Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?

[Flying Binghi]

- 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!!

Errr.... Scurvy, why all the back up if ADS-B is so good ???

[Biggles_in_Oz]

why all the backup ?

because only a lunatic would base everything on one system which is not directly under their own control.
Yes, GNSS can be (and has been) spoofed, degraded and/or jammed, but there non GNSS methods which the zealots can use to guide HE where they want., not as cheaply or conveniently as GNSS, but ...

I have issues several aspects of the JCP but on the whole, ADSB is a good idea (tm).

[james michael]

I have read through these last 20 posts and I salute Bin Liner for the impact his efforts have made on Binghi.

Tools may be used for good and bad; in the ultimate civilisation keeps those with a balance of good and takes measures to reduce the harm.

Cars - transport versus road toll. Knives - eat versus kill. And so it goes.

Terrorist scenario - red herring of miniscule impact - Binghi, ADS-B is working NOW around the world, how many terrorist GPS guided V2's have landed? But, let's turn off the constellation and that will stop them, won't it? Whoops, now they're using trucks. Let's ban them - you can drive to the farm for your produce.

Why have backups - through life we have backups. As does the human body. Tell us Binghi, why do you carry a spare tyre (space saver acceptable) in your vehicle given the reliability of tyres today. And, on the aviation front, let's all fly single engine aircraft over water at night with passengers.

I don't believe there is any substance forthcoming re the Binghi scenario that furthers my research.

[Jabawocky]

FB

Insults??? What insults??? Any thing I said to you was about "getting over it" If that insulted you, your tough exterior just had a small breach! Patch it up quick!

And if you have predicted ADSB down time Vs actual Radar down time, how about you share it with us then?

- 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!! Errr.... Scurvy, why all the back up if ADS-B is so good ???

I think you missed the point again. Ground based navaids are already there, Terminal radar was always part of the plan, ADSB is to be used where no radar is feasable....the great Aussie FA.....and replace enroute radar. Proc sep is used now when radar is offline and in the GAFA so whats new there.....

Comments like that are a poor attempt at scuttling Scurvy's well reasoned debate. ADSB hasa never been proposed as the one and only piece of the puzzle.

J

[Dick Smith]

James Michael, let me try to answer your earlier questions. Basically what you are saying is that seeing the GA industry is going to get $100 million worth of equipment for “nothing” we should not complain.

Why don’t you give me a phone call so we can discuss this issue? My numbers are 02 9450 0600 (work) and 0408 640 221 (mobile). It is very basic. If we have in our industry $100 million to spend, we should allocate that money to where it is most effective in improving safety.

Your question is something like, “If they are going to waste $100 million, what is wrong with them wasting it on fitting black boxes to GA aircraft if we don’t have to pay anything?”

James Michael, I can’t really offer you anything other than to say that it is not going to happen as proposed. As I have stated previously on this site, no Government will risk being the first in the world to close down all secondary surveillance radar in high traffic enroute areas and to be the first to rely totally on a single ADS-B GPS based system.

Your second question (in relation to the second stage of the ADS-B mandate for GA aircraft requiring ADS-B above 5,000 feet) is very basic. You have mentioned that Stage Two affects:

VFR operations that currently require carriage and use of a VHF radio

Uniquely in Australia, because of the old Flight Service days, we have a mandatory radio requirement above 5,000 feet for VFR aircraft. Strangely, we have no mandatory radio requirement for many busy airfields which have airline traffic. So by Stage Two bringing in a requirement that ADS-B be fitted where we currently require the carriage and use of VHF radio, we will have the ridiculous system where you need ADS-B at 5,500 feet over the Simpson Desert, but you do not require ADS-B at Taree – an airport serviced by RPT traffic.

This is happening because rather than people looking at addressing risk in a scientific way, we actually make our decisions on what we have done in the past – no matter how much those decisions allocated the resources incorrectly.

Bob Murphie, the $100 million is coming from the claimed saving of closing down the enroute secondary surveillance radars that operate between Sydney and Cairns. In the USA – where they are planning to go to an ADS-B mandate from 2020 – all of the secondary surveillance enroute radars which give a service above FL180 are remaining.

James Michael, before you start attacking me personally, why not put your own name on the post (or is it your own name?) and why not phone me and have a discussion? I’m happy to put you in the right hand seat of the Citation, and we can head off for a meal (say, at Bathurst) and discuss the issues.

It does matter where the money comes from if it is a gross misallocation of the finite resources of our industry. We cannot afford to lose $10, let alone $100 million.

Also, the cost of maintaining the equipment in VFR aircraft will be millions of dollars per year with no subsidy at all.

