Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Jabawocky, it would seem to me that my limited education does not give me the facility to express myself in a way that you can understand 
.... or is it that you've just had more beers than me
.... or is it that you've just had more beers than me
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ohhhh and while I am at it.......and much to the displeasure of the radar salesman......I have it on good word that the upper level ADSB and the lower level trial in Bundy had exceptionally good UP TIME.
And if some of the good folk on here who I know have acess to the info were brave enough to post it without fear of their employer.....you all might be surprised to see it.
J
And if some of the good folk on here who I know have acess to the info were brave enough to post it without fear of their employer.....you all might be surprised to see it.
J
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Jabawocky, it would seem to me that my limited education does not give me the facility to express myself in a way that you can understand
.... or is it that you've just had more beers than me
.... or is it that you've just had more beers than me
But no I do not understand
More beers......I ain't had one all night! Wild Turkey perhaps!
Maybe Scurvy, Max, Quokka and myself can buy you one or three so you can appreciate a good step forward in aviation seperation and technology some time!
J
... a thale of two thities no less ... Mr Jaba .. 
..
.
. alert
... SPLEEN ... FAIL
.
Laugh ... Ah dear o dear ... pfffffff
.. .. .
. alert
... SPLEEN ... FAIL .
Laugh
... Ah dear o dear ... pfffffff
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
Even though some posters dont seem to understand your concern (and I'll say it again- for clarity: FB is worried that the loss of the GPS signal will cause chaos if oz moves to a GPS-reliant system). How can I say this so that your fears are alleviated? Your fears are unfounded. Loss of ADS-B due GPS failure/removal/interruption is not dangerous. It will cause inefficiency, but not DANGER. Many aircraft operate daily under procedural control. All day, every day. What do you think happens across the ocean between even the US and Europe? Lots of radar, til they get about 200nm offshore. Then......shock, horror, PROCEDURAL CONTROL. And there are NO NAVAIDS!! In the future, with ADS and satellites, that (ATC) WILL be different.
Furthermore, I would expect EVERY single controller in the world has at some time been working when they have had a technical failure resulting in loss of their radar or screen or TAAATs-like thing. Very much like the sudden loss of the GPS signal you describe. THERE ARE CONTINGENCIES. Do we stop using radar because it might fail at times? The risk is miniscule, and the rewards are great.
Does that make you feel better?
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...
Furthermore, I would expect EVERY single controller in the world has at some time been working when they have had a technical failure resulting in loss of their radar or screen or TAAATs-like thing. Very much like the sudden loss of the GPS signal you describe. THERE ARE CONTINGENCIES. Do we stop using radar because it might fail at times? The risk is miniscule, and the rewards are great.
Does that make you feel better?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea of any radar/ADS-B down time...
When I was working in Australia, the main RADAR that I relied upon would be shut down every year for a "grease and oil change" as we used to jokingly call it... yes, a RADAR has moving parts, in fact, the Mother-of-All moving parts... the RADAR head itself.
Like all moving parts, it needs to be lubricated and bits of it have to be replaced routinely.
Like all moving parts... it has a higher probability of failure... and it does fail.
Like the night shift when the Automatic Emergency Stop was activated... for no apparent reason. It just stopped turning... and I lost my RADAR picture. A tech was called in the middle of the night and he drove up the hill to the RADAR site to ascertain why it had stopped, but couldn't find a reason.
ADS-B = no moving parts.
Thread Starter
Werbil, you bring up an important issue
Surely you can understand that there could not possibly be the capacity to fit 7,000 aircraft in the time available. I have my radio servicing and installation done at Bankstown Airport. There seems to be only one competent shop left, and you can sometimes wait months to get work done.
I understand that you want to remain anonymous on PPRuNe and I respect this – but can you answer why Airservices never puts anyone up publicly to debate my views?
You would think that if they really believed in what they were doing, they would have an expert who would be happy to talk to anyone – including coming on this website to explain the benefits of their low level ADS-B subsidy proposal. Thousands of pilots read PPRuNe and that would obviously be a great way of communicating the advantages and debunking my claims if they were wrong.
A competent manager in charge of such an important project at Airservices would make sure there was a technical expert who answered all questions wherever they were asked – whether it be on PPRuNE, the AOPA website, or to the media. This doesn’t happen.
