesting (based on the many non-aviation uses of modern precision GPS --- the first GPS2 operational satellites have just gone up) if Booz Allan Hamilton recommend Australia have its own WAAS satellites, or have its own WAAS equipment hosted on convenient comms. satellites.
Re. your brand spanking new Mode S on your B767 --- like to have a little bet that they are not 1090ES enabled ---- because achieving ADS-B OUT on most B767 is a huge job, almost a complete new cockpit avionics fit, a new FMCS system, related panel changes (it's all software/memory limitations of the now 20 plus year old gear in a B767 --- it is genuinely the equivalent of an Apple 2E --Motorola 8000 series processors)
In a few years time, we will look back, and see what a dumb decision whole 1090ES was -- internationally.
ICAO intended a common for ALL, modern broadband datalink for the many purposes it can be used ---- ADS-B, CPDLC and the Chief Steward processing credit card on-board duty free sales ( as we have done for years with ACARS), and the competition shortlist was UAT and VDL-4.
Then 1090ES reared its head --- sold as a cheap and easy solution (remember the AsA PP slide --- 1.44 floppy and a cable was to be it) to a broke US (and most of the rest of the world) ATA/IATA membership. As those who are actually involved, as opposed to armchair experts, now know, or as some of us have known for a long time, is that short sighted undermining of the original ICAO intent for a common broadband standard, is neither cheap or simple for a large proportion of the world's airline fleet, aircraft that are going to remain the bulk of the world's airline fleet for many years.
Chimbu, your management will know by now, that if you are your type of aircraft operating in the ECAC (or FAA) area, within the next several years, you will have to have VDL-2 for all routine ATC operations, CPDLC will no longer be optional.
If the ICAO plans had not been shafted, there would have been ONE standard of datalink, whether UAT or VDL-4 would not have made much difference, just as we have one standard for all other aviation avionic (ignoring some CIS legacy equipment). So, the one datalink would have served CPDLC, ADS-B, company comms with ARINC/SITA, much enhanced real time trend monitoring, and whatever good ideas somebody might have dreamt up.
Instead, we are squeezing the last data pips out of a datalink lemon, that hails from WWII. It's barely (but is) adequate for TCAS II, but severely bandwidth limited in the digital broadband age.
And airlines will be faced with the initial and ongoing costs of having to have multiple incompatible datalinks on the one airframe, when it could have been one (duplicated) box.
An Australia, "punching above our weight", as is often our boast, have played a big role on promoting this technologically regressive standard, 1090ES.
Tootle pip!!
Grandpa Aerotart
so that we will be forced to have C145/146 GPS with LPV
Any system without LPV is a waste of everyone's time and money.
Chimbu,
Sorry about not being quite clear enough.
If a C145/146 GPS engine is at least Gamma3, it can handle LPV, but WAAS is a must. No WAAS, and the LPV function is inactive.
Thus, do you believe it is appropriate (honest?) to include LPV benefits in the JCP C/B "study".
So, keep those letters flowing in to your local member, even if AsA and its major bill payers prefer GRAS (for some very good reason --- and they don't benefit from WAAS) there is the little matter of the rest of Australia, not just the Regionals down, but all forms of transport, marine, mining, survey, agriculture etc. WAAS up, Doc.
Another example of the national interest not being the same as the commercial interests of AsA, but reading the ADS-B or bust brigade comments, one might believe so ---- that we, the bulk of the aircraft on the VH- register, should be forced to have a system we don't need, to solve a problem we don't have, because AsA says it will save somewhere between 2-4% on the bottom line.
At a cost to us of some AUD$200M plus over the program period.
Everybody who has been critical of Dr.R.J.Hall's paper dissecting the JCP have been very strong on assertions that he is wrong, but there is not one word to support the assertions.
Tootle pip!!
Sorry about not being quite clear enough.
If a C145/146 GPS engine is at least Gamma3, it can handle LPV, but WAAS is a must. No WAAS, and the LPV function is inactive.
Thus, do you believe it is appropriate (honest?) to include LPV benefits in the JCP C/B "study".
So, keep those letters flowing in to your local member, even if AsA and its major bill payers prefer GRAS (for some very good reason --- and they don't benefit from WAAS) there is the little matter of the rest of Australia, not just the Regionals down, but all forms of transport, marine, mining, survey, agriculture etc. WAAS up, Doc.
Another example of the national interest not being the same as the commercial interests of AsA, but reading the ADS-B or bust brigade comments, one might believe so ---- that we, the bulk of the aircraft on the VH- register, should be forced to have a system we don't need, to solve a problem we don't have, because AsA says it will save somewhere between 2-4% on the bottom line.
At a cost to us of some AUD$200M plus over the program period.
Everybody who has been critical of Dr.R.J.Hall's paper dissecting the JCP have been very strong on assertions that he is wrong, but there is not one word to support the assertions.
Tootle pip!!
GDL90, forgot that one too. Re- 1090ES in GTX330, Garmin put out a blurb that this unit WILL be available lastQ this year. As for the GPS engine, that same blurb had the GDL90 as the source for positional information.
Lead, now that I have found a price for the GTX330. I would be confirming that to ensure that the $7056.00 unit is for IN and TAWS. Obviously IN would be UAT not 1090ES.
