Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
On that point, Mr speaker I draw your attention to relevance.
FB, do you really understand how navigation technology has evolved over the last three decades.
My little mobile phone GPS has better accuracy and better precision than the hundred thousand dollar plus VLF/OMEGA that was fitted to the worlds business fleet during the seventies and early eighties. It even initialises quicker and needs less programming to start with. Why would this be allowed to happen? Has the company that designed and manufactured my device ripped off the US government? Why would the Japanese government spend so much money putting a satellite into space that is only compatable with a foreign country's system? Why would two other nations put their own constellations into space that is also compatable with this system?
FB,You sound like the type of businessman that wants to control his intellectual property by the use of patent and the courts. Does BORAL pay a dividend back to the family of Mr Macadam for inventing road surfacing for every kilogram of hotmix layed? Does MTU still pay a royalty to Dr Diesel for his invention of the compression ignition engine? Does Mr Cessna pay anything to the Wright family for being the first recorded power aircraft operators?
And finally does DARPA want you to stop playing with its most famous toy. last I looked this little device has a considerable risk of being used for terrorist activities....or do you just wish to choose which toy suits your own agenda.
FB, do you really understand how navigation technology has evolved over the last three decades.
My little mobile phone GPS has better accuracy and better precision than the hundred thousand dollar plus VLF/OMEGA that was fitted to the worlds business fleet during the seventies and early eighties. It even initialises quicker and needs less programming to start with. Why would this be allowed to happen? Has the company that designed and manufactured my device ripped off the US government? Why would the Japanese government spend so much money putting a satellite into space that is only compatable with a foreign country's system? Why would two other nations put their own constellations into space that is also compatable with this system?
FB,You sound like the type of businessman that wants to control his intellectual property by the use of patent and the courts. Does BORAL pay a dividend back to the family of Mr Macadam for inventing road surfacing for every kilogram of hotmix layed? Does MTU still pay a royalty to Dr Diesel for his invention of the compression ignition engine? Does Mr Cessna pay anything to the Wright family for being the first recorded power aircraft operators?
And finally does DARPA want you to stop playing with its most famous toy. last I looked this little device has a considerable risk of being used for terrorist activities....or do you just wish to choose which toy suits your own agenda.
Anyway, thats it for me.
Unless there is a new argument produced against fitment, this subject is dead and done! Hopefully, Minister Albanese comes to the right decision prior to September.
I can wait until then. C U!
Unless there is a new argument produced against fitment, this subject is dead and done! Hopefully, Minister Albanese comes to the right decision prior to September.
I can wait until then. C U!
Dick,
I apologise if I have offended you or given anyone the wrong impression of you.
However, I thought my phrase would be taken as a bit of a compliment ... clever, cany etc ... a bit of a throw away line ... a bit like the word "fundamentalists' has been thrown around.
Anyway, no offence intended and I'll but out ... like OZBUSDRIVER ...
I apologise if I have offended you or given anyone the wrong impression of you.
However, I thought my phrase would be taken as a bit of a compliment ... clever, cany etc ... a bit of a throw away line ... a bit like the word "fundamentalists' has been thrown around.
Anyway, no offence intended and I'll but out ... like OZBUSDRIVER ...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
No I have not owned a business, but have managed one.
As stated above- Relevance?
Are you serious that you wish that we enter into a formal contract with the US government for the supply of the GPS signal.
What would you want in this contract?
How/where would it be enforceable?
What would you expect us to pay?
What penalties would you put on the US if the signal was interrupted?
The Russians are developing their own satellite network, and I believe the Europeans as well.
Sorry, if I've misunderstood what you are implying, the signal is free, other countries are developing alternative sources. I doubt that, even if we did have a contract, that this would stop the US turning off or corrupting the signal if it was in their national interest.
No I have not owned a business, but have managed one.
As stated above- Relevance?
Are you serious that you wish that we enter into a formal contract with the US government for the supply of the GPS signal.
What would you want in this contract?
How/where would it be enforceable?
What would you expect us to pay?
What penalties would you put on the US if the signal was interrupted?
The Russians are developing their own satellite network, and I believe the Europeans as well.
Sorry, if I've misunderstood what you are implying, the signal is free, other countries are developing alternative sources. I doubt that, even if we did have a contract, that this would stop the US turning off or corrupting the signal if it was in their national interest.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max 1
And I feel this indicates exactly the national defence 'at any cost' ethos you mention. Of interest - note one test location considered.
