Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith (and T28D re CTAF R)
Sorry, a day of meetings.
No, Annex 6 is the one that is our crystal ball for the future of airspace.
Obviously you have not read it or you would be able to quote exactly what I am about to alert everyone to.
Try the note to 6.13.2 (which itself states that from 1.1.2003 all aeroplanes shall be equipped with Mode C TXPDR).
The intent is also for aircraft not equipped with pressure-altitude reporting transponders to be operated so as NOT to SHARE airspace used by aircraft with airborne collision avoidance systems.
(Exemption can be given by designating airspace where such carriage is not required)
Have a read of NAS DP V1.4, Dick - particularly pages 9 and 13, and REMEMBER - YOU gave us transponders in E as the precedent.
Where do you think we are heading, Dick? And are you single-handedly going to save us from the subsidy so instead we have to pay for the privilege of flying in and over CTAF R/T? perhaps we should, after all you were big until recently on 'user pays' and 'affordable' safety - and YOU can afford it
I sometimes feel I am like a dog yapping at your heels but then I remember your past 'successes' for GA. What you have done with ADS-B is trot out every negative you can find. Rome was not built in a day but the way you have attacked this matter Rome would never have been built at all.
Now you even throw up the lack of avionics fitters. free trade and market forces Dick - why don't you open a few?
While my derriere points towards terra firma I do not believe ANY Government would be able to back out of the subsidy and pull just a mandate. Unless of course the subsidy deadline slips past thanks to your negativity and we then cop a mandate.
Whose side are you on? Tell me tomorrow, it's 5:06 and like a good public servant I'm orf to do what my colleagues on here did last night, hic!
Sorry, a day of meetings.
No, Annex 6 is the one that is our crystal ball for the future of airspace.
Obviously you have not read it or you would be able to quote exactly what I am about to alert everyone to.
Try the note to 6.13.2 (which itself states that from 1.1.2003 all aeroplanes shall be equipped with Mode C TXPDR).
The intent is also for aircraft not equipped with pressure-altitude reporting transponders to be operated so as NOT to SHARE airspace used by aircraft with airborne collision avoidance systems.
(Exemption can be given by designating airspace where such carriage is not required)
Have a read of NAS DP V1.4, Dick - particularly pages 9 and 13, and REMEMBER - YOU gave us transponders in E as the precedent.
Where do you think we are heading, Dick? And are you single-handedly going to save us from the subsidy so instead we have to pay for the privilege of flying in and over CTAF R/T? perhaps we should, after all you were big until recently on 'user pays' and 'affordable' safety - and YOU can afford it
I sometimes feel I am like a dog yapping at your heels but then I remember your past 'successes' for GA. What you have done with ADS-B is trot out every negative you can find. Rome was not built in a day but the way you have attacked this matter Rome would never have been built at all.
Now you even throw up the lack of avionics fitters. free trade and market forces Dick - why don't you open a few?
While my derriere points towards terra firma I do not believe ANY Government would be able to back out of the subsidy and pull just a mandate. Unless of course the subsidy deadline slips past thanks to your negativity and we then cop a mandate.
Whose side are you on? Tell me tomorrow, it's 5:06 and like a good public servant I'm orf to do what my colleagues on here did last night, hic!
Dick, you said-
Your TCAS is not certified for traffic INFORMATION. I will trust an uncertified ADS-B "IN" supplying traffic INFORMATION data to an uncertified PDA over using a TCAS for the same task. TCAS is the LAST line of defence. It matters not how accurate in azimuth(it cannot be used for this purpose) When your alarm goes off you follow the TCAS instructions immeadiately, do what the TCAS tells you to do to avoid the conflict. Climb or Dive NO TURNS!
Look, TCAS software is brilliant considering the time it was invented, it has been improved by errors and incidents over the years to arrive at what you have now as part of your million dollar avionics suite. It just doesn't compete with radar or ADS-B simply because every bit of data TCAS uses is relative to your aircraft position, which is dynamic. TCAS calculates any threats within a certain parameter sphere around the entire aircraft. Its good enough to deduce 1200kts and 10000fpm vertical closures to give you TIME to react to any threat. However, because it is relative it is easily tricked.
This is why you must never use TCAS for traffic separation maneuvers. You could just as easily turn yourself into your worst nightmare in seconds. Only radar and ...yes, you guessed it...ADS-B will give the actual vector information of your target. Without this information it is impossible to calculate whether you are safe or not. TCAS cannot tell where that aeroplane that is stationary in your windscreen that is actually going to collide with you is. It will tell you it is 45degrees to your side regardless of the actual position relative to you.