For example, when I ask (both publicly and on PPRuNe) why they are installing a hugely expensive multilateration system in Tasmania when they have plans to go to ADS-B, they never answer the question.
It is almost as if the organisation is so dysfunctional, one group has no idea what another group is doing. If I ran one of my businesses like that I would be broke.
I believe the reason Airservices are not completely open with this is that they have lots to hide – things like the cost benefit study being flawed, and also the subsidy to GA aircraft not being based on any measurable risk.
James Michael, my statement in the letter to the Minister which contained the words “as proposed” means as proposed by Airservices. That is, in the enroute airspace that had previously been covered by secondary surveillance radar, they are now planning to remove the SSRs and rely totally on ADS-B. That is where they plan to get the subsidy from – the saving in the removal of the secondary surveillance radars.
In relation to the locations that would never get radar but require a system for safety, I would certainly support ADS-B. If the RFDS wants ADS-B in Western Australia, go ahead with it. It can be fitted to IFR aircraft that operate in the area. But why would you then want the enormous expense of fitting the units to VFR aircraft? Are you telling me that the RFDS in Western Australia has a problem in separating themselves safely from VFR aircraft? I don’t believe it.
If there are delays in Western Australia because of the procedural separation standards required for IFR aircraft, this can easily be solved by fitting ADS-B to a relatively small number of aircraft.
Already the high level ADS-B ground stations are being installed in Western Australia. All Airservices has to do is to add a few more at the relevant locations, and then by fitting ADS-B to IFR aircraft have a very safe and relatively inexpensive system.
Why that should be linked to removing secondary surveillance radar on the east coast and funding VFR GA aircraft is beyond comprehension to most thinking people.
Max1, I say again – what is the safety issue being addressed in fitting $100 million worth of ADS-B primarily to VFR GA aircraft? The collision risk is greatest near an airport – most often on the runway. That is why I am pushing for a manned Class D tower at Avalon Airport. With 1.5 million passenger movements per year, it must be a cost effective way of improving safety.
Or is someone going to suggest that the $100 million GA ADS-B subsidy would improve safety at Avalon Airport in some measurable way?
It looks to me as if this $100 million primarily VFR aircraft subsidy issue is being pushed by those who emotively want to get VFR aircraft back in the ATC system as they were in the days of the old full position reporting. That system didn’t give any measurable increase in safety, and there has not been one fatality attributed to the removal of the full position reporting system since it ceased 17 years ago.
Everyone should take note that Airservices is so badly managed, they can’t even organise their air traffic control staffing levels. How can this same management team be trusted to lead the world in highly complex technical design and purchases?
I would like to see the evidence.
and there is the availability of LAMEs to complete the installations.
I understand that you want to remain anonymous on PPRuNe and I respect this – but can you answer why Airservices never puts anyone up publicly to debate my views?
You would think that if they really believed in what they were doing, they would have an expert who would be happy to talk to anyone – including coming on this website to explain the benefits of their low level ADS-B subsidy proposal. Thousands of pilots read PPRuNe and that would obviously be a great way of communicating the advantages and debunking my claims if they were wrong.
A competent manager in charge of such an important project at Airservices would make sure there was a technical expert who answered all questions wherever they were asked – whether it be on PPRuNE, the AOPA website, or to the media. This doesn’t happen.
For example, when I ask (both publicly and on PPRuNe) why they are installing a hugely expensive multilateration system in Tasmania when they have plans to go to ADS-B, they never answer the question.
It is almost as if the organisation is so dysfunctional, one group has no idea what another group is doing. If I ran one of my businesses like that I would be broke.
I believe the reason Airservices are not completely open with this is that they have lots to hide – things like the cost benefit study being flawed, and also the subsidy to GA aircraft not being based on any measurable risk.
James Michael, my statement in the letter to the Minister which contained the words “as proposed” means as proposed by Airservices. That is, in the enroute airspace that had previously been covered by secondary surveillance radar, they are now planning to remove the SSRs and rely totally on ADS-B. That is where they plan to get the subsidy from – the saving in the removal of the secondary surveillance radars.
