Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, some of the things you say here are quite comical....
very funny.
Yes. "Slater and Gordon".
Is it so hard to see an avionics conversion being similar to an LPG conversion, except that the govt wont be out of pocket for the avionics?
Bob, you say "in effect the passengers are paying for it". I don't see the difficulty with this. The money AsA collects ends up in general revenue, where it is paid out in farm/apprentice worker/solar panel etc. subsidies. I truly do not see what your issue is.
Once the passengers know that they will be subsidising equipment in general aviation aircraft when there is no measurable safety advantage, they will object to it.
Can anyone give me evidence that the scenario could be different to what I describe?
Is it so hard to see an avionics conversion being similar to an LPG conversion, except that the govt wont be out of pocket for the avionics?
Bob, you say "in effect the passengers are paying for it". I don't see the difficulty with this. The money AsA collects ends up in general revenue, where it is paid out in farm/apprentice worker/solar panel etc. subsidies. I truly do not see what your issue is.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris
I see you, and double you in your good quote
Dick Smith stated
We await his return from reading ICAO Annex 6.
To my understanding, once ADS-B OUT talks to TCAS (knowing one example is on limited test in Airbus) think of regional PTO in Class G airspace and CTAF.
No measurable safety advantage? I must again read the arguments Dick put forward about serious and imminent risk at Avalon
Bob Murphie
One enjoys Jarlsberg cheese. The visual delight is in the holes - the substance of life is in the cheese. These arguments of passenger concern or airlines default are visually delightful - let us instead imagine what passengers will think if they are told how ADS-B will improve their safety in most of australia
I see you, and double you in your good quote
Dick Smith stated
when there is no measurable safety advantage
To my understanding, once ADS-B OUT talks to TCAS (knowing one example is on limited test in Airbus) think of regional PTO in Class G airspace and CTAF.
No measurable safety advantage? I must again read the arguments Dick put forward about serious and imminent risk at Avalon
Bob Murphie
One enjoys Jarlsberg cheese. The visual delight is in the holes - the substance of life is in the cheese. These arguments of passenger concern or airlines default are visually delightful - let us instead imagine what passengers will think if they are told how ADS-B will improve their safety in most of australia
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Anyone else noticed his "fake" poor use of english, sort of like an Asian student kind of translation to english in earlier posts has turned into a rather more fluent Anglo-Saxon version?
I think he might just be a wolf in sheeps clothes!
J
I think he might just be a wolf in sheeps clothes!
J
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris
I suggest you delete the "GA" from your post where you say
"If you are a GA pilot, wandering about without any idea of where you are without your GPS....."
This is inppropriate.
Part of the problem with Australian aviation is that GA is undervalued and expected to be second rate. We wrongly accept this attitude and so we have things like LHR happening.
Please do not perpetuate this attitude.
I suggest you delete the "GA" from your post where you say
"If you are a GA pilot, wandering about without any idea of where you are without your GPS....."
This is inppropriate.
Part of the problem with Australian aviation is that GA is undervalued and expected to be second rate. We wrongly accept this attitude and so we have things like LHR happening.
Please do not perpetuate this attitude.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy- please believe me when I say I wasn't trying to cast apsersions on GA pilots (I guess when I fly, I am one). The post could be read that way. The post should be read in the context of FB's posts re; risks if the GPS signal is lost. The big end of the industry are covered, and we are talking about fitment to the GA fleet. I was trying to point out that pilots, full stop, shouldn't be navigating on GPS without any other clue, and so the "risk" in losing the GPS signal as per FB's scenario, is miniscule.
Fully agree that GA is undervalued, and maybe ADS-B fitment is a step in inlcuding GA in a more professional aviation system? As opposed to the "dirt road", backwards and exclusionary 'vision' vaunted by some posters here.
Fully agree that GA is undervalued, and maybe ADS-B fitment is a step in inlcuding GA in a more professional aviation system? As opposed to the "dirt road", backwards and exclusionary 'vision' vaunted by some posters here.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba
Did you miss my earlier post - I was unintelligible back then but the CASA introduced English Language Testing, and my quick learning, has turned me into a veritable Rhodes Scholar.
Examine what is said, not the delivery - this wolf has no designs on any lambs herein
Ferris
Well put. Although a little thread drift, aviation is not helped by this 'us and them' syndrome. If one researches errors and risks, 300 hours and 3000 hours are milestones. Many conducting PTO are in the latter category, and examination of ATSB data and aeronautical studies confirms that throwing stones may often be throwing boomerangs.