This is why I mentioned so many posts ago about ATC not necessarily being happy about a pilot second guessing and trying to arrange their own separation. TCAS does not have the information to allow a pilot to self separate. So, I say again, I will trust a non certified ADS-B "IN" any day over a TCAS to actually show me where the traffic is and where IT is going.
Stop trying to prop up your argument like you have been doing for the last gawd knows how many years. TCAS is not a traffic INFORMATION device.
Traffic Collision Avoidance System, there is nothing in there that says information.
EDIT- just to add, ask someone from Grumman about the problems they are having trying to use TCAS to give them some sort of traffic awareness to the Global Hawk. Once ADS-B is up their problems go away.
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.
Look, TCAS software is brilliant considering the time it was invented, it has been improved by errors and incidents over the years to arrive at what you have now as part of your million dollar avionics suite. It just doesn't compete with radar or ADS-B simply because every bit of data TCAS uses is relative to your aircraft position, which is dynamic. TCAS calculates any threats within a certain parameter sphere around the entire aircraft. Its good enough to deduce 1200kts and 10000fpm vertical closures to give you TIME to react to any threat. However, because it is relative it is easily tricked.
This is why you must never use TCAS for traffic separation maneuvers. You could just as easily turn yourself into your worst nightmare in seconds. Only radar and ...yes, you guessed it...ADS-B will give the actual vector information of your target. Without this information it is impossible to calculate whether you are safe or not. TCAS cannot tell where that aeroplane that is stationary in your windscreen that is actually going to collide with you is. It will tell you it is 45degrees to your side regardless of the actual position relative to you.
This is why I mentioned so many posts ago about ATC not necessarily being happy about a pilot second guessing and trying to arrange their own separation. TCAS does not have the information to allow a pilot to self separate. So, I say again, I will trust a non certified ADS-B "IN" any day over a TCAS to actually show me where the traffic is and where IT is going.
Stop trying to prop up your argument like you have been doing for the last gawd knows how many years. TCAS is not a traffic INFORMATION device.
Traffic Collision Avoidance System, there is nothing in there that says information.
EDIT- just to add, ask someone from Grumman about the problems they are having trying to use TCAS to give them some sort of traffic awareness to the Global Hawk. Once ADS-B is up their problems go away.
james michael, it sounds like those GPS guided buzz bombs have got you flustered, and they hav'nt even been used ... yet 
I will take this issue up again tommorow.
OZBUSDRIVER, the Avidyne TAS 600 in my little aircraft may not have all the bells and whistles of a pax jet TCAS, though it will show transponder equiped traffic, for example, orbiting around an airfield that I am approching under IFR.
The Avidyne TAS unit is self contained within the aircraft, and it reads other aircraft that have transponders - and those transponders are self contained within the aircraft. If the ATC system and/or the GPS system became inoperable for any reason what so-ever, the TAS unit in my aircraft will continue to show those transponder equiped aircraft.
I will take this issue up again tommorow.
TCAS is not a traffic INFORMATION device
OZBUSDRIVER, the Avidyne TAS 600 in my little aircraft may not have all the bells and whistles of a pax jet TCAS, though it will show transponder equiped traffic, for example, orbiting around an airfield that I am approching under IFR.
The Avidyne TAS unit is self contained within the aircraft, and it reads other aircraft that have transponders - and those transponders are self contained within the aircraft. If the ATC system and/or the GPS system became inoperable for any reason what so-ever, the TAS unit in my aircraft will continue to show those transponder equiped aircraft.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T28D,
Reading Australian Aviation July 2008, last night. Aircraft leaving the register, two crop dusters mid-air. Condolences to the families, who knows what enhanced surveillance may have achieved?
Reading Australian Aviation July 2008, last night. Aircraft leaving the register, two crop dusters mid-air. Condolences to the families, who knows what enhanced surveillance may have achieved?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Full position reporting provided Situational Awareness to the controller and to all participants in the system where no surveillance, or limited surveillance, existed. In controlled airspace, when an aircraft is identified and in receipt of a control service, full position reporting ceases. Where VFR aircraft broadcast position reports, they are not in receipt of a control service and are broadcasting their position and intentions to all other participants in the system to "plug the gap" in the Situational Awareness picture and close the bigger holes in the Swiss Cheese.