Lead, now that I have found a price for the GTX330. I would be confirming that to ensure that the $7056.00 unit is for IN and TAWS. Obviously IN would be UAT not 1090ES.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And UAT IN won't be much use if the JCP succeeds, will it?
I for one support the comments of Dr Hall. Are there any Australian pilots who do not want an enroute surveillance system that is highly accurate, extensible, repeatable, robust and based on low cost infrastructure? The JCP claims to do so at the great expense of GA operators who are effectively being asked to underwrite the cost savings that Airservices, the airlines and government would gain. The risk - and it is great - just ask any business that bought IT vapourware in the '80s - is being very conveniently flicked to the GA sector.
The GTX330D, at least according to the published Garmin specifications, will be certified to TSO C112. But CAO 20.18 requires TSO C166/a or the ATSOs. So to make these statements, you guys must KNOW that Garmin will either recertify to TSO C166/a or the ATSOs? Really? Or are you all relying on the "CASA Cop-Out", whereby it really doesn't matter whether it's a thronomister or a 1090ES device, since CASA was given the legal right in the last NPRM to make a standard and approve it anyway? [vide CAO 20.18, Appendix XI, 1(e)]
We are faced with the unenviable dilemma of missing out on the subsidy if we disagree, whilst running the risk of bearing the financial costs of ABIT's gamble entirely on our own if those great authorities turn out to be wrong about the unannounced intentions of mostly US avionics manufacturers.
Umm, gee, funny, didn't see any mention of that in the JCP. But it'll be a good excuse later, after the legislation and after 60% of the GA community has done its money.
I guess it just goes with the political season. It's a disgrace.
fraud·u·lent adj
not honest, true, or fair, and intended to deceive people
But, don't let me put you all off. Quick! race off and support it anyway.
I for one support the comments of Dr Hall. Are there any Australian pilots who do not want an enroute surveillance system that is highly accurate, extensible, repeatable, robust and based on low cost infrastructure? The JCP claims to do so at the great expense of GA operators who are effectively being asked to underwrite the cost savings that Airservices, the airlines and government would gain. The risk - and it is great - just ask any business that bought IT vapourware in the '80s - is being very conveniently flicked to the GA sector.
The GTX330D, at least according to the published Garmin specifications, will be certified to TSO C112. But CAO 20.18 requires TSO C166/a or the ATSOs. So to make these statements, you guys must KNOW that Garmin will either recertify to TSO C166/a or the ATSOs? Really? Or are you all relying on the "CASA Cop-Out", whereby it really doesn't matter whether it's a thronomister or a 1090ES device, since CASA was given the legal right in the last NPRM to make a standard and approve it anyway? [vide CAO 20.18, Appendix XI, 1(e)]
We are faced with the unenviable dilemma of missing out on the subsidy if we disagree, whilst running the risk of bearing the financial costs of ABIT's gamble entirely on our own if those great authorities turn out to be wrong about the unannounced intentions of mostly US avionics manufacturers.
Umm, gee, funny, didn't see any mention of that in the JCP. But it'll be a good excuse later, after the legislation and after 60% of the GA community has done its money.
I guess it just goes with the political season. It's a disgrace.
fraud·u·lent adj
not honest, true, or fair, and intended to deceive people
But, don't let me put you all off. Quick! race off and support it anyway.
Dials,
We have been told that., "technically" the (# number) GTX330D "will meet" the necessary spec. for 1090ES, when it is released, but that's not quite the same as actually being certified.
Folks, please understand the "subsidy" is only for aircraft on the register at some magical date xx/xx/xxxx, it is not open ended. Think how adding an extra $30,000 (based on the only actual prices we have --- not "gunna" prices) is going to encourage fleet renewal at the bottom end of the market.
Like no safety case at all, not even a flawed one, and a CBA that is not any cost/benefit analysis in any normal terms, and not within a bull's roar of the BAH guidelines for a CBA.
But that's enough for now, otherwise I might spoil a good night's sleep.
Tootle pip!!
you guys must KNOW that Garmin will either recertify to TSO C166/a or the ATSOs?
unenviable dilemma of missing out on the subsidy
Umm, gee, funny, didn't see any mention of that in the JCP.
But that's enough for now, otherwise I might spoil a good night's sleep.
Tootle pip!!
Grandpa Aerotart
Been doing a little more light reading on the garmin website and others...and lets face it, Garmin have the world market for GA hi tech largely to themselves so that is the most likely manufacturer for TSO'd IFR units.
My understanding is the certified GDL90 will be a stand alone (imbedded C145a GPS) ADSB compliant, data generating unit which will transmit the required data via the GTX330(D) Mode S 1090es unit...although no mention of ADSB-out capability appears anywhere in the GTX330(D) spec sheet, and 3rd qtr 20007 is here, it appears the obvious vehicle.
It seems the only capability the extended squiter transmission has is the basic IAS/ALT/TRK/ID info that provides the desired AsA result of 'radar like' monitoring within the ADS-B coverage...ADS-B out.
If ADS-B in is desired it must come via UAT (or VDL4)....neither of which are options currently even remotely being considered by AsA...Do I have that right...the ES is a transmit (limited) data only deal?
