Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabby
Now I have undone the wing nuts and come out of the asiatic closet, you may take over the humour baton from Creamie and me
Back on ADS-B there's really only three I believe. VDL 4, 1090ES, and UAT. Australia is unlikely to sustain UAT and why run two systems anyway. Don't know anything of VDL 4 but do know 1090ES is going well according to the two recent ATC contributions.
So what's our options. And, if we don't go with the subsidy is the risk we do go later - with user pays?
Now I have undone the wing nuts and come out of the asiatic closet, you may take over the humour baton from Creamie and me
Back on ADS-B there's really only three I believe. VDL 4, 1090ES, and UAT. Australia is unlikely to sustain UAT and why run two systems anyway. Don't know anything of VDL 4 but do know 1090ES is going well according to the two recent ATC contributions.
So what's our options. And, if we don't go with the subsidy is the risk we do go later - with user pays?
Imagine this in another time-
ELV Dubbo, ELV IFR C402 for Narromine time 10, NPA rwy29, request traffic
DUBBO FSU ELV standby one FSO flicks his ADS-B screen to Narromine area waits five seconds for the screen to refresh.
DUBBO FSU ELV, I show two aircraft doing circuits rwy 36 and an IFR from Broken Hill arriving time 12, currently at 65nm and passing FL180 on descent. No other traffic.
ELV ELV copies traffic and many thanks
DUBBO FSU ELV and flicks screen back to area and continues to make his cuppa
Better than a CAGRO, better than UNICOM, it would have been the best system in the world. And for bugger all extra cost. Dick, if you wanted to change the world you should have started by making FSOs more versatile by giving them the gear and the coverage to look after OCTA properly. ATC looking after all CONTROLLED AIRSPACE where all the big guys fly and FS looking after everything else. ADS-B the common system looking out for everyone.
OH, I like to dream a lot
ELV Dubbo, ELV IFR C402 for Narromine time 10, NPA rwy29, request traffic
DUBBO FSU ELV standby one FSO flicks his ADS-B screen to Narromine area waits five seconds for the screen to refresh.
DUBBO FSU ELV, I show two aircraft doing circuits rwy 36 and an IFR from Broken Hill arriving time 12, currently at 65nm and passing FL180 on descent. No other traffic.
ELV ELV copies traffic and many thanks
DUBBO FSU ELV and flicks screen back to area and continues to make his cuppa
Better than a CAGRO, better than UNICOM, it would have been the best system in the world. And for bugger all extra cost. Dick, if you wanted to change the world you should have started by making FSOs more versatile by giving them the gear and the coverage to look after OCTA properly. ATC looking after all CONTROLLED AIRSPACE where all the big guys fly and FS looking after everything else. ADS-B the common system looking out for everyone.
OH, I like to dream a lot
Gee 'OZ',
THAT certainly brought a tear to these 'old eyes'....Just the thought of it.
Think I'll have to go and get a 'cold cuppa' to compensate.....
Thanks for the thought.
FSO's cost too much anyway. I've heard THAT so much I'm [SIZE="1"]almost[SIZE="3"]ready to actually believe it.
We did 'trial' a thing called 'FISADS' for a while...must have cost $MMM's...and it didn't do much at all either....
Cheers
THAT certainly brought a tear to these 'old eyes'....Just the thought of it.
Think I'll have to go and get a 'cold cuppa' to compensate.....
Thanks for the thought.
FSO's cost too much anyway. I've heard THAT so much I'm [SIZE="1"]almost[SIZE="3"]ready to actually believe it.
We did 'trial' a thing called 'FISADS' for a while...must have cost $MMM's...and it didn't do much at all either....
Cheers
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread needed a little comic relief
ANSA is correct. Further more, it could be argued that Australia has already fallen behind the leaders of ADS-B and that Europe now is technologically and operationally in front of the pack. We both work in Aviation in the Northern Hemisphere and can assure you that 1090ES is in use globally. It is not DME-A as Mr Smith would have you believe... it is in fact the equivalent of DME-I, because it is now, by default, the International Standard for ADS-B.