ADS-B is a surveillance system that has the capability to provide all participants with Situational Awareness... those who are being provided with a control service... and those who are not being provided with a control service... provided that all participants are equipped with ADS-B transmitters.
Therefore... ADS-B removes any requirement for VFR full position reporting... provided that all VFR participants in the system are ADS-B equipped.
ADS-B is an E-Airspace enabler... outside of airspace where a FLOW Control service is being provided for aircraft arriving at a Capital City airport.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FB
Ever wondered how many in the circuit area do not have Mode C ?
Now as you have your fancy TAS unit and see 3 or 4 a/c ahead, you feel all waarm and fuzzy and make your calls and circuit.........only to discover there are 2 x Tiger Moths doing slow formations, 2 x RAA Jabirus, 1 x RAA Drifter and 3 gliders......ALL in the circuit
.
I am not a big fan of ADSB IN for PVT GA, however if you are going to have it you really need to be sure you are capturing ALL the info. Much less than all is more likely to be dangerous.
And the day when the GPS is off for 30 min...... you might have to revert to MK 1 EYEBALLS
.
J
The Avidyne TAS unit is self contained within the aircraft, and it reads other aircraft that have transponders - and those transponders are self contained within the aircraft. If the ATC system and/or the GPS system became inoperable for any reason what so-ever, the TAS unit in my aircraft will continue to show those transponder equiped aircraft.
Now as you have your fancy TAS unit and see 3 or 4 a/c ahead, you feel all waarm and fuzzy and make your calls and circuit.........only to discover there are 2 x Tiger Moths doing slow formations, 2 x RAA Jabirus, 1 x RAA Drifter and 3 gliders......ALL in the circuit
.I am not a big fan of ADSB IN for PVT GA, however if you are going to have it you really need to be sure you are capturing ALL the info. Much less than all is more likely to be dangerous.
And the day when the GPS is off for 30 min...... you might have to revert to MK 1 EYEBALLS
.J
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems so many on this forum a mad keen to rush into ADS-B arguing it gives better surveillance and control even in remote places. If everyone is so eager for greater surveillance then why don't we fix up surveillance where it counts most and where we can have an immediate impact. ie low level radar in terminal areas.
At the moment we have perfectly good radar to low level in places like Launceston, Canberra, Ballina to name just a few yet we seem so enamored with reverting to procedural separating from up to 30nm from the airport when the tower is open and completely abandon any separation services at all when the tower is closed, despite having a very expensive radar available.
Surely we should be arguing for these enhancements before pushing for ADS-B? After all, if ADS-B is going to be so good for Surveillance some time in the future then lets enhance what we already have available, today.
What do others think about this?
At the moment we have perfectly good radar to low level in places like Launceston, Canberra, Ballina to name just a few yet we seem so enamored with reverting to procedural separating from up to 30nm from the airport when the tower is open and completely abandon any separation services at all when the tower is closed, despite having a very expensive radar available.
Surely we should be arguing for these enhancements before pushing for ADS-B? After all, if ADS-B is going to be so good for Surveillance some time in the future then lets enhance what we already have available, today.
What do others think about this?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
mjb
Not so sure about Ballina, however Hervey Bay Bundaberg Gladstone and similar places around the country are lucky to have any radar below 4000-5000 feet.
When you try to be active in the system on VFR FF and youare below 7500 there are big holes in places that surprise me and many others.
With no Mode C units at a minimum in many small bugsmashers in regional ports, the heavy metal guys will never see them if they stray into the path of a 737/320.
J
Not so sure about Ballina, however Hervey Bay Bundaberg Gladstone and similar places around the country are lucky to have any radar below 4000-5000 feet.
When you try to be active in the system on VFR FF and youare below 7500 there are big holes in places that surprise me and many others.
With no Mode C units at a minimum in many small bugsmashers in regional ports, the heavy metal guys will never see them if they stray into the path of a 737/320.
J
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing about being a pessimist is that I am never disappointed.
I hope the subsidy goes all your way which will mean mine as well, (wait for the Unions call to alms about bludgers), however excluding a plethora of self opinionated Pprune private hire pilots that just want more gadgets to twiddle with for 50 hours pa at the owners expense).
The "double condom" brigade who know nothing about airmanship or aviating with safety.