Bob Murphie
No, Gump I cannot be as that would be a false name. James Michael I remain. Perhaps Dick Smith would be better turning his investigative skills that I admire from 'Private Investigations' of my ancestry (often questioned in outback bars might I say) to a balanced investigation of the plus and minus of ADS-B, otherwise we may have to rename him Mark Knopfler and he may end up in dire straits
His tale is not assisted by another quote from his letter to the Minister
As my (wolf) colleague by ancestry Mr Dog has pointed out, that is NOT what is proposed. In the primary traffic areas radar of primary/SSR capability will REMAIN. Australia is not proposing what Dick Smith suggests.
Worse, Mr Smith does not point out to the Minister the many locations that would NEVER get radar that will have safety through cheap ADS-B provision. Perhaps rather than awaiting my fone call (ad infinitum) Dick Smith should ring the RFDS in WA about how they feel re ADS-B.
Greater good for the greater number and safety in Australia unheard of in the world. Are we a to allow defeat to be snatched from certain victory by management through rear view mirror
Did you miss my earlier post - I was unintelligible back then but the CASA introduced English Language Testing, and my quick learning, has turned me into a veritable Rhodes Scholar.
Examine what is said, not the delivery - this wolf has no designs on any lambs herein
Ferris
Well put. Although a little thread drift, aviation is not helped by this 'us and them' syndrome. If one researches errors and risks, 300 hours and 3000 hours are milestones. Many conducting PTO are in the latter category, and examination of ATSB data and aeronautical studies confirms that throwing stones may often be throwing boomerangs.
Bob Murphie
No, Gump I cannot be as that would be a false name. James Michael I remain. Perhaps Dick Smith would be better turning his investigative skills that I admire from 'Private Investigations' of my ancestry (often questioned in outback bars might I say) to a balanced investigation of the plus and minus of ADS-B, otherwise we may have to rename him Mark Knopfler and he may end up in dire straits
His tale is not assisted by another quote from his letter to the Minister
Minister, no country in the world of which I know is planning to rely totally on Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) as proposed.
Worse, Mr Smith does not point out to the Minister the many locations that would NEVER get radar that will have safety through cheap ADS-B provision. Perhaps rather than awaiting my fone call (ad infinitum) Dick Smith should ring the RFDS in WA about how they feel re ADS-B.
Greater good for the greater number and safety in Australia unheard of in the world. Are we a to allow defeat to be snatched from certain victory by management through rear view mirror
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You stated
"Max1, I can tell you who will be paying for the $100 million subsidy for ADS-B – it is the passengers. Don’t think for a second that the airlines pay the airways charges – they don’t." I think I have said this previously.
It is abundantly clear that airlines get their money from people who travel or send freight on their aircraft. It is the same as saying ASA don't pay my wages, the people who pay navcharges do. The airlines pay their money in good faith to ASA and expect them to train, rate and endorse suitable numbers of controllers to deliver an Air Traffic Control service, but that is another story.
Australians are an egalitarian society, my health is reasonably good, I work, and I am not upset that my taxes go towards the general health of Australians through Medicare, which due to good health I subsidise.
If a hospital buys a new piece of expensive equipment, I would trust that they have had a good look around, tested, and opted on a proven system that can deliver the enhancement, or replacement an outdated piece of equipment, they are looking for. If they have been involved in the development and certifying of this equipment, and it is also proven cheaper , so much the better.
If they were now looking at increased efficiencies and greater screening, would you suggest that money saved now be put towards installing Xray in those places that previously never had it. Or, would you suggest putting in the cheaper , better system that would deliver better outcomes.
The passengers really wouldn't have a clue what percentage of their airline ticket goes toward navcharges( I don't). But in paying this money they would think they have paid to get from A to B safely, and that part of this money goes towards longer term planning i.e. new systems, etc.
I wouldn't see them getting upset (unless someone, who has admitted that he doesn't have all the information but, who does have a place in the general publics aviation psyche that he is a guru on all matters aviation, riled them up ) when the safety and cost benefits are expained to them.
The airlines would love to pay less in navcharges, however they are in a safety critical business and appreciate that what they are getting through ADS-B is an enhanced level of surveillance, that will lead to greater safety. It may cost them in the short term , but long term they will get savings in a reduction to navcharges, which can then be passed on to the fare paying passengers, or put in their own pockets as profits.
If we miss this window of opportunity, the 'passengers' will be paying out 'their' $100 million on installing and replacing antiquated SSRs, GA will miss out on subsidised ADS-B avionics, great swathes of Australia will have no surveillance and its inherent safety, there will be no future savings to pass onto the navcharge payers and their customers (passengers), ASA will continue to use procedural separation and its inherent delays.