AsA makes much of the GBAS/GRAS GNSS enabled precision approach capability at any airport with 23nm of the ground station...so MB/BK/AF/PF/JK/RED/CAB etc could all benefit, theoretically, by being within that 23nm and have precision approaches down to cat 1 minimas.
How...what unit will be required to interpret the digital signal and display it on your CDI/HSI...at what cost?
Just why GNSS Cat 1 minimas are going to get the airlines all wet between the legs escapes me...they have that now and really need CAT2/3 at the capital city primaries to reduce interstate diversion due fog. The saving for the airlines are not JUST from not doing diversions on a handfull of days each year either...they'd save every day by not tankering interstate diversion fuel into Sydney from halfway around the world just in case weather goes below CAT 1 minimas. I am sure we wouldn't arrive in Per with 12000kg++ in our 767s if 03/21 was Cat3b ND or BN divert fuel into Sydney.
We're not getting SBAS/WAAS...technology that would enable equipment already fitted to 1000s of GA aircraft in Australia and would have mittigated 'Australia's worst air disaster'...and would be a revolutionary game changer for regional/charter and private IFR operations within Australia.
The SAR case is overstated to an extent that borders on Pythonesque given the proposed GRAS/GBAS coverage at low altitude.
No inflight weather because of no UAT/VDL4....you gotta admit it would be nice to able to download the AsA weather info inflight for a nominal fee...we get it free now via the WWW on the ground.
All we might get is a remote mounted GDL90/ModeS 1090Es combo that releases AsA from 100s of millions of $ in equipment renewal.
What an OBSCENE missed opportunity
Increased safety?
Really...How?
My understanding is the certified GDL90 will be a stand alone (imbedded C145a GPS) ADSB compliant, data generating unit which will transmit the required data via the GTX330(D) Mode S 1090es unit...although no mention of ADSB-out capability appears anywhere in the GTX330(D) spec sheet, and 3rd qtr 20007 is here, it appears the obvious vehicle.
It seems the only capability the extended squiter transmission has is the basic IAS/ALT/TRK/ID info that provides the desired AsA result of 'radar like' monitoring within the ADS-B coverage...ADS-B out.
If ADS-B in is desired it must come via UAT (or VDL4)....neither of which are options currently even remotely being considered by AsA...Do I have that right...the ES is a transmit (limited) data only deal?
AsA makes much of the GBAS/GRAS GNSS enabled precision approach capability at any airport with 23nm of the ground station...so MB/BK/AF/PF/JK/RED/CAB etc could all benefit, theoretically, by being within that 23nm and have precision approaches down to cat 1 minimas.
How...what unit will be required to interpret the digital signal and display it on your CDI/HSI...at what cost?
Just why GNSS Cat 1 minimas are going to get the airlines all wet between the legs escapes me...they have that now and really need CAT2/3 at the capital city primaries to reduce interstate diversion due fog. The saving for the airlines are not JUST from not doing diversions on a handfull of days each year either...they'd save every day by not tankering interstate diversion fuel into Sydney from halfway around the world just in case weather goes below CAT 1 minimas. I am sure we wouldn't arrive in Per with 12000kg++ in our 767s if 03/21 was Cat3b ND or BN divert fuel into Sydney.
We're not getting SBAS/WAAS...technology that would enable equipment already fitted to 1000s of GA aircraft in Australia and would have mittigated 'Australia's worst air disaster'...and would be a revolutionary game changer for regional/charter and private IFR operations within Australia.
The SAR case is overstated to an extent that borders on Pythonesque given the proposed GRAS/GBAS coverage at low altitude.
No inflight weather because of no UAT/VDL4....you gotta admit it would be nice to able to download the AsA weather info inflight for a nominal fee...we get it free now via the WWW on the ground.
All we might get is a remote mounted GDL90/ModeS 1090Es combo that releases AsA from 100s of millions of $ in equipment renewal.
What an OBSCENE missed opportunity
Increased safety?
Really...How?
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 19th Sep 2007 at 16:59.
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
Except that the Mode S ADS-B enabled is the GTX330D with the required coverage
.
What are (out of curiosity) the differences in the ‘range’ of the two different standards i.e 1090ES V’s UAT?
--- a couple of ales under US$8000 --- a not insignificant amount of money,
and an not insignificant difference.
Then there is the GPS feed to the GTX330D that GARMIN have announced, the GDL-90, another US$7-8,000,
.
… presumably you have hard data on which to make these assertions, and therefore should be able to share it here with us!
and that gets you OUT.
The IN function, you need a screen
.
..are you seriously suggesting UAT 'IN' is easier than 1090ES 'IN'? ... or that folks like GARMIN will not manufacture 1090ES 'IN' capability?
.
REMEMBER! …. This JCP (and the infrastructure savings from it, that pay for it) is for the removal of ‘back-up’ (or redundant) ground Navaids (as listed) and replacement for Enroute SSR (that WILL have to be replaced if Mode A/C TXPDR’s are still in play in large numbers)! …. In other words …. THIS IS PRIMARILY An ATM SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT! ….. any other positive safety benefits for GA such as LPV (TSO145/6) and/or collision risk reduction OCTA, outside surveillance areas are separate (but important) issues! … more on that later
.
