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
ADS-B + Subsidy - It's on the table - Submn's close 31 Oct
The subsidy is firmly on the table ..... read the doc's .... ... it affects all of you no matter what you fly of fly-in as a pax.
.
... these opportunities come around once in a lifetime
.
Mod's Any chance of a sticky and a simple poll i.e.
.
Q .Do you support:-
.
- Scenario 1 (Status quo)
- Scenario 2 (Subsidy with 60% VFR fleet fitment)
- Scenario 3 (Subsidy with 90% VFR fleet fitment)
.
Some relevant extracts below:-
.
Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation & Surveillance - Joint Consultation Paper
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airspace/jcp/jcp.pdf
.
9.6 Airborne systems cost and funding
.
The relative costs of legacy ground-based infrastructure and satellite technology provide an opportunity to support GA participation in the transition through provision of cross-industry funding to facilitate light aircraft equipage with approved avionics.
This could be managed as a cross-industry funding transfer via Airservices, whereby enroute charges are maintained at today’s levels for a set period, and the additional funds that are not required to maintain or replace the asset base can be passed on to light aircraft owners in the form of cross-industry funding.
Provision of ADS-B OUT capability, including installation, is expected to cost less than $10,000 for a typical GA VFR aircraft. Provision of ADS-B OUT and ‘solemeans’ GNSS navigation, including installation, is expected to cost less than $15,000 for a typical GA IFR aircraft. Obviously costs will vary with the individual choice of avionics and complexity of installation in the particular aircraft, as will the value to the owner of replacing existing avionics made redundant by the new equipment. It should be noted that these figures are based on relatively small quantities of avionics in the near term, and may not be representative of high-volume production costs.
.
CASA equipment surveys indicate that under the proposal outlined in this document, approximately 7,000 light aircraft will be required to equip with ADS-B avionics by mid-2012, with an additional 4,000 aircraft equipped by mid-2014(note 4).
.
Significant work has been done by the ASTRA ABIT5 on the concept of cross-industry funding to ensure light aircraft access to airspace where ADS-B avionics are required. A cut-off point of 5,700 kg MTOW was agreed, with any affected Australian aircraft with an MTOW less than or equal to 5,700 kg eligible for the cross-industry funding.
.
For more sophisticated aircraft, the costs increase relative to the scale of integration required and the size and type of operation of the aircraft. Many of the ADS-B related costs for large aircraft operators were quantified for ASTRA during the development of the ADS-B Cross Industry Business Case (which is available from http://www.astra.aero6), and are still relevant.
.
9.7 Cross-Industry Funding
.
A key issue for all sectors of the aviation community will be the cost of ADS-B avionics. In the event that the proposed transition timing is agreed, and CASA issues a mandate for ADS-B avionics that would support decommissioning of enroute radars and navaids, it is proposed that Airservices would facilitate a cross-industry funding arrangement.
.
Essentially, Airservices’ customers would fund the acquisition and installation of approved avionics for light aircraft. This would not involve any additional charges to customers, and will be ‘revenue-neutral’ to Airservices.
.
Airservices would draw upon the savings achieved through not replacing existing enroute radar and navigation aids until the avionics costs were covered. Once the avionics costs are met, the ongoing savings would be passed on to customers.
.
The funding would provide avionics for aircraft with a MTOW less than or equal to 5,700 kg, and would be managed via a voucher system with the following characteristics:
.
• A voucher would be issued after formal application was made by the aircraft owner along with a certified true copy of the maintenance release. The voucher would be redeemable when accompanied by evidence of permanent installation of acceptable avionics and provision of the avionics serial numbers.
• There would be no ‘new-for-old’ avionics exchange requirements, and any replaced equipment would remain the property of the owner.
• Vouchers would only be issued for airworthy aircraft on an Australian civil aircraft register, and no voucher would be issued for aircraft already equipped with acceptable avionics.
• A voucher with a maximum value of $15,000 would be issued for IFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics and TSO-C146 GNSS navigation equipment. IFR status will be determined from the aircraft’s latest maintenance release.
• A voucher with a maximum value of $10,000 would be issued for VFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics driven by a TSO-C145 GNSS engine.
• Vouchers would be valid for three years from date of issue and would not be issued for applications received after 30 December 2013.
• The maximum voucher values would decrease to $13,500 & $9,000 respectively (90% of their original value) for applications received between 1 July 2011 and 30 December 2013. This measure is to assist in spreading the installation workload to earlier dates.
.
Note: Airservices would observe strict privacy protocols in using and verifying information provided for cross-industry funding purposes only.
.
Cross industry funding vouchers would also be provided for aircraft with a MTOW greater than 5,700 kg, where the aircraft was solely used for charitable or humanitarian purposes
.
4 Note that since the CASA equipment surveys were undertaken, the number of aircraft on the Civil Register has decreased by approximately 4% due to the Part 47 implementation process, therefore these numbers may be over-estimated.