Dick will you then don the Teflon jacket and play Mondays expert?
You stated
"Max1, I can tell you who will be paying for the $100 million subsidy for ADS-B – it is the passengers. Don’t think for a second that the airlines pay the airways charges – they don’t." I think I have said this previously.
It is abundantly clear that airlines get their money from people who travel or send freight on their aircraft. It is the same as saying ASA don't pay my wages, the people who pay navcharges do. The airlines pay their money in good faith to ASA and expect them to train, rate and endorse suitable numbers of controllers to deliver an Air Traffic Control service, but that is another story.
Australians are an egalitarian society, my health is reasonably good, I work, and I am not upset that my taxes go towards the general health of Australians through Medicare, which due to good health I subsidise.
If a hospital buys a new piece of expensive equipment, I would trust that they have had a good look around, tested, and opted on a proven system that can deliver the enhancement, or replacement an outdated piece of equipment, they are looking for. If they have been involved in the development and certifying of this equipment, and it is also proven cheaper , so much the better.
If they were now looking at increased efficiencies and greater screening, would you suggest that money saved now be put towards installing Xray in those places that previously never had it. Or, would you suggest putting in the cheaper , better system that would deliver better outcomes.
The passengers really wouldn't have a clue what percentage of their airline ticket goes toward navcharges( I don't). But in paying this money they would think they have paid to get from A to B safely, and that part of this money goes towards longer term planning i.e. new systems, etc.
I wouldn't see them getting upset (unless someone, who has admitted that he doesn't have all the information but, who does have a place in the general publics aviation psyche that he is a guru on all matters aviation, riled them up ) when the safety and cost benefits are expained to them.
The airlines would love to pay less in navcharges, however they are in a safety critical business and appreciate that what they are getting through ADS-B is an enhanced level of surveillance, that will lead to greater safety. It may cost them in the short term , but long term they will get savings in a reduction to navcharges, which can then be passed on to the fare paying passengers, or put in their own pockets as profits.
If we miss this window of opportunity, the 'passengers' will be paying out 'their' $100 million on installing and replacing antiquated SSRs, GA will miss out on subsidised ADS-B avionics, great swathes of Australia will have no surveillance and its inherent safety, there will be no future savings to pass onto the navcharge payers and their customers (passengers), ASA will continue to use procedural separation and its inherent delays.
Dick will you then don the Teflon jacket and play Mondays expert?
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
Dick will you then don the Teflon jacket and play Mondays expert?
Max ... maaaaaate .. of course..
.
.
he won't
.
.
Stand by for an F350 (campervan in the wasteland bog in upper A-Z#istan) update via sat phone to Macka on a sunday morning in a week or three!!
.
.
.
. That should fireim up!!
That all said (and its been said many times by many folks already) .... in your scenario .... would said persons (who would seek to harm us) equip said airbourne delivery device with a god damd TXPDR???
.... think about it mate! The areas that need the PRIM eyes to see sneekies will still have it, and where it won't exist, it currently does not anyway!
.... think about it mate! The areas that need the PRIM eyes to see sneekies will still have it, and where it won't exist, it currently does not anyway!
... in the scenario I have presented in this thread, I am not making a case for keeping the current radar based air-nav system as an aid to spotting incoming buzz bombs (a good idea though) Perhaps, in my last post, instead of saying current radar based air-nav system, I should have written that we should retain our current, well proven, and robust air-nav system (which is basicly what I wrote many posts ago
) and not go to a totaly GPS based air-nav system, i.e. ADS-B.When the dozens of little GPS guided buzz bombs turn up in ATC radar range, it is probably too late anyway...
.... RADAR. It has had it's day, a very significant day, but it is no longer the means of surveillance of choice, it is primitive and antiquated when compared with other technologies and therefore... insignificant in the security world.
re the quote - One thing our current ATC system has, it is here, now, and it works when it is properly maintained and staffed. With the system of independant NDBs and VOR/ILSs and dedicated ATCers, there is not really any key component that, if removed, could bring down the entire system. ADS-B on the other hand....
IMHO, a robust ATC system has a lot of relavance in todays 'security' world.
.
As has been stated (over and over), the surveillence aspect is covered in that ATC would revert to procedural control and primary radar surveillance ie. go backwards a few years- inefficient, yes, dangerous, no. Aircraft navigating- well, there are plenty of aircraft using only GPS already.