Back to the script:- So we have
.
.. a GPS, a 1090ES TXPDR, a screen … voila!
.
…… but but hang on
---- and do get your part numbers right,
.
So lets break down the state of play:-
.
VFR
.
Some owners/operators might currently have:-
.
- No GPS in the aircraft
- No A/C TXPDR
- A non- TSO GPS
- A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav) … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally)
- A non - TSO Glass system
- A TSO- Glass system
.
IFR
.
Some owners/operators might currently have:-
.
- No GPS in the aircraft
- A non- TSO GPS
- A TSO 129a (not sole means but, IFR Nav) i.e. GPS in Lieu of DME etc use
- A non - TSO Glass system (Standard TSO’d IFR instrumentation)
- A TSO- Glass system
.
A mandate will IMHR mean:-
.
VFR
.
Owners/operators will have/get:-
.
- A TSO GPS in the aircraft
- An A/C/S/ES TXPDR
- A TSO GPS (if RAIM Cert) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav) … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A non - TSO Glass system (if equipped with A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally) ) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A TSO- Glass system (if equipped with A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally) ) + an add on ES TXPDR only
.
IFR
.
Some owners/operators will have:-
.
- A TSO GPS in the aircraft
- An A/C/S/ES TXPDR
- A TSO GPS (if RAIM Cert) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A non - TSO Glass system (if equipped with A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav … for which they are not able to fly IFR approaches (legally) + an add on ES TXPDR only
- A TSO- Glass system (if equipped with A TSO 129a (not sole means, but IFR Nav or 146a + an add on ES TXPDR only
.
What data protocol/s for connection? …………how many of these parts (from different manufacturers) can plug together?
.
…. Hmmm
.
..here’s a hint …… what data standards from GPS’s drive Autopilots? ….. which manufacturers of each will drive/receive the other/s?
not all GNS430/480/530 are created alike, and GARMIN have (very significantly) NOT announced using the GPS in the 430W/480/530W as the GPS feed to a GTX330D.
And then there is the little matter of US$14,000 -$22,000 ( not including fitting or GST) just for 430/530
---- remember --- think Part Numbers ---!!
Claims for the Italian gear are to be verified, "what" they are TSO's for is somewhat of a mystery.
.
… what standards do you think they will meet (FOR AVIATION) if they are gunna sell them! ….. bloody hell …. You’ve been watching too many Harry Potter movies!
Microair are being very coy ---- not quoting any availability or prices,
and the Freeflight C-145 A-1 GPS they are quoting ( once it's problems are sorted and it gets its certification back) is of limited suitability for instrument approaches, so it won't be be much better than C-129A to IFR operators.
As we already know,( we do know, it was on the ASTRA web site --- but the enthusiasts are not letting on) the "$25,000" for Regionals (in the JCP) is short by a factor of 10.
So much for the JCP benefits that the enthusiast don't want questioned, least it is revealed that the Emperor has No Clothes.
All the boxes mentioned for heavy metal are OUT ONLY, with no plans for IN, (because in that environment everybody is quite happy with the performance of TCAS II.)
---- and for new production. As the US Air Transport Association (ATA) have just collectively had the penny drop (the real QF figured this out years ago re. 767/744) as to how expensive a retrofit to the whole US fleet is going to be -- unless it is recent production. For the then B767/744 (ex-ER) QF fleet, it was an estimated AUD$49M. You should be able to find this figure in the early AERU meeting minutes --- but I am certainly not going to waste time digging them out of the archives to prove a point, avalanches of proof of the costs are with us: look back at the statement from the President of the ATA.
The almost religious like beliefs of the starry eyes proponents of ADS-B don't change the uncomfortable facts, and you should all read Ch. 3.10.3 of the Booz Allan Hamilton paper on cost/benefit analysis ---Optimism Bias.
Which ever way you go round the mulberry bush, the answer comes out the same
--- the ONLY prices for equipment for GA aircraft, that is ACTUALLY available, that meets the ATSO ---- and meets the ICAO transponder standard for ADS-B, is the GARMIN GDL-90/GTX330D combination, with aerials about US$17,000 or so, fitted in Australia, plus GST, somewhere close to AUD $35,000.
.
Now on to LPV (which is a separate issue)!
The minimum C-145/146 for LPV is a Gamma 3 PLUS WAAS. No WAAS, NO LPV
--- a little point --- glossed over/missed out/not even known to ---those who did the sales job on why we have to have ADS-B--- so that we will be forced to have C145/146 GPS with LPV ---- Yes, Folks, that is actually said, if a bit obliquely, in the ASTRA conglomeration of paperwork.
.
Won't it be interesting (based on the many non-aviation uses of modern precision GPS --- the first GPS2 operational satellites have just gone up) if Booz Allan Hamilton recommend Australia have its own WAAS satellites, or have its own WAAS equipment hosted on convenient comms. satellites.