5 ABIT includes representatives from Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, Defence, international airlines, domestic airlines, regional airlines, airports, general aviation, sports aviation, recreational aviation,
avionics manufacturers & installers, flying training, and search & rescue.
6 Note that ASTRA’s Cross Industry Business Case considered different time frames for a transition to satellite technology, and is therefore not relevant to this Joint Consultation Paper in its entirety.
.
Project ATLAS - Cost Benefit Analysis - Access Economics
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airs...p/analysis.pdf
.
Funding Mechanisms and Military Aviation Considerations
.
An option that has been raised is a possible cross industry funding mechanism for GA fitment costs (for aircraft <=5,700 kg). This would affect the distribution of net benefits accruing to different stakeholders, but does not change the overall net benefit to the industry. As such, these distributional effects have not been modelled, pending a decision on this issue. That noted, the costs and impacts of cross industry funding can be readily gleaned from the aircraft fleet numbers in Table 4-6.
While the total fit-out cost of military aircraft to be compliant with Project ATLAS is estimated by the DoD at $90 million to $180 million, this cost is excluded from Access Economics’ analysis. The exclusion is because our understanding is that Project ATLAS is a civil aviation initiative. Only civilian aircraft are required to comply with civilian aviation rule making. DoD may elect to adopt ADS-B and GNSS if it sees a net benefit in doing so, but equally, DoD can choose not to adopt ADS-B and GNSS if it does not expect to see a net benefit. Our understanding is that some DoD aircraft are already being upgraded (eg with Mode S transponders) to comply with ATM technology in Europe and elsewhere.
In the event that equipage of DoD aircraft with ADS-B technology occurs on a different schedule from civilian equipage, civilian ATC can procedurally separate DoD aircraft from civilian aircraft on the occasions when non-compliant DoD aircraft need to traverse civilian airspace. There will also be some DoD operations that are necessarily exempt from civilian requirements, as is the case today. Either way, it is important for DoD navigation and surveillance needs to be clearly separated from an industry-funded upgrade in civilian ATM technology, to avoid any situation where military ATM investments might be cost-shifted to the civilian aviation industry, or a situation where large benefits to thousands of civilian aircraft cannot be implemented because a few military aircraft are unable to comply.
.
.
Some personal observations
.
Three scenarios are exercised:-
.
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!
.
I strongly recommend everyone read these documents carefully … do not leave the ‘scenario’ decision to chance …. Fill in and send your feedback (page 35 of the JCP) closing date 31 Oct 07’ … it will not take that long to do … and is extremely important!
.
This is one of the biggest opportunities this industry has ever had to embrace technology that will cost little for those who can least afford it, provide the alerting system RPT and IFR want, and deliver cost savings through infrastructure and ATS efficiencies.
.
How to respond
.
Please forward your response to DOTARS by 31 October 2007 by one of the following means:
.
• Fax Attn: ADS-B Proposal (02) 6274 7804
• Post ADS-B Proposal, Office of Airspace Management,
Department of Transport and Regional Services
GPO Box 594
Canberra ACT 2601
.
The Response Form is on Pages 35-38 in the JCP
.
To print out those pages ….. Print pages 47 -50 (of the PDF Document) to your printer
.
Or;
• Email [email protected]
.
DO NOT SIT ON YOUR HANDS ON THIS ……………. PLEASE
.
... these opportunities come around once in a lifetime
.
Mod's Any chance of a sticky and a simple poll i.e.
.
Q .Do you support:-
.
- Scenario 1 (Status quo)
- Scenario 2 (Subsidy with 60% VFR fleet fitment)
- Scenario 3 (Subsidy with 90% VFR fleet fitment)
.
Some relevant extracts below:-
.
Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation & Surveillance - Joint Consultation Paper
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airspace/jcp/jcp.pdf
.
9.6 Airborne systems cost and funding
.
The relative costs of legacy ground-based infrastructure and satellite technology provide an opportunity to support GA participation in the transition through provision of cross-industry funding to facilitate light aircraft equipage with approved avionics.
This could be managed as a cross-industry funding transfer via Airservices, whereby enroute charges are maintained at today’s levels for a set period, and the additional funds that are not required to maintain or replace the asset base can be passed on to light aircraft owners in the form of cross-industry funding.
Provision of ADS-B OUT capability, including installation, is expected to cost less than $10,000 for a typical GA VFR aircraft. Provision of ADS-B OUT and ‘solemeans’ GNSS navigation, including installation, is expected to cost less than $15,000 for a typical GA IFR aircraft. Obviously costs will vary with the individual choice of avionics and complexity of installation in the particular aircraft, as will the value to the owner of replacing existing avionics made redundant by the new equipment. It should be noted that these figures are based on relatively small quantities of avionics in the near term, and may not be representative of high-volume production costs.
.
CASA equipment surveys indicate that under the proposal outlined in this document, approximately 7,000 light aircraft will be required to equip with ADS-B avionics by mid-2012, with an additional 4,000 aircraft equipped by mid-2014(note 4).