US 'planned to test nerve gas on diggers'
The plan, which is disclosed for the first time on tomorrow’s SUNDAY program on Nine, called for 200 mainly Australian combat troops to be aerially bombed and sprayed with the chemical weapons — with all but a handful of the soldiers to be kept in the dark about the "full details" of the tests.
A former senior official with then Prime Minister Harold Holt, Mr Peter Bailey, tells the program that as far as he knows the tests never went ahead but the planning was very advanced.
He admitted the whole operation was to be kept secret because use of such weapons was almost certainly illegal under international law at the time.
"The idea that we could actually… that the Australians could countenance such an activity is …unacceptable," University of NSW toxicologist Professor Chris Winder said.
He says even a fraction of a drop of either chemical on exposed skin could have been fatal and Cold War fears that communist Chinese or Russian attackers might have used such weapons in a third world war "doesn’t justify it now and I don’t think it justified it then".
The files show that in July 1962 the then-US defence secretary Robert McNamara wrote in secret to the Australian Defence Department suggesting joint testing of chemical weapons "on a classified basis without a public release by either country".
In early 1963 a survey team of Australian and US scientists reviewed sites in Australia for chemical warfare tests, suggesting the remote Iron Range rainforest near Lockhart River in far north Queensland as one such location.
The request caused consternation in Canberra, with senior Defence bureaucrats clearly opposed to the use of nerve gas, but, as former senior Prime Ministerial policy advisor Peter Bailey recalls: "I heard that many times in Cabinet meetings that if they weren’t pretty good and pretty faithful to the Americans we would be dumped.
Peuce
My new firend I am extremely concerned to note your apology and exit after Dick Smith mentioned the word 'defamation' about your quite innocent 'tricky' in regard to his debating style
Is this forum to be a place of good debate or some fear of retribution for open comment? Am I missing something? Should I not communicate with Mr Smith on here at all? This is muchly of concern to my research efforts.
And I feel this indicates exactly the national defence 'at any cost' ethos you mention. Of interest - note one test location considered.
US 'planned to test nerve gas on diggers'
The plan, which is disclosed for the first time on tomorrow’s SUNDAY program on Nine, called for 200 mainly Australian combat troops to be aerially bombed and sprayed with the chemical weapons — with all but a handful of the soldiers to be kept in the dark about the "full details" of the tests.
A former senior official with then Prime Minister Harold Holt, Mr Peter Bailey, tells the program that as far as he knows the tests never went ahead but the planning was very advanced.
He admitted the whole operation was to be kept secret because use of such weapons was almost certainly illegal under international law at the time.
"The idea that we could actually… that the Australians could countenance such an activity is …unacceptable," University of NSW toxicologist Professor Chris Winder said.
He says even a fraction of a drop of either chemical on exposed skin could have been fatal and Cold War fears that communist Chinese or Russian attackers might have used such weapons in a third world war "doesn’t justify it now and I don’t think it justified it then".
The files show that in July 1962 the then-US defence secretary Robert McNamara wrote in secret to the Australian Defence Department suggesting joint testing of chemical weapons "on a classified basis without a public release by either country".
In early 1963 a survey team of Australian and US scientists reviewed sites in Australia for chemical warfare tests, suggesting the remote Iron Range rainforest near Lockhart River in far north Queensland as one such location.
The request caused consternation in Canberra, with senior Defence bureaucrats clearly opposed to the use of nerve gas, but, as former senior Prime Ministerial policy advisor Peter Bailey recalls: "I heard that many times in Cabinet meetings that if they weren’t pretty good and pretty faithful to the Americans we would be dumped.
Peuce
My new firend I am extremely concerned to note your apology and exit after Dick Smith mentioned the word 'defamation' about your quite innocent 'tricky' in regard to his debating style
Is this forum to be a place of good debate or some fear of retribution for open comment? Am I missing something? Should I not communicate with Mr Smith on here at all? This is muchly of concern to my research efforts.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Threats normally follow the defeat of empty rhetoric! 
.
Re GPS costs
.
Think about it rather than having a sulk Bing
.
Do GPS manufacturers (of all ilk) have a 'licence' for their/a particular chip that decodes GPS for use!? ... hmmm, and the cost of that 'licence' (access/decode) is paid how and by whom
... here is a hint ... the once off cost of purchase by consumers of said device would include ... ermmm well, the cost recovery by manufacturers to licence the GPS chip in the first place!