Re. your brand spanking new Mode S on your B767 --- like to have a little bet that they are not 1090ES enabled ---- because achieving ADS-B OUT on most B767 is a huge job, almost a complete new cockpit avionics fit, a new FMCS system, related panel changes (it's all software/memory limitations of the now 20 plus year old gear in a B767 --- it is genuinely the equivalent of an Apple 2E --Motorola 8000 series processors)
In a few years time, we will look back, and see what a dumb decision whole 1090ES was -- internationally.
ICAO intended a common for ALL, modern broadband datalink for the many purposes it can be used
---- ADS-B, CPDLC and the Chief Steward processing credit card on-board duty free sales
( as we have done for years with ACARS),
and the competition shortlist was UAT and VDL-4.
Then 1090ES reared its head --- sold as a cheap and easy solution (remember the AsA PP slide --- 1.44 floppy and a cable was to be it) to a broke US (and most of the rest of the world) ATA/IATA membership.
.
Hey Big L's … can you tell us the one about the proliferation of those nasty boxes all over the US that talk two different languages most of which is can only be heard close by ….. ???
As those who are actually involved, as opposed to armchair experts, now know, or as some of us have known for a long time, is that short sighted undermining of the original ICAO intent for a common broadband standard, is neither cheap or simple for a large proportion of the world's airline fleet, aircraft that are going to remain the bulk of the world's airline fleet for many years.
Chimbu, your management will know by now, that if you are your type of aircraft operating in the ECAC (or FAA) area, within the next several years, you will have to have VDL-2 for all routine ATC operations, CPDLC will no longer be optional.
If the ICAO plans had not been shafted, there would have been ONE standard of datalink,
whether UAT or VDL-4 would not have made much difference,
just as we have one standard for all other aviation avionic (ignoring some CIS legacy equipment). So, the one datalink would have served CPDLC, ADS-B, company comms with ARINC/SITA, much enhanced real time trend monitoring, and whatever good ideas somebody might have dreamt up.
Instead, we are squeezing the last data pips out of a datalink lemon, that hails from WWII.
It's barely (but is) adequate for TCAS II, but severely bandwidth limited in the digital broadband age.
.
Heres the rub
.
… How many TCAS equipped aircraft will see VDL4 or UAT aircraft ???
And airlines will be faced with the initial and ongoing costs of having to have multiple incompatible datalinks on the one airframe, when it could have been one (duplicated) box.
An Australia, "punching above our weight", as is often our boast, have played a big role on promoting this technologically regressive standard, 1090ES.
If a C145/146 GPS engine is at least Gamma3, it can handle LPV, but WAAS is a must. No WAAS, and the LPV function is inactive.
Thus, do you believe it is appropriate (honest?) to include LPV benefits in the JCP C/B "study".
So, keep those letters flowing in to your local member, even if AsA and its major bill payers prefer GRAS (for some very good reason --- and they don't benefit from WAAS)
.
WAAS/GRAS … why would ASA give a hoot ….. oh yeah … it is a little easier to install AND SERVICE a regional augmentation system than A SATELITTE ……
.
What are the cost comparisons for GRAS V’s WAAS eh? … and who will pay?
there is the little matter of the rest of Australia, not just the Regionals down, but all forms of transport, marine, mining, survey, agriculture etc.
WAAS up, Doc.
Another example of the national interest not being the same as the commercial interests of AsA, but reading the ADS-B or bust brigade comments, one might believe so
---- that we, the bulk of the aircraft on the VH- register, should be forced to have a system we don't need, to solve a problem we don't have, because AsA says it will save somewhere between 2-4% on the bottom line.
.
.
.
….. STOP THE MUSIC ….. Big L’s cries!
At a cost to us of some AUD$200M plus over the program period.
Everybody who has been critical of Dr.R.J.Hall's paper dissecting the JCP have been very strong on assertions that he is wrong, but there is not one word to support the assertions.
And UAT IN won't be much use if the JCP succeeds, will it?
I for one support the comments of Dr Hall.
Are there any Australian pilots who do not want an enroute surveillance system that is highly accurate, extensible, repeatable, robust and based on low cost infrastructure?
The JCP claims to do so at the great expense of GA operators who are effectively being asked to underwrite the cost savings that Airservices, the airlines and government would gain.
The risk - and it is great
- just ask any business that bought IT vapourware in the '80s
- is being very conveniently flicked to the GA sector.
The GTX330D, at least according to the published Garmin specifications, will be certified to TSO C112. But CAO 20.18 requires TSO C166/a or the ATSOs. So to make these statements, you guys must KNOW that Garmin will either recertify to TSO C166/a or the ATSOs?
Really? Or are you all relying on the "CASA Cop-Out", whereby it really doesn't matter whether it's a thronomister or a 1090ES device, since CASA was given the legal right in the last NPRM to make a standard and approve it anyway?
[vide CAO 20.18, Appendix XI, 1(e)]
We are faced with the unenviable dilemma of missing out on the subsidy if we disagree, whilst running the risk of bearing the financial costs of ABIT's gamble entirely on our own if those great authorities turn out to be wrong about the unannounced intentions of mostly US avionics manufacturers.
Umm, gee, funny, didn't see any mention of that in the JCP. But it'll be a good excuse later, after the legislation and after 60% of the GA community has done its money.