.
Significant work has been done by the ASTRA ABIT5 on the concept of cross-industry funding to ensure light aircraft access to airspace where ADS-B avionics are required. A cut-off point of 5,700 kg MTOW was agreed, with any affected Australian aircraft with an MTOW less than or equal to 5,700 kg eligible for the cross-industry funding.
.
For more sophisticated aircraft, the costs increase relative to the scale of integration required and the size and type of operation of the aircraft. Many of the ADS-B related costs for large aircraft operators were quantified for ASTRA during the development of the ADS-B Cross Industry Business Case (which is available from http://www.astra.aero6), and are still relevant.
.
9.7 Cross-Industry Funding
.
A key issue for all sectors of the aviation community will be the cost of ADS-B avionics. In the event that the proposed transition timing is agreed, and CASA issues a mandate for ADS-B avionics that would support decommissioning of enroute radars and navaids, it is proposed that Airservices would facilitate a cross-industry funding arrangement.
.
Essentially, Airservices’ customers would fund the acquisition and installation of approved avionics for light aircraft. This would not involve any additional charges to customers, and will be ‘revenue-neutral’ to Airservices.
.
Airservices would draw upon the savings achieved through not replacing existing enroute radar and navigation aids until the avionics costs were covered. Once the avionics costs are met, the ongoing savings would be passed on to customers.
.
The funding would provide avionics for aircraft with a MTOW less than or equal to 5,700 kg, and would be managed via a voucher system with the following characteristics:
.
• A voucher would be issued after formal application was made by the aircraft owner along with a certified true copy of the maintenance release. The voucher would be redeemable when accompanied by evidence of permanent installation of acceptable avionics and provision of the avionics serial numbers.
• There would be no ‘new-for-old’ avionics exchange requirements, and any replaced equipment would remain the property of the owner.
• Vouchers would only be issued for airworthy aircraft on an Australian civil aircraft register, and no voucher would be issued for aircraft already equipped with acceptable avionics.
• A voucher with a maximum value of $15,000 would be issued for IFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics and TSO-C146 GNSS navigation equipment. IFR status will be determined from the aircraft’s latest maintenance release.
• A voucher with a maximum value of $10,000 would be issued for VFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics driven by a TSO-C145 GNSS engine.
• Vouchers would be valid for three years from date of issue and would not be issued for applications received after 30 December 2013.
• The maximum voucher values would decrease to $13,500 & $9,000 respectively (90% of their original value) for applications received between 1 July 2011 and 30 December 2013. This measure is to assist in spreading the installation workload to earlier dates.
.
Note: Airservices would observe strict privacy protocols in using and verifying information provided for cross-industry funding purposes only.
.
Cross industry funding vouchers would also be provided for aircraft with a MTOW greater than 5,700 kg, where the aircraft was solely used for charitable or humanitarian purposes
.
4 Note that since the CASA equipment surveys were undertaken, the number of aircraft on the Civil Register has decreased by approximately 4% due to the Part 47 implementation process, therefore these numbers may be over-estimated.
5 ABIT includes representatives from Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, Defence, international airlines, domestic airlines, regional airlines, airports, general aviation, sports aviation, recreational aviation,
avionics manufacturers & installers, flying training, and search & rescue.
6 Note that ASTRA’s Cross Industry Business Case considered different time frames for a transition to satellite technology, and is therefore not relevant to this Joint Consultation Paper in its entirety.
.
Project ATLAS - Cost Benefit Analysis - Access Economics
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airs...p/analysis.pdf
.
Funding Mechanisms and Military Aviation Considerations
.
An option that has been raised is a possible cross industry funding mechanism for GA fitment costs (for aircraft <=5,700 kg). This would affect the distribution of net benefits accruing to different stakeholders, but does not change the overall net benefit to the industry. As such, these distributional effects have not been modelled, pending a decision on this issue. That noted, the costs and impacts of cross industry funding can be readily gleaned from the aircraft fleet numbers in Table 4-6.
While the total fit-out cost of military aircraft to be compliant with Project ATLAS is estimated by the DoD at $90 million to $180 million, this cost is excluded from Access Economics’ analysis. The exclusion is because our understanding is that Project ATLAS is a civil aviation initiative. Only civilian aircraft are required to comply with civilian aviation rule making. DoD may elect to adopt ADS-B and GNSS if it sees a net benefit in doing so, but equally, DoD can choose not to adopt ADS-B and GNSS if it does not expect to see a net benefit. Our understanding is that some DoD aircraft are already being upgraded (eg with Mode S transponders) to comply with ATM technology in Europe and elsewhere.