Mr Smith et al should be proud of their achievement in delaying/stalling ADS-B in Australia. The danger now is not falling behind, but being left behind... and that, my Antipodean friends, is your choice.
Quokka, how true!
Dick thinks that as Australians we are incapable of invention, innovation modification and adaptation of anything more complex than a lawnmower without bringing in foreign "Experts" from America.
History says otherwise, thank heavens.
Dick thinks that as Australians we are incapable of invention, innovation modification and adaptation of anything more complex than a lawnmower without bringing in foreign "Experts" from America.
History says otherwise, thank heavens.
Mr Smith et al should be proud of their achievement in delaying/stalling ADS-B in Australia
(and this is only one scenario)
Australia currently has a very robust air traffic control system run by a bunch of very dedicated, albeit understaffed and overworked, airtraffic controllers. Any terrorist threats to the current radar based ATC system would have minimal to nil impact.
Apart from any terrorist threat, we also have no real guarantees that civy GPS will be available in the future. There appears to be a 'cargo culture' mentality amongst some posters that the GPS signals will forever continue to rain down FREE and unimpeded upon their glorious ADS-B recievers.
... where is the contract guaranteeing ongoing supply ??? If we get ADS-B fully implemented, Airservices will be able to sack many of the airtraffic controllers and close nav-aids and radars.
When ADS-B fails, there will most likely be no real backup what-so-ever
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I continue to research:
Statistics for all flights in Australia the month of
Statistics for all flights in Australia the month of
April 2008 show that:
–
54.5 % of all international flights in Australia were by ADS-B approved aircraft.
–
20.5% of all domestic scheduled flights were by ADS-B approved aircraft.
– 16.6% of ALL FLIGHTS in Australia were by ADS-B approved aircraft.
And Cathay, Army, RFDS, Rex, UPS all have ADS-B applications in progress.
This "unproven orphan technology that Australia is going to lead at its risk" seems to be ...... catching up with Australia
– 16.6% of ALL FLIGHTS in Australia were by ADS-B approved aircraft.
And Cathay, Army, RFDS, Rex, UPS all have ADS-B applications in progress.
This "unproven orphan technology that Australia is going to lead at its risk" seems to be ...... catching up with Australia
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binghi
More research:
More research:
The ATLAS Proposal envisages a Backup Network of ground based radio navigation aids which would provide an alternative navigation capability for GNSS capable aircraft should GNSS fail.
2.2 The composition of the Backup Network was chosen by considering operational factors such as navigation requirements, the regulatory structure, current aircraft avionics fitment, geographic position of aids to airports and the capabilities of airports. Based on these factors, a list of 103 NDBs, 45 VOR and 58 DMEs was established which was designated the “Backup Network”. It should be noted that the Backup Network was not chosen based on equipment condition but rather on the factors listed above.
ATC staff reductions? Why would having more aircraft in the system, showing on the same TAAATS screens, reduce staff. And, was not TAAATS going to do that like all you beaut new systems
The ATLAS Proposal envisages a Backup Network of ground based radio navigation aids which would provide an alternative navigation capability for GNSS capable aircraft should GNSS fail.
Our existing very robust airnav system does not need a back-up for the entire system. There are parts that can fail, though no failure of one component will stop the entire air-nav system.
And I will repeat this - Apart from any terrorist threat, we also have no real guarantees that civy GPS will be available in the future. There appears to be a 'cargo culture' mentality amongst some posters that the GPS signals will forever continue to rain down FREE and unimpeded upon their glorious ADS-B recievers ... where is the contract guaranteeing ongoing supply ???
Why would having more aircraft in the system, showing on the same TAAATS screens, reduce staff.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
The US may turn off the GPS system / make it unusable. On the same token they may also ban flight by non military aircraft and enforce it in another country (eg parts of Australia as opposed to parts of Iraq). Given the dependency of the US's economy on GPS the second option would be far more palatable to the US public.