I guess it just goes with the political season. It's a disgrace.
fraud•u•lent adj
not honest, true, or fair, and intended to deceive people
not honest, true, or fair, and intended to deceive people
But, don't let me put you all off. Quick! race off and support it anyway.
.
Here is the link to the oft mentioned (but never properly quoted) Booz Allen Hamilton guide:-
.
National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia (2nd edition, December 2006)
.
... go on Big L .... so us all how off the mark the JCP really is against BAH .... wholistically that is
Scurvey,
Old mate, you have the wrong BAH DRAFT report, BAH have been commissioned (didn't you read the Minister's press releases) to produce guidelines for CBA, in the last few months, values of life, and a a range of interesting matters, of which WAAS for AUSTRALIA ---- not just aviation use ----- is one. Try the CASA web site.
Clearly you are unaware, but GNSS is used for many purposes, I did list a few, and the penny has dropped that the AsA "decision" on WAAS is not a case of "What's Good For Airservices Is Good For Australia".
Who will pay for it? Australia, presumably --- who else ---- just the same way as we pay --- for satellite time ---- how many ways are there, now??
As for most of the rest of your last post, when "ye got that ol' time religion", it wouldn't matter what I said, or anybody else who disagrees with you. It would also seem that you only have a limited grasp of the technicalities involved and don't really understand why:
WHY ICAO PROPOSED A COMMON BROADBAND DATALINK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Instead of having a plethora of datalinks, which is where we are going now.
I think it is axiomatic that a single common broadband datalink would be cheaper than multiple datalinks on the one airframe, particularly when bandwidth limited. This is NOT to say that the current Mode S TXPD/TCAS II won't be with us for a long time yet ---- a large part of the reason the two major large airframe manufacturers have expressed disinterest in ADS-B IN, seeing it as a air/ground ATC function only.
You do understand, do you, that a 1090ES ADS-B ONLY signal will not trigger TCAS, do you, you need the full Mode A/C. I doubt that we will see any diminishing of the role of transponders ----
Range?? As UAT works in the same frequency range as transponders, I would assume the basic range was about the same. This was a claimed advantage of VDL-X, being VHF, it has a longer range than UHF, but whether the theoretical differences translate to practical differences is moot.
Ozbusdriver
And Garmin have told us that the GTX330D will meet DO260A, so far the only other (but I am sure there will be more) is one P/N Collins TDR-94D)
Tootle pip!!
Old mate, you have the wrong BAH DRAFT report, BAH have been commissioned (didn't you read the Minister's press releases) to produce guidelines for CBA, in the last few months, values of life, and a a range of interesting matters, of which WAAS for AUSTRALIA ---- not just aviation use ----- is one. Try the CASA web site.
Clearly you are unaware, but GNSS is used for many purposes, I did list a few, and the penny has dropped that the AsA "decision" on WAAS is not a case of "What's Good For Airservices Is Good For Australia".
Who will pay for it? Australia, presumably --- who else ---- just the same way as we pay --- for satellite time ---- how many ways are there, now??
As for most of the rest of your last post, when "ye got that ol' time religion", it wouldn't matter what I said, or anybody else who disagrees with you. It would also seem that you only have a limited grasp of the technicalities involved and don't really understand why:
WHY ICAO PROPOSED A COMMON BROADBAND DATALINK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Instead of having a plethora of datalinks, which is where we are going now.
I think it is axiomatic that a single common broadband datalink would be cheaper than multiple datalinks on the one airframe, particularly when bandwidth limited. This is NOT to say that the current Mode S TXPD/TCAS II won't be with us for a long time yet ---- a large part of the reason the two major large airframe manufacturers have expressed disinterest in ADS-B IN, seeing it as a air/ground ATC function only.
You do understand, do you, that a 1090ES ADS-B ONLY signal will not trigger TCAS, do you, you need the full Mode A/C. I doubt that we will see any diminishing of the role of transponders ----
Range?? As UAT works in the same frequency range as transponders, I would assume the basic range was about the same. This was a claimed advantage of VDL-X, being VHF, it has a longer range than UHF, but whether the theoretical differences translate to practical differences is moot.
Ozbusdriver
---the prime target of the AS/CASA compliance tests.
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
..you said on 16th September 2007, 04:22 post #154 (to Gaunty)
…. Did you intentionally lead us off to the DoTaRS website knowing that the BAH stuff (on the DoTaRS site i.e. linked through BTRE to Australian Transport Council) was a furphy?
.
Then today
.
Low and behold, there tucked away in the OAR pages:-
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/airspace/draftreport.html
..and the documents are dated ….. 27 Aug 2007’
.
18 days for public consultation/feedback on the document that our regulator will base decisions on airspace matters into the future!?
.
… how many people/groups/organisations new about this and had time to feedback (before closure of submissions) on the final draft of such an important document?
.
Background on BAH:-
.
http://www.boozallen.com.au/booz_all...outus/13489780
.
Aviation:-
.
http://www.boozallen.com.au/booz_all...ctors#Aviation
.
Then for a flavour, look at the Economics Values document:-
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/airspace/draftreport.html
.
- Airspace depiction on Page 6 …. 2004 … and clearly wrong in context of C airspace over D (that exists both before and after the untested AusNAS2b) …. There are others, but lets sit on them for now!