I will take issue with the part quoted above though...
I see you make mention that the system would revert to an inefficient, and non-dangerous state...
a system, aparently, that has less ATC and nav-aids then we currently have... Hmmm...
Did you miss my earlier post - I was unintelligible back then but the CASA introduced English Language Testing, and my quick learning, has turned me into a veritable Rhodes Scholar.
I think the point you miss is that UAV are designed to be piloted by a ground station and do not need GPS guidance. A simple matter of navigation from a ground station using a forward looking camera or FLIR on a datalink.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Binghi
Where exactly do you work in our ATC system? Dick doesn't know the half of what is going on, and I think this is what irks him. He probably feels that he has been pensioned off before his time.
Dick may still have something to offer, but the world moves on.
FB, I'll risk "the dozens of little GPS guided buzz bombs " that apparently are hurtling towards me as we type, and take the advantages of an Australia wide inclusive ADS-B system if its all the same to you.
Where exactly do you work in our ATC system? Dick doesn't know the half of what is going on, and I think this is what irks him. He probably feels that he has been pensioned off before his time.
Dick may still have something to offer, but the world moves on.
FB, I'll risk "the dozens of little GPS guided buzz bombs " that apparently are hurtling towards me as we type, and take the advantages of an Australia wide inclusive ADS-B system if its all the same to you.
Flying Binghi
Where exactly do you work in our ATC system? Dick doesn't know the half of what is going on, and I think this is what irks him. He probably feels that he has been pensioned off before his time.
Dick may still have something to offer, but the world moves on.
FB, I'll risk "the dozens of little GPS guided buzz bombs " that apparently are hurtling towards me as we type, and take the advantages of an Australia wide inclusive ADS-B system if its all the same to you.
Where exactly do you work in our ATC system? Dick doesn't know the half of what is going on, and I think this is what irks him. He probably feels that he has been pensioned off before his time.
Dick may still have something to offer, but the world moves on.
FB, I'll risk "the dozens of little GPS guided buzz bombs " that apparently are hurtling towards me as we type, and take the advantages of an Australia wide inclusive ADS-B system if its all the same to you.
max1, I am self employed and do not work for Airservices, CASA, the airlines, or any radar companys (happy Jaba)
... and I carnt aurgue with what you want to risk max1, and as it seems you have addressed a comment about Dick Smith to me... all I will say is it seems to me that some posters in this thread will disagree with Dick Smith no matter what the issue is
This debate is getting really stupid
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FB
you said in response to werbils post
and now you say
So tell me then...... you were bluffing as you had no idea all along about reliability of ADSB V Radar???
There are so many very well researched and experienced folk at the coal face here advocating the ADSB proposoal, and none of them selling anything...... yet some here refuse to listen to common sense. Dick included.
I think i found the thalesman Mr D Dog......
J
you said in response to werbils post
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):
Quote:
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
Why did they install it rather than SSR? - $$$$, and it works.
Quote:
High Altitude ADS-B Coverage
When operating outside of radar coverage, ADS-B derived ATS surveillance services will be provided to operators of authorised aircraft whilst within the coverage volume of commissioned ADS-B ground stations.
ADS-B ground stations are line-of-sight facilities. The ability for a ground station to received ADS-B data from an aircraft depends on altitude, distance from the site and obstructing terrain. Coverage will exist near the surface within 20 nautical miles of the ground station. High level coverage can exceed 250 nautical miles.
Note: In airspace where ADS-B coverage overlaps radar coverage, the radar derived aircraft position will be displayed to ATC.
The charts below shows the approximate ADS-B coverage provided by currently operating ground stations at FL300.
ADS-B Coverage effective 20 December, 2007
- National coverage overview
- Alice Springs
- Billabong
- Bourke
- Broome
- Bundaberg
- Esperance
- Karratha
- Longreach
- Tennant Creek
- Thursday Island
- Woomera
Why did they install it rather than SSR? - $$$$, and it works.
Quote:
and it works
For how long werbil ?
and it works
For how long werbil ?
Quote:
I can not quote you exact numbers
Try me Jaba ...and you will need to do better than insults
I can not quote you exact numbers
Try me Jaba ...and you will need to do better than insults
Jaba, I have no idea of any radar/ADS-B down time... its not what I'm about here though is it
There are so many very well researched and experienced folk at the coal face here advocating the ADSB proposoal, and none of them selling anything...... yet some here refuse to listen to common sense. Dick included.
I think i found the thalesman Mr D Dog......
J
.. 
... SPLEEN ... FAIL