I have serious doubts when there are unanswered questions that spindoctors, salesmen/ women, and self interests fail to respond to except with blind faith that The Gov't and their Quango's are honest.
Crikey!!
If we have Global Warming, why am I so cold?
Except for how, when, where and why, nobody has convinced me that ADSB is the answer to any problems which exist today, and given the decline in GA B010 activity, the "problems" are logarithmically getting smaller as the days progress.
Has anyone done an analysis on the future growth of GA? Maybe we do need duplicate seatbelts, rearward facing airline seats, passenger airbags, and panic buttons.
Perhaps airlines will start backing into mountains, and then need to change the seats to forward facing.
Stop the World, I want to get off.
I hope the subsidy goes all your way which will mean mine as well, (wait for the Unions call to alms about bludgers), however excluding a plethora of self opinionated Pprune private hire pilots that just want more gadgets to twiddle with for 50 hours pa at the owners expense).
The "double condom" brigade who know nothing about airmanship or aviating with safety.
I have serious doubts when there are unanswered questions that spindoctors, salesmen/ women, and self interests fail to respond to except with blind faith that The Gov't and their Quango's are honest.
Crikey!!
If we have Global Warming, why am I so cold?
Except for how, when, where and why, nobody has convinced me that ADSB is the answer to any problems which exist today, and given the decline in GA B010 activity, the "problems" are logarithmically getting smaller as the days progress.
Has anyone done an analysis on the future growth of GA? Maybe we do need duplicate seatbelts, rearward facing airline seats, passenger airbags, and panic buttons.
Perhaps airlines will start backing into mountains, and then need to change the seats to forward facing.
Stop the World, I want to get off.
FB, my gripe is the use of TCAS as a traffic management device.
This isn't the argument. The argument is rolling out a surveillance system with a different transponder. The old system works where it is available, the new one is cheaper to roll out in more places and be every bit as accurate or better than the existing system.
Mr Quokka, could not put it any better than that.
If this was already rolled out, Smithspace would have been a walk in the park
My question of the system would be once it was up and running would there still be the need to gather VFR flightplans from the bin when a request for flightfollowing or airways clearance is made or would the unique tag allow my flightplan to be connected automatically.
This isn't the argument. The argument is rolling out a surveillance system with a different transponder. The old system works where it is available, the new one is cheaper to roll out in more places and be every bit as accurate or better than the existing system.
Mr Quokka, could not put it any better than that.
Full position reporting provided Situational Awareness to the controller and to all participants in the system where no surveillance, or limited surveillance, existed. In controlled airspace, when an aircraft is identified and in receipt of a control service, full position reporting ceases. Where VFR aircraft broadcast position reports, they are not in receipt of a control service and are broadcasting their position and intentions to all other participants in the system to "plug the gap" in the Situational Awareness picture and close the bigger holes in the Swiss Cheese.
ADS-B is a surveillance system that has the capability to provide all participants with Situational Awareness... those who are being provided with a control service... and those who are not being provided with a control service... provided that all participants are equipped with ADS-B transmitters.
Therefore... ADS-B removes any requirement for VFR full position reporting... provided that all VFR participants in the system are ADS-B equipped.
ADS-B is an E-Airspace enabler... outside of airspace where a FLOW Control service is being provided for aircraft arriving at a Capital City airport.
ADS-B is a surveillance system that has the capability to provide all participants with Situational Awareness... those who are being provided with a control service... and those who are not being provided with a control service... provided that all participants are equipped with ADS-B transmitters.
Therefore... ADS-B removes any requirement for VFR full position reporting... provided that all VFR participants in the system are ADS-B equipped.
ADS-B is an E-Airspace enabler... outside of airspace where a FLOW Control service is being provided for aircraft arriving at a Capital City airport.
My question of the system would be once it was up and running would there still be the need to gather VFR flightplans from the bin when a request for flightfollowing or airways clearance is made or would the unique tag allow my flightplan to be connected automatically.
There may be hope for us all yet.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unit costs
I like to think that I'm a good data-rat, but I've got a mental block trying to sort out what combination of bits will implement ADSB as suggested in the JCP and whether or not the proposed subsidy is still reasonable.
For quick rollout, the gear has to be available off the shelf now and have a publically visible price tag.
(I'll relent and allow devices that will have TSO certification very very soon. eg, within the next 3 to 6 months)
So., at one extreme is the 'VFR' option which just has a basic GPS engine (no display) and a Transponder.