.
…. one other notable omission …. Who were the SME’s engaged to formulate this? …. Bill? … anyone?
.
…not withstanding …. (I ask again specifically) .. what in the current JCP/CBA does not comply with or require the assumptions drawn by BAH?
.
Key to this is another pearl that you refused to answer previously on this subject ….. where is the statistical data on VFR flights outside CTA and/or surveillance areas?? … and in its absence .. what assumptions can be made?
.
None the less, in response to the rest of your latest post:-
.. what I said was
..and
… no penny drop … the BAH process should compare the utility and safety outcomes of both WAAS and GRAS for all that might use it … when will we see it? .. and who will pay? …. Australia?
.
..you said
… I see CDMA/WAAS/GRAS … how much are GA to be levied for that investment? …. Or are you suggesting funding as a Community Service Obligation without recovery from General revenue? …. Hmmm … I’d like to see that … better lock it in before you wax lyrical about it!
…. If you say so oracle …. Lets count them though (even though I have no grasp) :-
.
GA UAT
.
- Traffic on UAT and 1090ES when in range of a ground station
- WX notams (by subscription) when in range of a ground station
- Requires dual band ground stations and CDMA footprint
.
Costs? …. You cannot tell us!
.
1090ES
.
-Traffic (all) via 1090ES irrespective of ground station in range
- WX and Notams (via Sat XM etc) (by subscription) available anywhere anytime
- Requires single band ADS ground station (no CDMA network)
.
Cost? (XM Sat V’s CDMA ground network)? …. You cannot tell us .. yet you tell us UAT is the go …. How does the industry decide on the other (non traffic stuff until a CBA comparison is done?? … hmmm … hypocritical maybe?
.. which completely ignores the ground based costs and the requirement to be within ground station range to see all UAT and 1090ES (RPT) traffic … do YOU understand?
.. this assertion has been said and tested that many times here .. and each time you provide no basis in fact to support it!
…. how many will squitt A/C/S/ES together? …. How does that compare with UAT?
.. you sure?
…. Depends on what sort of benefit/utility you want/expect from the ground based infrastructure doesn’t it?
.
As for the rest:-
.
… no comment (again) on Part 103 … !
.
… no comment (again) on CBA/Risk for a tangible reduction in TXPDR/VHF carriage in certain classes of airspace …. !
.
…. Wonder why? ….. TXPDR’s? …. VHF?
.
Readers might be interested in Part 103 :-
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/part...nprm0603os.pdf
.
Take particular note of :-
.
- Page 7
.
- Page 18 (3.5.12)
.
- 103.063
- 103.360
.
..bit different to the current reg eh Lead/Bob!
.
... where is the limitation/requirement to have the equipment fixed?
.
.. was it you Lead that said recently that Sport owners were removing TXPDR's?
.
.... will make any attempt elsewhere in the regs to mandate VHF carriage and use moot .... then the argument for CTAF only fly's right out the safety window .... eh
.
Emperor …. and Threads mate … take a captain cook in the mirror!
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.
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.
.
Then today
Scurvey,
.
Old mate, you have the wrong BAH DRAFT report, BAH have been commissioned (didn't you read the Minister's press releases) to produce guidelines for CBA, in the last few months, values of life, and a a range of interesting matters, of which WAAS for AUSTRALIA ---- not just aviation use ----- is one. Try the CASA web site.
.
Old mate, you have the wrong BAH DRAFT report, BAH have been commissioned (didn't you read the Minister's press releases) to produce guidelines for CBA, in the last few months, values of life, and a a range of interesting matters, of which WAAS for AUSTRALIA ---- not just aviation use ----- is one. Try the CASA web site.
Low and behold, there tucked away in the OAR pages:-
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/airspace/draftreport.html
Public comment
.
These documents are currently open for public comment. Comments should be emailed to [email protected] by COB 14 September 2007.
.
These documents are currently open for public comment. Comments should be emailed to [email protected] by COB 14 September 2007.
.
18 days for public consultation/feedback on the document that our regulator will base decisions on airspace matters into the future!?
.
… how many people/groups/organisations new about this and had time to feedback (before closure of submissions) on the final draft of such an important document?
.
Background on BAH:-
.
http://www.boozallen.com.au/booz_all...outus/13489780
.
Aviation:-
.
http://www.boozallen.com.au/booz_all...ctors#Aviation
.
Then for a flavour, look at the Economics Values document:-
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/airspace/draftreport.html
.
- Airspace depiction on Page 6 …. 2004 … and clearly wrong in context of C airspace over D (that exists both before and after the untested AusNAS2b) …. There are others, but lets sit on them for now!
.
…. one other notable omission …. Who were the SME’s engaged to formulate this? …. Bill? … anyone?
.
…not withstanding …. (I ask again specifically) .. what in the current JCP/CBA does not comply with or require the assumptions drawn by BAH?
.
Key to this is another pearl that you refused to answer previously on this subject ….. where is the statistical data on VFR flights outside CTA and/or surveillance areas?? … and in its absence .. what assumptions can be made?
.