In relation to the locations that would never get radar but require a system for safety, I would certainly support ADS-B. If the RFDS wants ADS-B in Western Australia, go ahead with it. It can be fitted to IFR aircraft that operate in the area. But why would you then want the enormous expense of fitting the units to VFR aircraft? Are you telling me that the RFDS in Western Australia has a problem in separating themselves safely from VFR aircraft? I don’t believe it.
If there are delays in Western Australia because of the procedural separation standards required for IFR aircraft, this can easily be solved by fitting ADS-B to a relatively small number of aircraft.
Already the high level ADS-B ground stations are being installed in Western Australia. All Airservices has to do is to add a few more at the relevant locations, and then by fitting ADS-B to IFR aircraft have a very safe and relatively inexpensive system.
Why that should be linked to removing secondary surveillance radar on the east coast and funding VFR GA aircraft is beyond comprehension to most thinking people.
Max1, I say again – what is the safety issue being addressed in fitting $100 million worth of ADS-B primarily to VFR GA aircraft? The collision risk is greatest near an airport – most often on the runway. That is why I am pushing for a manned Class D tower at Avalon Airport. With 1.5 million passenger movements per year, it must be a cost effective way of improving safety.
Or is someone going to suggest that the $100 million GA ADS-B subsidy would improve safety at Avalon Airport in some measurable way?
It looks to me as if this $100 million primarily VFR aircraft subsidy issue is being pushed by those who emotively want to get VFR aircraft back in the ATC system as they were in the days of the old full position reporting. That system didn’t give any measurable increase in safety, and there has not been one fatality attributed to the removal of the full position reporting system since it ceased 17 years ago.
Everyone should take note that Airservices is so badly managed, they can’t even organise their air traffic control staffing levels. How can this same management team be trusted to lead the world in highly complex technical design and purchases?
I would like to see the evidence.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binghi
Seems you crew had a good night last night
I stuck to my usual 17:00 knock off time. But, I always welcome advice to further my research. It seems you consider I am a fool for indicating that UAV may be manually flown or use video/FLIR?
Perhaps you can offer comment on this:
A high resolution color CCD camera capable of 800K pixels, 25x optical zoom and 1.0VP-P composite video output give you exceptional day imaging capability with the MP-DAYVIEWPTZ.
A FLIR sensor operating in the 8-12mm spectral range, 50mm germanium lens, 320x240 resolution, sensitivity greater than 85 degrees mK and a frame rate of 30Hz in the MP-NIGHTVIEWPTZ give you crisp image results under night conditions.
I don't profess to be an expert on UAV but I'm not sure why you believe they need GPS to fulfil a mission - more fool I?
Seems you crew had a good night last night
I stuck to my usual 17:00 knock off time. But, I always welcome advice to further my research. It seems you consider I am a fool for indicating that UAV may be manually flown or use video/FLIR?
Perhaps you can offer comment on this:
For the manual control of the flight path of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), the instruments provided in a UAV Control Station (UCS) are similar to those found in the cockpit of an aircraft. Typically the out-of-the-window view is represented by a forward looking camera and a plan-view display containing an electronic map is used for navigational
conformance monitoring.
conformance monitoring.
Obviously, the richness of the visual-, motion- and auditory cues that is available to the pilot of a manned aircraft is not available to the UAV operator. In addition, the information that is available to the UAV operator typically suffers from low update rates and resolution, caused by sensor and data link bandwidth limitations.
Furthermore, compared to manned aircraft, the data presented by the instruments in the UCS is subjected to an increased latency due to the (digital) data link. Even when using a flight director (FD) command display, the manual control task is considerably more difficult compared to piloting a manned aircraft.
and
A high resolution color CCD camera capable of 800K pixels, 25x optical zoom and 1.0VP-P composite video output give you exceptional day imaging capability with the MP-DAYVIEWPTZ.
A FLIR sensor operating in the 8-12mm spectral range, 50mm germanium lens, 320x240 resolution, sensitivity greater than 85 degrees mK and a frame rate of 30Hz in the MP-NIGHTVIEWPTZ give you crisp image results under night conditions.
I don't profess to be an expert on UAV but I'm not sure why you believe they need GPS to fulfil a mission - more fool I?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
You state
1. I DON'T want the enormous expense of fitting the units to VFR aircraft. I want the subsidy.
2. RFDS and separation from VFR - ask them, not me. I am guided by the NAS that stated the risk decreases with the distance from the CTAF.