If the GPS signal is not available procedural separation could be used. It is no where near as efficient (or dare I say it as safe) as a radar / ADSB environment. A fire, a bomb, a failure of both primary and secondary power supplies, a SSR failure at either ML centre or BN centre would be far more disruptive than the loss of the GPS signal. If the GPS signal is jammed locally for war like or terrorist reasons I don't think any civilian aircraft would be allowed to take off (at least initially, and then ADIZ procedures would apply with extremely limited aircraft movements) so it becomes a task of getting the flying aircraft down safely. The ATC's out there should be able to give us an indication of whether the controllers on a shift would be able to cope with the additional workload by effectively halving the number of aircraft to be dealt with (hang on a sec most of them seem to be in on the conspiracy).
FB - Are you suggesting that I should throw away my 406 GPS equipped PLB on the remote chance the US disrupts the GPS signal in case I ever need to use it?
SSR is not spoof proof either. I've been in command of two different aircraft (about 15 years apart) where the indicated altitude to ATC is nothing like the actual altitude. A clever electronics engineer could easily alter the returned distance and / or altitude (multilateration would be able to be programmed to detect distance spoofing). Jamming primary radar would be quite straightforward as well.
It doesn't take much technology to upset ground aids either - I would be extremely surprised if even our military doesn't have the necessary equipment to do so - most electronic engineers could design and build gear to upset individual navigation aids in their sleep mainly using gear that can be brought off the shelf - and if they wanted to build from scratch even DSE would sell all the necessary components.
The necessary information to spoof these systems is publically available - probably not all on the internet but it could be found. No I am NOT going to say how on PPRUNE - that would make it too easy for a terrorist.
Have to go - more to add.
If the GPS signal is not available procedural separation could be used. It is no where near as efficient (or dare I say it as safe) as a radar / ADSB environment. A fire, a bomb, a failure of both primary and secondary power supplies, a SSR failure at either ML centre or BN centre would be far more disruptive than the loss of the GPS signal. If the GPS signal is jammed locally for war like or terrorist reasons I don't think any civilian aircraft would be allowed to take off (at least initially, and then ADIZ procedures would apply with extremely limited aircraft movements) so it becomes a task of getting the flying aircraft down safely. The ATC's out there should be able to give us an indication of whether the controllers on a shift would be able to cope with the additional workload by effectively halving the number of aircraft to be dealt with (hang on a sec most of them seem to be in on the conspiracy).
FB - Are you suggesting that I should throw away my 406 GPS equipped PLB on the remote chance the US disrupts the GPS signal in case I ever need to use it?
SSR is not spoof proof either. I've been in command of two different aircraft (about 15 years apart) where the indicated altitude to ATC is nothing like the actual altitude. A clever electronics engineer could easily alter the returned distance and / or altitude (multilateration would be able to be programmed to detect distance spoofing). Jamming primary radar would be quite straightforward as well.
It doesn't take much technology to upset ground aids either - I would be extremely surprised if even our military doesn't have the necessary equipment to do so - most electronic engineers could design and build gear to upset individual navigation aids in their sleep mainly using gear that can be brought off the shelf - and if they wanted to build from scratch even DSE would sell all the necessary components.
The necessary information to spoof these systems is publically available - probably not all on the internet but it could be found. No I am NOT going to say how on PPRUNE - that would make it too easy for a terrorist.
Have to go - more to add.
Thread Starter
Quokka, what a load of codswallop!
Tell me one country in Europe that has 1090ES ADS-B fitted in GA aircraft. You won’t be able to name one, because there isn’t one.
I’m concerned about the $100 million subsidy here to fit ADS-B in small GA aircraft. I want to know which safety issue is being addressed for the $100 million. It could be that more and more airline aircraft are gradually being fitted with 1090ES ADS-B, however it will be over a decade before the entire airline fleet is so fitted.
The only European country that I know of which is experimenting with ADS-B is Sweden, and I understand they are going with VDL 4.
I’ll say it again. I totally support ADS-B, however I believe we should be conservative, watch the fallout as other countries make huge errors costing billions of dollars, and then follow the best.
There is simply no reason that we should lead the world – especially when we do not have competent people here doing the “leading.”
Tell me one country in Europe that has 1090ES ADS-B fitted in GA aircraft. You won’t be able to name one, because there isn’t one.