In the middle would be an 'VFR' / 'IFR' option with moving map only.
At the other extreme is an 'IFR' option with moving map, terrain, ADSB-IN, WAAS etc. etc.
For the time being, lets ignore the $k for installation and testing costs.
Any helpers out there ?
For quick rollout, the gear has to be available off the shelf now and have a publically visible price tag.
(I'll relent and allow devices that will have TSO certification very very soon. eg, within the next 3 to 6 months)
So., at one extreme is the 'VFR' option which just has a basic GPS engine (no display) and a Transponder.
In the middle would be an 'VFR' / 'IFR' option with moving map only.
At the other extreme is an 'IFR' option with moving map, terrain, ADSB-IN, WAAS etc. etc.
For the time being, lets ignore the $k for installation and testing costs.
Any helpers out there ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quokka and Oz
At last - two astute posters who comprehend the long term implications of ICAO Annex 6 and can see the Class E end airspace.
Hopefully Dick is reading the NAS DPV1.4 so he can also understand that ADS-B allows his NAS airspace to blossom around Australia with Class E over CTAF R. NAS Nirvana at last, although Dick is most quiet about the Annex 6?
Mjbow
Good point. One suspects as an example that there is no difficulty (except cost) in getting the Lonnie radar feed to Lonnie Tower? Problem is that we are then entering into how Airservices operates its business.
Bob Murphie
You have a point - we probably don't absolutely need all those extras you mention. Your mention of seatbelts and airbags makes one look at all the extra things we have today in vehicles that we don't REALLY need - airbags, traction control, ABS, demister, power steering. Why not keep GA in their 40 year old clunkers at the level of the FJ Holden re safety ........ hey, that's it - affordable safety. Almost like ADS-B.
But your point remains valid - no subsidy, no go. Particularly if we now have another force - the unions - who are going to block it (how?).
I would be interested on expansion of your argument
If the subsidy occurs - what owner's expense? And are you suggesting that these 'self opiniated pilots' gain no benefits and safety by twiddling with the knobs of the owners Garmin 430 or even their own Garmin 296? We could, after all, save all this by returning to the open cockpit, no radio, and following roads of "The Good Old Days", no?
Binghi
While you are researching UAV go back half a century exactly to pre-GPS and the Malkara. While Airbus talk of fly by wire, the Malkara most certainly was an earlier derivative.
You might also like to research payloads for UAV, then the chance of actually purchasing one from the arms dealers, and compare to the availability and payload of a Bonanza or GA8 flown by a suicide pilot
Dick Smith
You are a technical issues man. How about researching what is needed in software to translate ADS-B for TCAS use. I dispute that ADS-B is 'unproven' - it is working around the world. TCAS receives data from its ping and feeds it to the display and annunciator with appropriate software massage to advise a decision for the pilot. What is so difficult about accepting another data stream and doing likewise. Apple Mac now talks IBM after all.
All that's needed to move forward is for the glass to change from half empty to half full. Success is a state of mind.
At last - two astute posters who comprehend the long term implications of ICAO Annex 6 and can see the Class E end airspace.
Hopefully Dick is reading the NAS DPV1.4 so he can also understand that ADS-B allows his NAS airspace to blossom around Australia with Class E over CTAF R. NAS Nirvana at last, although Dick is most quiet about the Annex 6?
Mjbow
Good point. One suspects as an example that there is no difficulty (except cost) in getting the Lonnie radar feed to Lonnie Tower? Problem is that we are then entering into how Airservices operates its business.
Bob Murphie
You have a point - we probably don't absolutely need all those extras you mention. Your mention of seatbelts and airbags makes one look at all the extra things we have today in vehicles that we don't REALLY need - airbags, traction control, ABS, demister, power steering. Why not keep GA in their 40 year old clunkers at the level of the FJ Holden re safety ........ hey, that's it - affordable safety. Almost like ADS-B.
But your point remains valid - no subsidy, no go. Particularly if we now have another force - the unions - who are going to block it (how?).
I would be interested on expansion of your argument
excluding a plethora of self opinionated Pprune private hire pilots that just want more gadgets to twiddle with for 50 hours pa at the owners expense
Binghi
While you are researching UAV go back half a century exactly to pre-GPS and the Malkara. While Airbus talk of fly by wire, the Malkara most certainly was an earlier derivative.