In the event that equipage of DoD aircraft with ADS-B technology occurs on a different schedule from civilian equipage, civilian ATC can procedurally separate DoD aircraft from civilian aircraft on the occasions when non-compliant DoD aircraft need to traverse civilian airspace. There will also be some DoD operations that are necessarily exempt from civilian requirements, as is the case today. Either way, it is important for DoD navigation and surveillance needs to be clearly separated from an industry-funded upgrade in civilian ATM technology, to avoid any situation where military ATM investments might be cost-shifted to the civilian aviation industry, or a situation where large benefits to thousands of civilian aircraft cannot be implemented because a few military aircraft are unable to comply.
.
.
Some personal observations
.
Three scenarios are exercised:-
.
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!
.
I strongly recommend everyone read these documents carefully … do not leave the ‘scenario’ decision to chance …. Fill in and send your feedback (page 35 of the JCP) closing date 31 Oct 07’ … it will not take that long to do … and is extremely important!
.
This is one of the biggest opportunities this industry has ever had to embrace technology that will cost little for those who can least afford it, provide the alerting system RPT and IFR want, and deliver cost savings through infrastructure and ATS efficiencies.
.
How to respond
.
Please forward your response to DOTARS by 31 October 2007 by one of the following means:
.
• Fax Attn: ADS-B Proposal (02) 6274 7804
• Post ADS-B Proposal, Office of Airspace Management,
Department of Transport and Regional Services
GPO Box 594
Canberra ACT 2601
.
The Response Form is on Pages 35-38 in the JCP
.
To print out those pages ….. Print pages 47 -50 (of the PDF Document) to your printer
.
Or;
• Email [email protected]
.
DO NOT SIT ON YOUR HANDS ON THIS ……………. PLEASE
Last edited by Scurvy.D.Dog; 11th Aug 2007 at 09:19. Reason: Spelling and Grammar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What about 100%
SDD
You are missing the 100% fleet fit out option. Unless it has feathers it should have ADSB out.
Along with that is wide spread VHF repeaters to give the kind of coverage that was originally promoted.
Then some really good software enhancements and some better procedures and tools for ATC, and we will have it all!
J
You are missing the 100% fleet fit out option. Unless it has feathers it should have ADSB out.
Along with that is wide spread VHF repeaters to give the kind of coverage that was originally promoted.
Then some really good software enhancements and some better procedures and tools for ATC, and we will have it all!
J
.... this is a pretty good start though Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Come on guys and girls, this is something importand and a genuine well meaning ATC'er is trying to get reform from the right side of the fence, 100+ views and only 4 votes
Power to the people!
J
Power to the people!
J
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't going to activate the 'let voters be seen' mode but since two people have voted for the status quo
I have changed my mind.
Edit: Bug-ger...too late to activate that function it seems...I would have been real curious to see who seriously feels that status quo is sustainable/desirable/vaguely likely-possible
I have changed my mind.Edit: Bug-ger...too late to activate that function it seems...I would have been real curious to see who seriously feels that status quo is sustainable/desirable/vaguely likely-possible
Moderator
No! ........ 
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
Creamie .... hmmm .... in my waters too 
.. mind you, it would be hard to mandate after the event if they have accepted a cross industry funding arrangement is required to support mandating now .. whats the worst that could happen .. status quo .... Australia (government more specifically) would look like dills if that were the result!
.
Some other issues of discussion Re RPT (including regionals)
.
JCP
.
8.9 Air-to-air applications
.
As well as providing a viable low cost alternative to traditional enroute surveillance, ADS-B implementation provides a foundation for air-to-air applications that can be conducted either independently or in complement with traditional ATC. ADS-Breceivers and airborne ADS-B applications are currently in development around the world. Many of these applications, including ADS-B based merging and spacing and in-trail procedures, are seen as essential in addressing the airspace and air route congestion problems that are foreseen for many parts of the world. Widespread ADS-B OUT equipage sets the required environment for future operations based on electronically enhanced air-to-air surveillance. These future operations will help to ensure that airspace and airport efficiency (as well as safety) can be maintained despite traffic growth.
ADS-B has the potential to provide pilots with dramatically improved situational awareness that can be used for tactical decision making in addition to traffic avoidance. TCAS is unable to provide similar capability due to limitations of range, azimuth accuracy and displayed data. TCAS will remain a last line of defence collision avoidance tool.ICAO is working on standards to enhance TCAS using ADS-B signals.
.
9.6 Airborne systems cost and funding
.
For more sophisticated aircraft, the costs increase relative to the scale of integration required and the size and type of operation of the aircraft.Many of the ADS-B related costs for large aircraft operators were quantified for ASTRA during the development of the ADS-B Cross Industry Business Case.
.
Questions and Answers (JCP)
.
2 Operational Implications for Aircraft Owners and Pilots
.
Q: Will foreign aircraft operating Australia also be required to carry and use
ADS-B and GNSS avionics?
.