[james michael]

Dick Smith

In the order of your post:

I find no value in wasting my time ringing or meeting you if you have no fact to add, as what you have posted adds no value to my research. But thank you for your offer.

My question is NOT about wasting $100 million. I believe the business decision proposed by Airservices is one of the greatest safety forward moves in our lifetime. That's why the RFDS is identified out the middle of nowhere in WA already where radar coverage is non existent.

So no-one is going to rely on a single system en route? Are there then two radar heads at each en route location now?

Next to radio. You selectively pick one example - Tarree - that is NOT a CTAF R. Unsurprising as Tarree averages a mammoth 3 RPT flight in per day (ditto out). Even so, once ADS-B is on the go, there is an improvement in information available to those who wish it.

But, try all the CTAF R that now exist and I note CASA is currently reviewing the entire CTAF R situation so I expect more, not less.

"We make our decisions based on the past" - I felt this ADS-B decision was a breath of fresh air and thinking beyond the past. If you read the NAS DP V1.4, another part of my research, ADS-B allows your famous NAS Class E to be placed on top of CTAF (1200') and provide RPT security all the way up and down. And, GA will require to have ADS-B in Class E won't they, Mr Smith, if it follows the transponder mandate that was imposed for Class E.

Now to a sore point "before you start attacking me personally". Really, Mr Smith? Was it not you who did the personal attack ON ME about identity, not contacting you being proof of a separate agenda, etc.

What makes you think you can scare away my friend Peuce with a comment he has defamed you (laughable) yet YOU make improper claims about me. If this is to be the debate style, do not expect me to participate with you. He apologised to you, almost offered you a bouquet of flowers (tulips, perhaps), yet you feel YOU can blithely criticise my motives. I had already explained my ambition was ADS-B in the cockpit.

I find no news or value to the debate in your previous post.

[Capn Bloggs]

why not put your own name on the post (or is it your own name?)

Good one Dick.

[james michael]

Thank you Bloggs, it reminded me Mr Smith had no compuction implying I am a fibber and that is a concern to me:

On Saturday I stated (Post 229)

I am proud of my name James Michael, has been mine for many years.

And today Mr Smith questions my integrity with the quote you have noted. Am I to debate in this culture?

I feel we have reached a point of debate acknowledged by Leo Tolstoy in 1893:
"Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration."

I commend Dick Smith as a very intelligent man.

I am also intrigued at this intrusion into the business of Airservices. How they wish to propose a business case to aviation and government is not mine to argue - I am researching only the pros and cons for aviation.

Perhaps Airservices can reciprocate and send in a team to help Mr Smith with his businesses

[Bob Murphie]

Dick;

From discussions I have had the cross industry subsidy works like this.

1) Airservices pass on any savings to the Airlines, (I think they are already doing this) and,

2) The Airlines pass on their savings to GA.

However I can't see any evidence of any Airlines agreements to pass on anything to GA. I can't find any statements from Senior Management or the respective Boards.

Has there been such an agreement from say, Qantas, Virgin or REX?

[james michael]

Bob Murphie

In your enquiry, my research can assist.

Your advisors are possibly misplaced with their concepts.

The JCP is our shepherd, check the words at 9.6 and 9.7. Airservices are the money managers.

[StallBoy]

Dear Dick,
I hope you never get into a position of power in the FAA or any other government instrumentatily again. When I heard that you were being considered by the howard government I started looking at the sailing times of passenger ships to travel out of and too Australia.

[Bob Murphie]

Extract, JCP 9.7:

"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".

Has there been any documented evidence that "the customers" are a party to this suggestion that would allow Airservices to issue the vouchers to GA?

[james michael]

b Mu

Bob Murphie - the above is your name with gaps because I left it incomplete. This also is so with the part of JCP 9.7 you quote - it is incomplete and so out of context.

9.6 says

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.

and 9.7 further says
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.

Airservices pricing is set by Airservices.

If, as you suggest, the customers refuse to allow Airservices to conduct its business as planned, then the contractual arrangement of the JCP falls over. Offer - acceptance - consideration. Like the fire triangle, one element missing means NO GO.

My research is that this latset JCP Phase 1 concept comes from the last ASTRA (ABIT GIT) meeting. ASTRA is argued by some as having a high airline component. My informant was that there was universal acceptance of the revised JCP. That means airlines also.

Only a year ago on here, it was argued that Qantas would never fit ADS-B. Life remains full of surprises.

I remain amazed to remember the old jingle "See a pin and pick it up, all day long means good luck". Why are so many people anxious to stick the pin in themselves instead? Is it some reversed Not Invented Here syndrome?

[Bob Murphie]

I said it was an extract;


Here is 9.6 and 9.7 so we can all be at ease with the contents, which I note you have also used extracts from.