Have you looked at the coverage of ADS-B in WA even in late 2007 - just about the entire desirable coastal area. And the radar coverage in WA is......?
Go talk to the RFDS Dick - you wanted me to ring you to hear your gospel, how about talking to the RFDS and getting some REAL feedback with no conspiracy theory embedded from people who fly in all conditions.
3. You don't believe it? Where are CASA doing airspace studies at present? Does not CASA have a study into CTAF R at present re the safety of PTO? Obviously SOMEONE believes it.
4. How are you going re ICAO Annex 6? Your replies appear to be very selective.
You state
But why would you then want the enormous expense of fitting the units to VFR aircraft? Are you telling me that the RFDS in Western Australia has a problem in separating themselves safely from VFR aircraft? I don’t believe it.
2. RFDS and separation from VFR - ask them, not me. I am guided by the NAS that stated the risk decreases with the distance from the CTAF.
Have you looked at the coverage of ADS-B in WA even in late 2007 - just about the entire desirable coastal area. And the radar coverage in WA is......?
Go talk to the RFDS Dick - you wanted me to ring you to hear your gospel, how about talking to the RFDS and getting some REAL feedback with no conspiracy theory embedded from people who fly in all conditions.
3. You don't believe it? Where are CASA doing airspace studies at present? Does not CASA have a study into CTAF R at present re the safety of PTO? Obviously SOMEONE believes it.
4. How are you going re ICAO Annex 6? Your replies appear to be very selective.
Thread Starter
James Michael, I’ve just spoken on the phone to the Chief Pilot of the RFDS in Perth who confirmed what I already understood. That is, the RFDS supports the introduction of ADS-B.
Interestingly enough, the RFDS is currently fitting its aircraft with KT-73 transponders, then taking the GPS information from the King Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System. The RFDS believes this system is certified by CASA, however I’m not quite sure what this certification standard is.
As I have stated previously on this site, the cheapest quote I could get to upgrade my Proline 21 for certified ADS-B in the CJ3 was over $100,000.
Most importantly, the RFDS has TCAS, and at the present time if we fit more aircraft with Mode C transponders, the RFDS will get proven traffic information from aircraft so fitted.
I made enquiries about fitting a King KT-73 transponder and connecting it to the GPS in the Citation. The engineer just laughed and said it could not possibly be certified in any way.
As I have said consistently on this site, I support ADS-B, but I don’t support Australia rushing in with a half-baked system when we can immediately get higher levels of safety using existing certified equipment.
James Michael, you may believe there won’t be an “enormous expense” if it is subsidised. Unfortunately the enormous expense still exists, and as stated previously I believe at the last moment the subsidy will disappear (because of the clout of Qantas and the other airlines) and you will find that all GA owners will be forced to pay for their own equipment. This will mean even fewer GA aircraft operating, and more people forced onto the airlines – which is exactly what Airservices and the airlines want.
Interestingly enough, the RFDS is currently fitting its aircraft with KT-73 transponders, then taking the GPS information from the King Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System. The RFDS believes this system is certified by CASA, however I’m not quite sure what this certification standard is.
As I have stated previously on this site, the cheapest quote I could get to upgrade my Proline 21 for certified ADS-B in the CJ3 was over $100,000.
Most importantly, the RFDS has TCAS, and at the present time if we fit more aircraft with Mode C transponders, the RFDS will get proven traffic information from aircraft so fitted.
I made enquiries about fitting a King KT-73 transponder and connecting it to the GPS in the Citation. The engineer just laughed and said it could not possibly be certified in any way.
As I have said consistently on this site, I support ADS-B, but I don’t support Australia rushing in with a half-baked system when we can immediately get higher levels of safety using existing certified equipment.
James Michael, you may believe there won’t be an “enormous expense” if it is subsidised. Unfortunately the enormous expense still exists, and as stated previously I believe at the last moment the subsidy will disappear (because of the clout of Qantas and the other airlines) and you will find that all GA owners will be forced to pay for their own equipment. This will mean even fewer GA aircraft operating, and more people forced onto the airlines – which is exactly what Airservices and the airlines want.