A: Yes. The body that represents international airlines supports ADS-B and GNSS implementation. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) strongly supports the cost-effective early implementation of ADS-B. IATA has noted several times that “IATA Member airlines have expressed their desire to use ADS-B at the earliest time.” IATA has supported ICAO work on ADS-B through the Asia Pacific Air Navigation Planning & Implementation Regional Group (APANPIRG) and has stated that they are supportive of ADS-B mandates from as early as 2010. They have also stated that any cost benefit studies for deployment of ADS-B out should ignore the cost of airliner avionics fitment, because the aircraft of their member airlines will be equipped as a matter of course, in order to meet a range of future applications.
.
CBA
.
Capital Costs
.
The avionics costs refer to installation costs forADS-B OUT only (including GNSS components where required).For large aircraft these are based on discussions with airlines in the preparation of the previous Access Economics cross-industry business case. For example, the avionics cost for aircraft between 12,000 and 20,000 kg is based on the numbers from the earlier business case as follows: avionics $25k, installation $2k, total STC costs $46.5k (rounded up to $50k and divided by number of aircraft for this round). For smaller aircraft, values are based on information obtained from industry.
.
Aircraft Avionics
.
It is assumed that by 2012 half of all existing and planned new aircraft with MTOW above 20,000 kg are already fitted with ADS-B avionics, regardless of any mandatory requirements. The rest of these aircraft will need be progressively fitted with this equipment between 2009 and 2012.
For aircraft weighing between 5,700 kg and 20,000 kg, it is assumed that none are currently fitted with ADS-B avionics. However, all of these aircraft will be progressively outfitted between 2009 and 2012.
.
Re: TSO-C145a, TSO-C146a
.
AC 21-45(0) MARCH 2007
.
AIRWORTHINESS APPROVAL OF AIRBORNE AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE BROADCAST EQUIPMENT
.
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/DRAFTa...5(00)_0703.pdf
.
8.4 Positional data
.
8.4.1 Accurate positional data is essential for the ADS-B system to operate in a “radar like manner” and be the basis for the allocation of separation between aircraft. Valid GNSS data input provides an acceptable accuracy and integrity for separation purposes with the delivery of position information at a periodic interval of less than or equal to 1 second.
.
8.4.2 GNSS equipment compliant with TSO-C145a, TSO-C146a or an equivalent standard acceptable to CASA are suitable for use with ADS-B.
.
8.4.3 Particular navigation packages that do not have a TSOA, but can be demonstrated to achieve the accuracy and integrity values required, may be acceptable to CASA. In assessing the suitability of GNSS avionics that do not have a TSO-C145a/146a authorisation, CASA may consider the system differences to the standards documented in RTCA/DO-229C (or later version), with particular regard to the following criteria:
��The system’s capability of delivering position information with a periodic interval of at least one second; and
��The system can continuously output the HPL value to the ADS-B transmitter or notify the pilot of an interruption due to availability issues (RAIM); and
��If the system is intended primarily as a pilot navigation system with positional information being provided to the ADS-B system it needs to meet the requirements of AC 21-36(0); and
��The system takes advantage of GPS selective availability being set to zero.
.. mind you, it would be hard to mandate after the event if they have accepted a cross industry funding arrangement is required to support mandating now .. whats the worst that could happen .. status quo .... Australia (government more specifically) would look like dills if that were the result!.
Some other issues of discussion Re RPT (including regionals)
.
JCP
.
8.9 Air-to-air applications
.
As well as providing a viable low cost alternative to traditional enroute surveillance, ADS-B implementation provides a foundation for air-to-air applications that can be conducted either independently or in complement with traditional ATC. ADS-Breceivers and airborne ADS-B applications are currently in development around the world. Many of these applications, including ADS-B based merging and spacing and in-trail procedures, are seen as essential in addressing the airspace and air route congestion problems that are foreseen for many parts of the world. Widespread ADS-B OUT equipage sets the required environment for future operations based on electronically enhanced air-to-air surveillance. These future operations will help to ensure that airspace and airport efficiency (as well as safety) can be maintained despite traffic growth.
ADS-B has the potential to provide pilots with dramatically improved situational awareness that can be used for tactical decision making in addition to traffic avoidance. TCAS is unable to provide similar capability due to limitations of range, azimuth accuracy and displayed data. TCAS will remain a last line of defence collision avoidance tool.ICAO is working on standards to enhance TCAS using ADS-B signals.
.
9.6 Airborne systems cost and funding
.
For more sophisticated aircraft, the costs increase relative to the scale of integration required and the size and type of operation of the aircraft.Many of the ADS-B related costs for large aircraft operators were quantified for ASTRA during the development of the ADS-B Cross Industry Business Case.
.
Questions and Answers (JCP)
.
2 Operational Implications for Aircraft Owners and Pilots
.
Q: Will foreign aircraft operating Australia also be required to carry and use
ADS-B and GNSS avionics?
.