I’m concerned about the $100 million subsidy here to fit ADS-B in small GA aircraft. I want to know which safety issue is being addressed for the $100 million. It could be that more and more airline aircraft are gradually being fitted with 1090ES ADS-B, however it will be over a decade before the entire airline fleet is so fitted.
The only European country that I know of which is experimenting with ADS-B is Sweden, and I understand they are going with VDL 4.
I’ll say it again. I totally support ADS-B, however I believe we should be conservative, watch the fallout as other countries make huge errors costing billions of dollars, and then follow the best.
There is simply no reason that we should lead the world – especially when we do not have competent people here doing the “leading.”
Thread Starter
Sierraoscar595, that is the first I’ve heard that TAAATS ran over budget. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, because as you know the final order was placed after I completed my term as Chairman of CAA. The last I heard was that Airservices won special awards for TAAATS because it was based on proven equipment – rather than designing a system and being first, which was the Hughes proposal.
Was there any announcement about your claimed $77 million overrun? Could you dig out a copy?
Was there any announcement about your claimed $77 million overrun? Could you dig out a copy?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would having more aircraft in the system, showing on the same TAAATS screens, reduce staff.
But then there are technical issues. Such as the size of the displays and the ability of one set of eyes to effectively scan it all. If you are able to use a 5NM ADS-B standard why would you monitor a display of 1000NM or more; it's not terribly practicable.
Other trials have proved that much more traffic is displayed, as such the 'duty of care' of the ATCs involved increases, so whilst the 'conflicts' require less workload because you can use radar like separation instead of procedural standards; the workload associated with 'extra traffic' is significantly increased particularly close to busy aerodromes.
ADS-B will have significant ability to increase safety, but will it reduce ATCs? My best guess is not likely; particularly given we are the best part of 100 short now, from full compliment, and there are significant retirement pressures coming.
I too like Dick Smith, would like to see the 'business cases' with all the options laid out openly so they can be publicly critiqued before the decisions are made. "ASA has form, none of it good".
Thread Starter
SM4 Pirate, a good post, however you do say:
I am wondering what you actually mean. Considering the only airline midair collision that we have had in Australia was at Sydney Airport in what is now known as Class C airspace, I just wonder what safety increase we are looking for.
The ADS-B “safety case” linked ADS-B with Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems, which are quite separate.
The fact that – as you point out – an air traffic controller will not be able to offer a separation service to airline aircraft at, say, a dozen different airports within the sector, will mean that collision avoidance close to the airport (where the risk is greater) will still be by radio, visual alertness, and TCAS Resolution Advisories. None of these need ADS-B.
So many people have got carried away with this newfangled ADS-B, saying it will dramatically improve safety, but hardly anyone actually gives the scenario of what particular accidents we are going to reduce.
ADS-B will have significant ability to increase safety
The ADS-B “safety case” linked ADS-B with Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems, which are quite separate.
The fact that – as you point out – an air traffic controller will not be able to offer a separation service to airline aircraft at, say, a dozen different airports within the sector, will mean that collision avoidance close to the airport (where the risk is greater) will still be by radio, visual alertness, and TCAS Resolution Advisories. None of these need ADS-B.
So many people have got carried away with this newfangled ADS-B, saying it will dramatically improve safety, but hardly anyone actually gives the scenario of what particular accidents we are going to reduce.
Dick,
Risk Management is all about ... reducing the likelihood and consequence of a bad thing.
Would you not agree that having the extended situational awareness that ADS-B surveillance provides ... would reduce the likelihood of a bad thing happening.
You appear to be saying that we haven't had a bad thing, so we don't need to be trying to prevent them.
Risk Management is all about ... reducing the likelihood and consequence of a bad thing.
Would you not agree that having the extended situational awareness that ADS-B surveillance provides ... would reduce the likelihood of a bad thing happening.
You appear to be saying that we haven't had a bad thing, so we don't need to be trying to prevent them.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Less ATC's??
I cannot help but wonder if the plan is to automate the ATC system, using ADSB, more aircraft and less (only a few) controllers.
We seem to have had quite a few instances of TIBA lately.
Funny that. Should get everyone used to the idea.