Thread Starter
James,Sorry I forgot to answer the ICAO annex 6 question -is that the bit that allows CASA and Airservices to let big jets fly across Australia without any ATC at all?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since all one needs to operate an aircraft <5700 kg VFR in G airspace is a clock, compass and altimeter. And if you want to use a CTAF (R) a VHF transciever.
Can someone tell me why you might need ADSB ?????
Are the "croppies" ready for the ADSB experience ????? should be really useful spraying cotton at night out in the boonies.
Can someone tell me why you might need ADSB ?????
Are the "croppies" ready for the ADSB experience ????? should be really useful spraying cotton at night out in the boonies.
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver, this is what I said:
(My underlining)
Ozbusdriver, you seem to think that if traffic information is given between aircraft using TCAS, it is somehow inferior to an air traffic controller looking at traffic information on a screen and then passing it on to the pilots concerned. I believe both systems provide a traffic information service, and the advantage with TCAS is that it is more automated and works outside coverage by air traffic control radar or air traffic control ADS-B.
I say again – at the present time, nowhere in the world is there an ADS-B operated aircraft to aircraft traffic information device which has an audio call out.This means the pilot would have to look down at the ADSB screen all the time instead of keeping a good lookout.
Most importantly, the RFDS has TCAS, and at the present time if we fit more aircraft with Mode C transponders, the RFDS will get proven traffic information from aircraft so fitted.
Ozbusdriver, you seem to think that if traffic information is given between aircraft using TCAS, it is somehow inferior to an air traffic controller looking at traffic information on a screen and then passing it on to the pilots concerned. I believe both systems provide a traffic information service, and the advantage with TCAS is that it is more automated and works outside coverage by air traffic control radar or air traffic control ADS-B.
I say again – at the present time, nowhere in the world is there an ADS-B operated aircraft to aircraft traffic information device which has an audio call out.This means the pilot would have to look down at the ADSB screen all the time instead of keeping a good lookout.
Dick, when are you going to get it that traffic avoidance is NOT traffic INFORMATION.
The only thing that is accurate on your little TCAS screen is the baro from the target aircraft.( and only then if the target aircrafts owner has a regular check of his system) You are a very brave man to rely on azimuth information solely from a TCAS unit.
I would trust a little PDA screen hooked up to ADS-B with "IN" over a TCAS anyday for TRAFFIC INFORMATION!
The only thing that is accurate on your little TCAS screen is the baro from the target aircraft.( and only then if the target aircrafts owner has a regular check of his system) You are a very brave man to rely on azimuth information solely from a TCAS unit.
I would trust a little PDA screen hooked up to ADS-B with "IN" over a TCAS anyday for TRAFFIC INFORMATION!
T28D,
Provided you remain at or below 5000ft AMSL. AIP ENR section 4 refers.
all one needs to operate an aircraft <5700 kg VFR in G airspace is a clock, compass and altimeter.
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver, what you are saying is that you would trust an unproven system that has not been certified yet - i.e. ADS-B ‘in’ - over a proven certified system, which (when Resolution Advisories are complied with) has never resulted in a midair collision in its history. I know which equipment I would be trusting, and that is the proven equipment.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ahhh Mr Bloggs, and as I am sure you will agree that below 5000' on approach and in CTAF's is where the danger increases!
Dick, if the entire fleet of GA and RAA etc etc had mode C that would be nice for the TCAS equiped RPT/RFDS etc. However, the government would be nuts...and you would right have a good reason to complain if they set out to offer free Mode C gear to all and sundry + paid out for new enroute radars + ongoing running costs + had no cost saving for airlines.
Compare that to bring in ADSB low level, subsidise PVT ops inc RAA etc, and save in the future.
Which makes better economic sense? AND, ADSB is well proven and the 1090ES is the way of the future !
J
Dick, if the entire fleet of GA and RAA etc etc had mode C that would be nice for the TCAS equiped RPT/RFDS etc. However, the government would be nuts...and you would right have a good reason to complain if they set out to offer free Mode C gear to all and sundry + paid out for new enroute radars + ongoing running costs + had no cost saving for airlines.
Compare that to bring in ADSB low level, subsidise PVT ops inc RAA etc, and save in the future.
Which makes better economic sense? AND, ADSB is well proven and the 1090ES is the way of the future !
J