A: Yes. The body that represents international airlines supports ADS-B and GNSS implementation. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) strongly supports the cost-effective early implementation of ADS-B. IATA has noted several times that “IATA Member airlines have expressed their desire to use ADS-B at the earliest time.” IATA has supported ICAO work on ADS-B through the Asia Pacific Air Navigation Planning & Implementation Regional Group (APANPIRG) and has stated that they are supportive of ADS-B mandates from as early as 2010. They have also stated that any cost benefit studies for deployment of ADS-B out should ignore the cost of airliner avionics fitment, because the aircraft of their member airlines will be equipped as a matter of course, in order to meet a range of future applications.
.
CBA
.
Capital Costs
.
The avionics costs refer to installation costs forADS-B OUT only (including GNSS components where required).For large aircraft these are based on discussions with airlines in the preparation of the previous Access Economics cross-industry business case. For example, the avionics cost for aircraft between 12,000 and 20,000 kg is based on the numbers from the earlier business case as follows: avionics $25k, installation $2k, total STC costs $46.5k (rounded up to $50k and divided by number of aircraft for this round). For smaller aircraft, values are based on information obtained from industry.
.
Aircraft Avionics
.
It is assumed that by 2012 half of all existing and planned new aircraft with MTOW above 20,000 kg are already fitted with ADS-B avionics, regardless of any mandatory requirements. The rest of these aircraft will need be progressively fitted with this equipment between 2009 and 2012.
For aircraft weighing between 5,700 kg and 20,000 kg, it is assumed that none are currently fitted with ADS-B avionics. However, all of these aircraft will be progressively outfitted between 2009 and 2012.
.
Re: TSO-C145a, TSO-C146a
.
AC 21-45(0) MARCH 2007
.
AIRWORTHINESS APPROVAL OF AIRBORNE AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE BROADCAST EQUIPMENT
.
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/DRAFTa...5(00)_0703.pdf
.
8.4 Positional data
.
8.4.1 Accurate positional data is essential for the ADS-B system to operate in a “radar like manner” and be the basis for the allocation of separation between aircraft. Valid GNSS data input provides an acceptable accuracy and integrity for separation purposes with the delivery of position information at a periodic interval of less than or equal to 1 second.
.
8.4.2 GNSS equipment compliant with TSO-C145a, TSO-C146a or an equivalent standard acceptable to CASA are suitable for use with ADS-B.
.
8.4.3 Particular navigation packages that do not have a TSOA, but can be demonstrated to achieve the accuracy and integrity values required, may be acceptable to CASA. In assessing the suitability of GNSS avionics that do not have a TSO-C145a/146a authorisation, CASA may consider the system differences to the standards documented in RTCA/DO-229C (or later version), with particular regard to the following criteria:
��The system’s capability of delivering position information with a periodic interval of at least one second; and
��The system can continuously output the HPL value to the ADS-B transmitter or notify the pilot of an interruption due to availability issues (RAIM); and
��If the system is intended primarily as a pilot navigation system with positional information being provided to the ADS-B system it needs to meet the requirements of AC 21-36(0); and
��The system takes advantage of GPS selective availability being set to zero.
Worthy of support. Will ensure a submission is sent with much favour for 100% ADS-B. This is a great tech step toward a scalable traffic control system that is soooo useful to both controller and pilot alike.
You would have to be blind not to see the benefits.
You would have to be blind not to see the benefits.
OZBUSDRIVER, you state:
Of course one of the advantages for Airservices, is that there will be 10,000 VFR aircraft all automatically identified by call sign in the ADS-B computer. Imagine the potential, a VFR aircraft flies near Charleville or Ayers Rock and a bill can be automatically sent out for the traffic information service that could be given – note that it could be done quite inexpensively $2 or $3 a go, a bit like an e-TAG on the tollway. It would be quite a good little earner for air traffic controllers and Airservices Australia – and the Government, and it wouldn’t cost VFR aircraft very much, say possibly $20 or $30 a year – who would notice such a small amount, considering the extra safety of the traffic information service being provided by air traffic control!
The proposal is “worthy of support”.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my god man!
Really, is that it? Is we can see you we can bill you all you are really worried about; well then all this spoofing rubbish was just a diversion, huh?
There are no plans, repeat no plans, to charge VFR for anything they don't currently get charged for. The savings in removing MSSR radars in the longer term would significantly pay for all of this; then there are the ground based aids that can be decommissioned due to all those in cockpit GPSs that are needed to power the data for the ADS-B units.
Why bring a BS argument like that into this thread?
There are no plans, repeat no plans, to charge VFR for anything they don't currently get charged for. The savings in removing MSSR radars in the longer term would significantly pay for all of this; then there are the ground based aids that can be decommissioned due to all those in cockpit GPSs that are needed to power the data for the ADS-B units.
Why bring a BS argument like that into this thread?
SM4 Pirate,
If there are no plans to charge VFR, why are they being provided with a “free” ADS-B unit.
We all know that even the most modern ADS-B equipped Boeing and Airbus airline aircraft use TCAS, not ADS-B for displaying nearby aircraft – of course, TCAS works with any standard mode C or mode S transponder.