We seem to have had quite a few instances of TIBA lately.
Funny that. Should get everyone used to the idea.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me one country in Europe that has 1090ES ADS-B fitted in GA aircraft. You won’t be able to name one, because there isn’t one.
The only European country that I know of which is experimenting with ADS-B is Sweden
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1090ES and European Air Traffic Control
1090ES Ground Station Procurement
03/08/2005
The call for tender for the procurement of 1090 Extender Squitter Ground Station (1090ES GS) for CASCADE trials has been completed. The contract was awarded to Thales ATM that will furnish five systems (one procured, four leased).
These systems will support:
ADS-B reception and TIS-B transmission over extended squitter,
Interoperability with both DO-260 and DO-260A,
ASTERIX cat 21 for ADS-B reports,
ASTERIX cat 62 for TIS-B reports,
ASTERIX cat 22 and 23 for management and monitoring,
Multiple transmission and reception channels (for operation with multiple sector antennas),
Squitter logging and replay facilities.
CASCADE will receive four systems immediately. These will be identical to the systems used in Australia. Upgrades to the above functionalities will occur in two steps with delivery in January (for ADS-B) and June 2006 (for TIS-B).
The planned locations for the five systems are: Brétigny (EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre), Italy, Athens, Cyprus and Portugal. CASCADE is also leasing another four ADS-B 1090ES GS from Raytheon Systems Ltd. These will go to London, Frankfurt, Schiphol and Shannon.
1090ES Ground Station Procurement
03/08/2005
The call for tender for the procurement of 1090 Extender Squitter Ground Station (1090ES GS) for CASCADE trials has been completed. The contract was awarded to Thales ATM that will furnish five systems (one procured, four leased).
These systems will support:
ADS-B reception and TIS-B transmission over extended squitter,
Interoperability with both DO-260 and DO-260A,
ASTERIX cat 21 for ADS-B reports,
ASTERIX cat 62 for TIS-B reports,
ASTERIX cat 22 and 23 for management and monitoring,
Multiple transmission and reception channels (for operation with multiple sector antennas),
Squitter logging and replay facilities.
CASCADE will receive four systems immediately. These will be identical to the systems used in Australia. Upgrades to the above functionalities will occur in two steps with delivery in January (for ADS-B) and June 2006 (for TIS-B).
The planned locations for the five systems are: Brétigny (EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre), Italy, Athens, Cyprus and Portugal. CASCADE is also leasing another four ADS-B 1090ES GS from Raytheon Systems Ltd. These will go to London, Frankfurt, Schiphol and Shannon.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZBUSDRIVER;
Do you own a GA aircraft or a bus?
Do you operate a GA aircraft or a bus? (in the sense that the operator is responsible for the maintenance)?
If you are a positive subject to the two questions, how will the mandatory impost of any ADSB impact upon your bottom line if the aircraft/ bus, is/are operated below mainly AO10?
Are you prepared for the cost possibility of having two transponders (mode C and Mode S), so that TCAS can work for those folk who have, or need the "IN" capability?
If you don't own an aircraft/ bus, do you hire one assuming the owner will supply the equipment you fancy?
Do you believe that Private GA and mostly including owners/ operators should be allowed to operate without unnecessary restrictions and costs in Class G airspace?
Do you work for Airservices or a bus company?
Quokka;
I think Dick was challenging you to find something different to what you have supplied.
Do you own a GA aircraft or a bus?
Do you operate a GA aircraft or a bus? (in the sense that the operator is responsible for the maintenance)?
If you are a positive subject to the two questions, how will the mandatory impost of any ADSB impact upon your bottom line if the aircraft/ bus, is/are operated below mainly AO10?
Are you prepared for the cost possibility of having two transponders (mode C and Mode S), so that TCAS can work for those folk who have, or need the "IN" capability?
If you don't own an aircraft/ bus, do you hire one assuming the owner will supply the equipment you fancy?
Do you believe that Private GA and mostly including owners/ operators should be allowed to operate without unnecessary restrictions and costs in Class G airspace?
Do you work for Airservices or a bus company?
Quokka;
I think Dick was challenging you to find something different to what you have supplied.