.
Like I said, most folks already have the pennies dropping!
.
As for your business jibe ... not even close!
.
OZ and Peuce, make a seat space, I'm over the amateur hour as well!
.
Re GPS costs
.
Think about it rather than having a sulk Bing
.
Do GPS manufacturers (of all ilk) have a 'licence' for their/a particular chip that decodes GPS for use!? ... hmmm, and the cost of that 'licence' (access/decode) is paid how and by whom
... here is a hint ... the once off cost of purchase by consumers of said device would include ... ermmm well, the cost recovery by manufacturers to licence the GPS chip in the first place!.
Like I said, most folks already have the pennies dropping!
.
As for your business jibe ... not even close!
.
OZ and Peuce, make a seat space, I'm over the amateur hour as well!
On that point, Mr speaker I draw your attention to relevance
...Funny how some are running away though ...are the very simple scenarios I offer up, too hard to debate ? ...or are they going off for a sulk ? Re the relevance of my posts - I am not questioning the usefullness of GPS, I am very concerned though about the dangers of totally dedicating the Oz airspace to a GPS only based air-nav system.
I have asked what happens to the GPS system when several, perhaps dozens, or hundreds of very cheap GPS guided UAVs/buzz bombs fly over the Oz or U.S.coast lines - i am yet to receive much of an answer to this. Is this scenario plausable ? Prior to the 9II event, how many thought a 9II possible.
The UAVs I describe could be as small as a 6 foot wing span, a little single cylinder engine turning a home made prop, and launched from 500+ miles off shore. With GPS targetting accuracy, these UAV bombs wouldnt need to be big at all.
From reading other posts, etc, I get the impression that the U.S. cannot isolate the civvy GPS signal via the satelites so more then likely the only way to stop supplying the GPS targetting signal to the terrorists would to turn off the civy GPS until alternate measures were found to stop the Buzz bombs - and that could take years. Obviously No GPS = No ADS-B. Perhaps one of the reasons why there are no concrete guarentees of GPS continuing, only a vague policy.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am very concerned though about the dangers of totally dedicating the Oz airspace to a GPS only based air-nav system
.
... answer your own question Bing/Dick
.
Is GPS 'the' nav system a nasty would use for guidance?
.
Even if it was, what would be risked by shuting down GPS at short/no notice?
.
In other words, how many industries, companies, government systems that rely on sole (or near to it GPS) use would be affected? ... would lots and lots of lives be put at risk? .... is that an acceptable risk?
.
Not to mention the number of critical systems that utilise the super accurate GPS clocks worldwide.
.
Or are you suggesting that even after an 'event' those exposures would be considered worth it to turn it off?
.
You tell us!!
it is not and would not be ONLY GPS based for Nav! nor is ADS-B sole surveillance around the Primary capitals that will retain PRIM and MSSR! ... are you deliberately trying to mislead?
.
... answer your own question Bing/Dick
.
Is GPS 'the' nav system a nasty would use for guidance?
.
Even if it was, what would be risked by shuting down GPS at short/no notice?
.
In other words, how many industries, companies, government systems that rely on sole (or near to it GPS) use would be affected? ... would lots and lots of lives be put at risk? .... is that an acceptable risk?
.
Not to mention the number of critical systems that utilise the super accurate GPS clocks worldwide.
.
Or are you suggesting that even after an 'event' those exposures would be considered worth it to turn it off?
.
You tell us!!
.
... answer your own question Bing/Dick
.
Is GPS 'the' nav system a nasty would use for guidance?
.
Even if it was, what would be risked by shuting down GPS at short/no notice?
.
In other words, how many industries, companies, government systems that rely on sole (or near to it GPS) use would be affected? ... would lots and lots of lives be put at risk? .... is that an acceptable risk?
.
Not to mention the number of critical systems that utilise the super accurate GPS clocks worldwide.
.
Or are you suggesting that even after an 'event' those exposures would be considered worth it to turn it off?
.
You tell us!!
On another mater, Just to clarify any possible miss-understandings, I have nothing to do with Dick Smith.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
Enough already with the doomsday scenario. It is absolute scaremongering, I am amazed you even get out of bed in the morning.
So what you are saying is lets not put in a proven, working system and subsidise GA. Get FAR greater surveillance coverage and safety benefits on the basis of your rantings.
Have a think, the 9/11 guys you reckon wouldn't have been able to find New York if the GPS system was turned off.