TCAS is good enough for airline aircraft to be given traffic information by, why does Airservices want a more expensive ADS-B unit, which transmits the call sign of the aircraft back to the Airservices computer and this will only happen in about 10% of Australia at low levels?
If there are no plans to charge VFR, why are they being provided with a “free” ADS-B unit.
We all know that even the most modern ADS-B equipped Boeing and Airbus airline aircraft use TCAS, not ADS-B for displaying nearby aircraft – of course, TCAS works with any standard mode C or mode S transponder.
TCAS is good enough for airline aircraft to be given traffic information by, why does Airservices want a more expensive ADS-B unit, which transmits the call sign of the aircraft back to the Airservices computer and this will only happen in about 10% of Australia at low levels?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 14th Aug 2007 at 04:42.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why am I biting?
We all know that even the most modern ADS-B equipped Boeing and Airbus airline aircraft use TCAS, not ADS-B for displaying nearby aircraft – of course, TCAS works with any standard mode C or mode S transponder.
TCAS is good enough for airline aircraft to be given traffic information by, why does Airservices want a more expensive ADS-B unit, which transmits the call sign of the aircraft back to the Airservices computer and this will only happen in about 10% of Australia at low levels?
You have previously claimed with 9 or so MSSR sites that Australia has 20% radar coverage; yet with 25 ADS-B boxes giving the same (or better) range the coverage will be less; it doesn't stack-up and you know it.
Poor little terry towel hat heads will be seen by those naughty ATCs, the sky is falling the sky is falling! Give it a rest man!
why are they being provided with a “free” ADS-B unit.
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
... it didn't take long for him to arc up!
If there are no plans to charge VFR, why are they being provided with a “free” ADS-B unit.
.
WHY VFR ADS-B?
.
…. VFR have to be equipped to remove the need for existing SSR radar …..pretty basic!
We all know that even the most modern ADS-B equipped Boeing and Airbus airline aircraft use TCAS, not ADS-B for displaying nearby aircraft – of course, TCAS works with any standard mode C or mode S transponder.
TCAS is good enough for airline aircraft to be given traffic information by, why does Airservices want a more expensive ADS-B unit,
which transmits the call sign of the aircraft back to the Airservices computer and this will only happen in about 10% of Australia at low levels?
.
The ‘current’ situation (Status-quo)
.
VFR (in or out of ‘radar’ surveillance and/or known via VHF transmissions)
.
- In CTA – Callsign known - receiving an ATC Service – No charge (unless associated with a towered airport landing)
- In E – Callsign known or unknown – No service - No charge (unless entering CTA associated with a towered airport landing)
- OCTA (F or G) – Callsign known or unknown – No service – No charge
.
IFR no change!
.
… you argument does not hold unless you expect
a good little earner for air traffic controllers and Airservices Australia – and the Government
……get real! .
.. once IFR (Regional RPT particularly) have ADS-B ‘in’ … the opportunity to reduce third party intervention (OCTA) becomes a reality … why would you not want that?
.
- is it because your expensive, half baked class E becomes even less relevant? ... or;
- is it that the removal of the cost of expensive SSR makes the class E V's C ministerial 'radar' directive even less effective in forcing class E through a CBA?
.
… E tag …. Goodness me Dick
.
… what’s your real issue here … that others in industry formulated this? ….that you didn’t come up with the proposal yourself? … BAZAAR!
.
“… nice little earner for Air Traffic Controllers” …
…… your prejudicial anti-ATC slant is shining through again! 
.
.
.
SM4 .. sorry, doubled up on yours a bit
SM4 Pirate,
You state:
Surely, you are getting mixed up between traffic advisories and resolution advisories. I agree a resolution advisory is for traffic avoidance after all else has failed. However, a TCAS traffic advisory provides a verbal alert in the same way as a traffic advisory by a controller.
What you are saying is that if an air traffic controller sees an ADS-B paint on the screen and then gives that paint as a traffic advisory to an airline aircraft all is hunky dory and safe. However if that same airline aircraft pilot hears a traffic alert and sees the traffic on the TCAS screen then it is no longer a safe system.
Personally, I would much rather use the traffic advisory without the middleman any day. That is because the middleman can be concentrating on other issues at the time.
SM4 Pirate, I am not suggesting for a second that we should not have ADS-B for IFR aircraft. I am just querying why you would want to fund $100 million worth of ADS-B for VFR aircraft when a mode C transponder will do the same thing in relation to traffic advisories and is a hell of a lot cheaper.
The money saved would allow for some real airline safety improvements. Things like employing enough controllers to give a proper radar control service in radar covered airspace to IFR aircraft, and dare I say it, to have a class D tower at busy airports such as Avalon.
You state:
“No TCAS isn't for the purposes of traffic displays, it is for traffic avoidance after all else has failed.”
What you are saying is that if an air traffic controller sees an ADS-B paint on the screen and then gives that paint as a traffic advisory to an airline aircraft all is hunky dory and safe. However if that same airline aircraft pilot hears a traffic alert and sees the traffic on the TCAS screen then it is no longer a safe system.