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,
Aviation Satellite Technology for
Policy Group Joint Consultation Paper Surveillance & Navigation
July 2007 Page 21
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-20144.
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.
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.
Aviation Satellite Technology for
Policy Group Joint Consultation Paper Surveillance & Navigation
July 2007 Page 22
• 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.


I am an Airservices customer, but don't pay enroute charges. Lets be as simplistic as we can. The Airservices customers they intend to fund this cross industry subsidy are mainly the Airlines.

My concern isn't sticking pins or having good luck. My concern is that I haven't seen anything from the Airlines. Have you.

I made the post to Dick hoping he could be in a better position to garner a response from Mr Dixon than I.

My question remains unanswered.

[james michael]

Bob Murphie

You miss my point.

I do NOT need to see anyhting from the airlines as you suggest.

If they withdraw, there is no deal. If they are in, there is a deal. I doubt it will walk through the Minister's office without being very specific but that is NOT my/our issue or problem.

Let your question remain unanswered; it makes no difference to the end game. I suspect in any case you may be as likely as Mr Smith to get an answer from Mr Dixon - he has a business to run.

Bring on my TSO 146 GPS.

[Bob Murphie]

I have noted in your "research" a constant that makes me think you have already made up your mind, your last post confirms that. There are others who are in opposition to a system that addresses a problem that doesn't exist and indeed doesn't offer the aircraft owner anything more than he/ she already has.

I have a mode C transponder that gives me separation from TCAS equipped RPT. My windscreen and eyes gives me separation from other VFR aircraft. My 400Mhz ELT will give me crash security. Exactly what else justifies this journey into money laundering.

I will await the outcome which may take longer than the regulatory reform process, or Minister Albanese may chuck the whole lot out.

I guess one way or another we will find the answer to my question.

[max1]

Bob Murphie,
I answered your question as simply as I could previously.
Here it is again. ASA will pay for the GA subsidy, and again, ASA will pay for the GA subsidy.
Q. Where is ASA getting the money? A. From its customers i.e. pretty much the airlines.
Q. Where is ASA getting the money?A. From its customers i.e. pretty much the airlines.
Q. Why are the airlines willing to pay, through ASA, to outfit the GA fleet rather than get money back now?
A. Because the airlines (now listen up Flying Binghi) run a business, and are aware that longer term that they will save money because their supplier will have cheaper costs through running a proven , reliable and cheaper system through a network of ADS-B ground stations than by having to instal and maintain a network of SSRs that have moving parts.
ADS-B will give them much greater coverage at a cheaper price.Long term they will see a reduction in nav charges.

The airlines are onboard.

Dick, do you think Qantas, Virgin etc would allow ASA to go down this path, basically spending airline navcharges, if they weren't comfortable with the technology. They have been using it for some years now, and are involved in the implementation and testing of it.

Bob I think you'll find that in the excerpt you posted that

"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"

International,domestic and regional airlines ARE in on it.

Dick ASA DONT have $100 million floating around, it is the future navcharge payers money ( pretty much the airlines) . I'm sure that they would rather not pay it, and ASA have committed to reducing charges. As I have stated, in this case, it is a one time close-ended deal.

If ASA have to commit to replacing old radar heads and installing new ones around Australia, that money is G-O-N-E.

To summarise, ASA pay for avionics upgrades with the navcharges from the airlines, the airlines are onboard, the system works, there are redundancies, ATC can go to procedural control if it goes suddenly offline (just like now if we lose radar). FB, the airlines run a business, probably a bit bigger than yours, and they are happy with it.

[CaptainMidnight]

Not sure if info re this has been posted here, but:

Dick Smith's position on the Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) and the $100 million subsidy

[Bob Murphie]

max1;

Tooth Fairy stuff.

I have never been given anything from any Government Quango in my life, indeed the exact opposite.

Airservices can't give GA money because as a Corporation they have a duty to their shareholder (s), not PBGA.

If they wish to use the tax from the fare paying pax, (enroute charges included in fare), I simply want to know where is any documentation by the Airlines from these collected taxes will guarantee the laundering of this cash to pay somebody other than the shareholder (s), and not including members of an "implementation team" that probably don't include the decision makers.

It's not that unreasonable to ask such a simple question.

[james michael]

CM

Please, more warning before sending us off to read somethng like that

Bob Murphie

Certainly my research has caused me to believe I want that GPS. In the balance of what I have researched and read, that's my belief.

Airservices CAN give GA money because first they can make a business case that they are speculating to accumulate and second their shareholder is only the government who are not backward in making money.

Implementation team that does not include 'the decision makers'? Have you not noted the representation at ASTRA?

Now, what colour GPS shall I order