Now your talking about them building GPS guided buzz bombs, I don't believe the rockets lobbed into Israel are that hi-tech.
You talk about the "very simple scenarios you offer up", so designing , testing and building GPS guided buzzbombs and keeping it secret can be whipped up in the backyard very simply.
The Russians are putting in to orbit their own satellites for a GPS system. What do the Yanks do then? Take out their system too?
You're talking WW3 now, and this is your reasoning behind hanging on to enroute radars.
Enough already with the doomsday scenario. It is absolute scaremongering, I am amazed you even get out of bed in the morning.
So what you are saying is lets not put in a proven, working system and subsidise GA. Get FAR greater surveillance coverage and safety benefits on the basis of your rantings.
Have a think, the 9/11 guys you reckon wouldn't have been able to find New York if the GPS system was turned off.
Now your talking about them building GPS guided buzz bombs, I don't believe the rockets lobbed into Israel are that hi-tech.
You talk about the "very simple scenarios you offer up", so designing , testing and building GPS guided buzzbombs and keeping it secret can be whipped up in the backyard very simply.
The Russians are putting in to orbit their own satellites for a GPS system. What do the Yanks do then? Take out their system too?
You're talking WW3 now, and this is your reasoning behind hanging on to enroute radars.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Have a think, the 9/11 guys you reckon wouldn't have been able to find New York if the GPS system was turned off.
Those old yanky airframes were probably pre GPS..... most likely IRS..... so someone stop all the inertia in the world will ya! Its aiding terrorism
Gooday SDD..... good to see ya back!
J
what you are saying is lets not put in a proven, working system and subsidise GA.
You talk about the "very simple scenarios you offer up", so designing , testing and building GPS guided buzzbombs and keeping it secret can be whipped up in the backyard very simply.
... and I'm not talking WW3, just terrorism.
someone stop all the inertia in the world will ya! Its aiding terrorism
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
We also have a proven and operational ADS-B system that provides coverage to close to the surface in the following locations (Source: High Altitude ADS-B Coverage):
So if you have ADS-B fitted and operational at any of the above places ATC can see you.
Why did they install it rather than SSR? - $$$$, and it works.
High Altitude ADS-B Coverage
When operating outside of radar coverage, ADS-B derived ATS surveillance services will be provided to operators of authorised aircraft whilst within the coverage volume of commissioned ADS-B ground stations.
ADS-B ground stations are line-of-sight facilities. The ability for a ground station to received ADS-B data from an aircraft depends on altitude, distance from the site and obstructing terrain. Coverage will exist near the surface within 20 nautical miles of the ground station. High level coverage can exceed 250 nautical miles.
Note: In airspace where ADS-B coverage overlaps radar coverage, the radar derived aircraft position will be displayed to ATC.
The charts below shows the approximate ADS-B coverage provided by currently operating ground stations at FL300.
ADS-B Coverage effective 20 December, 2007
When operating outside of radar coverage, ADS-B derived ATS surveillance services will be provided to operators of authorised aircraft whilst within the coverage volume of commissioned ADS-B ground stations.
ADS-B ground stations are line-of-sight facilities. The ability for a ground station to received ADS-B data from an aircraft depends on altitude, distance from the site and obstructing terrain. Coverage will exist near the surface within 20 nautical miles of the ground station. High level coverage can exceed 250 nautical miles.
Note: In airspace where ADS-B coverage overlaps radar coverage, the radar derived aircraft position will be displayed to ATC.
The charts below shows the approximate ADS-B coverage provided by currently operating ground stations at FL300.
ADS-B Coverage effective 20 December, 2007
Why did they install it rather than SSR? - $$$$, and it works.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
FB,
You're arguments as to the power GPS gives terrorists are valid. Due you suggest that US should turn the system off now before someone uses it for terrorist purposes?
Civilian airliners have been used very effectively as terrorist weapons. Should they be banned permanently? The US government only TEMPORARILY grounded ALL civilian aircraft on 9/11.
Whilst GPS is unavailable in ADS-B airspace, the fall back of procedural separation will still be available. A (smaller) network of NAVAIDS is planned to be retained to provide a redundant alternate system.
W
You're arguments as to the power GPS gives terrorists are valid. Due you suggest that US should turn the system off now before someone uses it for terrorist purposes?
Civilian airliners have been used very effectively as terrorist weapons. Should they be banned permanently? The US government only TEMPORARILY grounded ALL civilian aircraft on 9/11.