Personally, I would much rather use the traffic advisory without the middleman any day. That is because the middleman can be concentrating on other issues at the time.
SM4 Pirate, I am not suggesting for a second that we should not have ADS-B for IFR aircraft. I am just querying why you would want to fund $100 million worth of ADS-B for VFR aircraft when a mode C transponder will do the same thing in relation to traffic advisories and is a hell of a lot cheaper.
The money saved would allow for some real airline safety improvements. Things like employing enough controllers to give a proper radar control service in radar covered airspace to IFR aircraft, and dare I say it, to have a class D tower at busy airports such as Avalon.
Scurvy.D.Dog,
You should be in management so you can make some real decisions in relation to this – by simply posting anonymously on a pilots website it is obvious your skills are not being used properly – I am serious on this.
You state:
Yes, I would like that. However, at the present time there is no such thing as a certified ADS-B “in” unit. As I have explained, even the new Airbus 380 uses TCAS to show traffic from other aircraft – it does not use ADS-B. There are a few gimmick “hand held units” which can show other aeroplanes but there is no aural alert, so the airline pilot would have to look down at the device all the time rather than looking out or looking at the instruments on the panel.
This is a serious issue. Why not put an existing and well proven TCAS in an aircraft and get the extra safety now rather than wait for another 10 or 15 years before ADS-B “in” units are available.
You should be in management so you can make some real decisions in relation to this – by simply posting anonymously on a pilots website it is obvious your skills are not being used properly – I am serious on this.
You state:
“Once IFR (Regional RPT) particularly have ADS-B in - … the opportunity to reduce third party intervention (OCTA) becomes a reality… why would you not want that?”
This is a serious issue. Why not put an existing and well proven TCAS in an aircraft and get the extra safety now rather than wait for another 10 or 15 years before ADS-B “in” units are available.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 14th Aug 2007 at 06:53.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not getting into the argument on who pays for what, but as one of the few in country who have ADS-B in I'd like to make a few points.
1. ADS-B does not compare to TCAS. The range of data displayed is very different. With ADS-B I get name, alt, speed, trends and position on my display. With TCAS I get a number.
2. They have very different range limitations, with my ADS-B being vhf line of sight means I can tweak my range and get good situational awareness as well as prempting any possible problems.
3. It didn't cost nearly as much to fit and maintain the ADS-B as compared to the whizbang TCAS.
Now I will add I'm not flying the aircraft, that my display is a purpose built sytstem that has a different purpose to collision avoidence. Mind you it's nice to tell the boys up the front whats around them. I hope I'm not telling people to suck eggs but I am a fan of ADS-B given my experience of it, especially compared to TCAS. The other interesting thing is Merchant Vessels have been using a similar sytem, the AIS which gives the same sort of information, posn, course, speed, type. They have been using it for years as a collision avoidence system with no real problems.
1. ADS-B does not compare to TCAS. The range of data displayed is very different. With ADS-B I get name, alt, speed, trends and position on my display. With TCAS I get a number.
2. They have very different range limitations, with my ADS-B being vhf line of sight means I can tweak my range and get good situational awareness as well as prempting any possible problems.
3. It didn't cost nearly as much to fit and maintain the ADS-B as compared to the whizbang TCAS.
Now I will add I'm not flying the aircraft, that my display is a purpose built sytstem that has a different purpose to collision avoidence. Mind you it's nice to tell the boys up the front whats around them. I hope I'm not telling people to suck eggs but I am a fan of ADS-B given my experience of it, especially compared to TCAS. The other interesting thing is Merchant Vessels have been using a similar sytem, the AIS which gives the same sort of information, posn, course, speed, type. They have been using it for years as a collision avoidence system with no real problems.
Last edited by Whiskey Oscar Golf; 14th Aug 2007 at 09:32. Reason: AIS
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
WOG
Maybe you and I and Scurvy need a get together. Maybe we can get Dick to join us and we can convince him to get on side. This is the chance to do something really great for Oz Aviation. And no, VFR would not need to pay. Just be seen!
J
Maybe you and I and Scurvy need a get together. Maybe we can get Dick to join us and we can convince him to get on side. This is the chance to do something really great for Oz Aviation. And no, VFR would not need to pay. Just be seen!
J
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS and Traffic
Dick,
If you seriously believe that TCAS Traffic Advisories (TA) are in anyway analogous to ATC Directed Traffic Information then you are even more deluded than I thought you were.
You cannot be rationally thinking that the Australian fleet should not be exploring the viability of an ADS-B mandate purely on the strength of existing TCAS installations.
If you seriously believe that TCAS Traffic Advisories (TA) are in anyway analogous to ATC Directed Traffic Information then you are even more deluded than I thought you were.
You cannot be rationally thinking that the Australian fleet should not be exploring the viability of an ADS-B mandate purely on the strength of existing TCAS installations.