None the less, in response to the rest of your latest post:-
Clearly you are unaware, but GNSS is used for many purposes, I did list a few, and the penny has dropped that the AsA "decision" on WAAS is not a case of "What's Good For Airservices Is Good For Australia".
…. so who is paying for the WAAS satellite/s and where is the CBA comparing to Ground based???? ….. you keep banin on about process, lets see it!
WAAS/GRAS … why would ASA give a hoot ….. oh yeah … it is a little easier to install AND SERVICE a regional augmentation system than A SATELITTE ……
.
What are the cost comparisons for GRAS V’s WAAS eh? … and who will pay?
.
What are the cost comparisons for GRAS V’s WAAS eh? … and who will pay?
.
..you said
Who will pay for it? Australia, presumably --- who else ---- just the same way as we pay --- for satellite time ---- how many ways are there, now??
As for most of the rest of your last post, when "ye got that ol' time religion", it wouldn't matter what I said, or anybody else who disagrees with you. It would also seem that you only have a limited grasp of the technicalities involved and don't really understand why:
.
WHY ICAO PROPOSED A COMMON BROADBAND DATALINK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
.
Instead of having a plethora of datalinks, which is where we are going now.
.
WHY ICAO PROPOSED A COMMON BROADBAND DATALINK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
.
Instead of having a plethora of datalinks, which is where we are going now.
:-.
GA UAT
.
- Traffic on UAT and 1090ES when in range of a ground station
- WX notams (by subscription) when in range of a ground station
- Requires dual band ground stations and CDMA footprint
.
Costs? …. You cannot tell us!
.
1090ES
.
-Traffic (all) via 1090ES irrespective of ground station in range
- WX and Notams (via Sat XM etc) (by subscription) available anywhere anytime
- Requires single band ADS ground station (no CDMA network)
.
Cost? (XM Sat V’s CDMA ground network)? …. You cannot tell us .. yet you tell us UAT is the go …. How does the industry decide on the other (non traffic stuff until a CBA comparison is done?? … hmmm … hypocritical maybe?
I think it is axiomatic that a single common broadband datalink would be cheaper than multiple datalinks on the one airframe, particularly when bandwidth limited.
This is NOT to say that the current Mode S TXPD/TCAS II won't be with us for a long time yet ---- a large part of the reason the two major large airframe manufacturers have expressed disinterest in ADS-B IN, seeing it as a air/ground ATC function only.
You do understand, do you, that a 1090ES ADS-B ONLY signal will not trigger TCAS, do you, you need the full Mode A/C. I doubt that we will see any diminishing of the role of transponders ----
Range?? As UAT works in the same frequency range as transponders, I would assume the basic range was about the same.
This was a claimed advantage of VDL-X, being VHF, it has a longer range than UHF, but whether the theoretical differences translate to practical differences is moot
.
As for the rest:-
.
… no comment (again) on Part 103 … !
.
… no comment (again) on CBA/Risk for a tangible reduction in TXPDR/VHF carriage in certain classes of airspace …. !
.
…. Wonder why? ….. TXPDR’s? …. VHF?
.
Readers might be interested in Part 103 :-
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/part...nprm0603os.pdf
.
Take particular note of :-
.
- Page 7
.
- Page 18 (3.5.12)
.
- 103.063
103.063 Inconsistency with other provisions
(1) If a provision in this Part is inconsistent with a provision elsewhere in these
Regulations, the provision in this Part prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.
(1) If a provision in this Part is inconsistent with a provision elsewhere in these
Regulations, the provision in this Part prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.
103.360 Obligation to maintain radio listening watch
(1) If an aircraft is fitted with serviceable radio communication equipment and a serviceable means of generating electrical power sufficient to enable the equipment to be operated continuously, the aircraft’s pilot in command must:
(a) maintain an effective listening watch; and
(b) make any reports and broadcasts required:
(i) by or under these Regulations; or
(ii) if the requirement is not inconsistent with these Regulations — by the procedures manual of the relevant RAAO.
.
Note: This regulation applies to all radio-equipped aircraft that are capable of continuously powering a radio, whereas regulation 103.350 and subregulation 103.355 (2) apply to all aircraft when they are in the stated situation, regardless of their electrical generating capability.
(1) If an aircraft is fitted with serviceable radio communication equipment and a serviceable means of generating electrical power sufficient to enable the equipment to be operated continuously, the aircraft’s pilot in command must:
(a) maintain an effective listening watch; and
(b) make any reports and broadcasts required:
(i) by or under these Regulations; or
(ii) if the requirement is not inconsistent with these Regulations — by the procedures manual of the relevant RAAO.
.
Note: This regulation applies to all radio-equipped aircraft that are capable of continuously powering a radio, whereas regulation 103.350 and subregulation 103.355 (2) apply to all aircraft when they are in the stated situation, regardless of their electrical generating capability.
..bit different to the current reg eh Lead/Bob!
.
... where is the limitation/requirement to have the equipment fixed?
.
.. was it you Lead that said recently that Sport owners were removing TXPDR's?
.
.... will make any attempt elsewhere in the regs to mandate VHF carriage and use moot .... then the argument for CTAF only fly's right out the safety window .... eh
.
Emperor …. and Threads mate … take a captain cook in the mirror!