Whilst GPS is unavailable in ADS-B airspace, the fall back of procedural separation will still be available. A (smaller) network of NAVAIDS is planned to be retained to provide a redundant alternate system.
W
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For how long werbil ?
I can not quote you exact numbers, for exactly the reason YOU CAN NOT argue my suggestion, but I dare say the ADSB, even if they have some "outages".... will be having a much higher "UP TIME" than any of the radar heads we have had in the past or future.
FB FFS build a bridge mate and get over it......... I am starting think you are the radar salesman who is starring down the barrel of a losing battle. Get your company to start working on an ADSB system to suppliment (not totally replace) the worlds radar needs!
gee there is a novel idea!J
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening Jaba et al
One last one on this to ensure there is 100% factual clarity on this GPS availablity issue!
Please all, read them ... I mean, grab a cuppa and READ THEM IN FULL!
What we know so far:-
The system here and abroad will have:-
- Back-up ground based navaids
- PRIM and SSR around the capitals
- VHF and procedural sep options in the CTA GAFA and elsewhere
- TXPDR's that will (if like Microair's) be able to be selctable as A, C, S or ADS-B (redundant in other words if GPS is U/S)
All the above .... just in case GPS falls over ... no matter how unlikely!!
How unlikely? .... read on
2002 U.S. Global Positioning System and European Galileo System
U.S. Global Positioning System and European Galileo System
A nice PPT that puts much of today’s GPS and related (including Aviation) together
http://pnt.gov/public/2007/2007-09-I...idersforum.ppt
Current PNT state
National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing
US/International Co-operations
National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing
Current PNT Policy
U.S. Space-Based PNT Policy
And last but not least, a historical document suite that provides a background to the decisions that have led the GPS systems to where they are today.
RAND | Monograph/Reports | The Global Positioning System: Assessing National Policies
These links provide a clear (and verifiable) context to the significance with which the GPS systems are utilised across industries around the world, and therefore of such significance, that the number of agencies and governments (including DoD's internationally) have strict protocols, inclduing in the worst case scenario, ‘local’
contingencies in place, as the broad brush SA or OFF options are just not feasible anymore!!
…. That is off course unless something so substantial were to occur to warrant it …. When read in context with the safe guards in the PNT policies above, and the intergovernmental considerations within!
…. In such an event if the decision was sactioned and taken by multiple governments either locally or globally, the loss of civilian GPS is not likely to matter to many folks when in comparison to the event that would preceed taking such a decision IYKWIM
Enjoy the reading ….. Bing
One last one on this to ensure there is 100% factual clarity on this GPS availablity issue!
Please all, read them ... I mean, grab a cuppa and READ THEM IN FULL!
What we know so far:-
The system here and abroad will have:-
- Back-up ground based navaids
- PRIM and SSR around the capitals
- VHF and procedural sep options in the CTA GAFA and elsewhere
- TXPDR's that will (if like Microair's) be able to be selctable as A, C, S or ADS-B (redundant in other words if GPS is U/S)
All the above .... just in case GPS falls over ... no matter how unlikely!!
How unlikely? .... read on
2002 U.S. Global Positioning System and European Galileo System
U.S. Global Positioning System and European Galileo System
A nice PPT that puts much of today’s GPS and related (including Aviation) together
http://pnt.gov/public/2007/2007-09-I...idersforum.ppt
Current PNT state
National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing
US/International Co-operations
National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing
Current PNT Policy
U.S. Space-Based PNT Policy
And last but not least, a historical document suite that provides a background to the decisions that have led the GPS systems to where they are today.
RAND | Monograph/Reports | The Global Positioning System: Assessing National Policies
These links provide a clear (and verifiable) context to the significance with which the GPS systems are utilised across industries around the world, and therefore of such significance, that the number of agencies and governments (including DoD's internationally) have strict protocols, inclduing in the worst case scenario, ‘local’
contingencies in place, as the broad brush SA or OFF options are just not feasible anymore!!…. That is off course unless something so substantial were to occur to warrant it …. When read in context with the safe guards in the PNT policies above, and the intergovernmental considerations within!
…. In such an event if the decision was sactioned and taken by multiple governments either locally or globally, the loss of civilian GPS is not likely to matter to many folks when in comparison to the event that would preceed taking such a decision IYKWIM
Enjoy the reading ….. Bing