You might also like to research payloads for UAV, then the chance of actually purchasing one from the arms dealers, and compare to the availability and payload of a Bonanza or GA8 flown by a suicide pilot
Dick Smith
You are a technical issues man. How about researching what is needed in software to translate ADS-B for TCAS use. I dispute that ADS-B is 'unproven' - it is working around the world. TCAS receives data from its ping and feeds it to the display and annunciator with appropriate software massage to advise a decision for the pilot. What is so difficult about accepting another data stream and doing likewise. Apple Mac now talks IBM after all.
All that's needed to move forward is for the glass to change from half empty to half full. Success is a state of mind.
Thread Starter
James Michael, I’m sure in the future Garmin and similar GPS units will have the necessary software to translate ADS-B into a TCAS-like use. The problem is that it doesn’t exist at the moment, and I would rather wait until the bugs are ironed out.
I will say again that I’m a total supporter of ADS-B. I’m just not keen on Australia leading the world. I would rather the costly errors be made in other countries, then we reap the benefit of their learning experience.
I cannot see any immediate safety problem that would require VFR aircraft which fly in the low levels to be fitted with an expensive ADS-B ‘out’ unit.
Considering that Airservices is spending a lot of money on a multilateration system in Tasmania that only requires Mode C or Mode S transponders to work satisfactorily, I cannot see the enormous hurry to go to a subsidised ADS-B system for GA.
I have always been cautious and conservative in my business dealings, and this has given great benefits.
I will say again that I’m a total supporter of ADS-B. I’m just not keen on Australia leading the world. I would rather the costly errors be made in other countries, then we reap the benefit of their learning experience.
I cannot see any immediate safety problem that would require VFR aircraft which fly in the low levels to be fitted with an expensive ADS-B ‘out’ unit.
Considering that Airservices is spending a lot of money on a multilateration system in Tasmania that only requires Mode C or Mode S transponders to work satisfactorily, I cannot see the enormous hurry to go to a subsidised ADS-B system for GA.
I have always been cautious and conservative in my business dealings, and this has given great benefits.
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
GPS units will have the necessary software to translate ADS-B into a TCAS-like use
It is not the GPS that does that, it is the ADS TXPDR, its called ADS-B 'In', Airbus and their avionics manufacturers are already feeding it into TCAS, BOEING are working on the same, Universal already have the units ready, do some research before guessing in public.
.
Microair have ADS-B IN from their ADS TXPDR that will display traffic on just about all Air situation displays including things such as PDA's and Garmin maps
.
The problem is that it doesn’t exist at the moment
Wrong
.
, and I would rather wait
You would!
, how about the rest of the industry? .. or should your opinion count above the rest?
until the bugs are ironed out.
.
Keep it up though - You will have ownership of the loss of the subsidy to GA (Nav improvements, TXPDR and Airspace access improvements), if this does not proceed .... a nice legacy to add to your other 'achievements' in recent years
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
MJ
.
And
And
Perhaps some of the local GA and Intra-state RPT crews might like to comment on whether they would like remote separation down to the circuit instead of what they currently get 
.
Whilst we wait for that, perhaps you MJ might give us your view on the costs to industry (comparision) of what we currently have v's Remote Surveillance Approach services!?
.
At the moment we have perfectly good radar to low level in places like Launceston
yet we seem so enamored with reverting to procedural separating from up to 30nm from the airport when the tower is open
why don't we fix up surveillance where it counts most and where we can have an immediate impact. ie low level radar in terminal areas.
.
Whilst we wait for that, perhaps you MJ might give us your view on the costs to industry (comparision) of what we currently have v's Remote Surveillance Approach services!?
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
Biggles
Interesting Q
What kit do you currently have, and what would you ultimately like?
So., at one extreme is the 'VFR' option which just has a basic GPS engine (no display) and a Transponder.
In the middle would be an 'VFR' / 'IFR' option with moving map only.
At the other extreme is an 'IFR' option with moving map, terrain, ADSB-IN, WAAS etc. etc.
In the middle would be an 'VFR' / 'IFR' option with moving map only.
At the other extreme is an 'IFR' option with moving map, terrain, ADSB-IN, WAAS etc. etc.
What kit do you currently have, and what would you ultimately like?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Dog
Well said.
Dick Smith
First, full subsidy = not expensive. No skin off your nose, not your money.
Second, You cannot see any problem - how about exclusion from CTAF R in the longer term. How about your fabulous Class E cones over CTAF R - have I got something wrong re your NAS - does it not have that Class E situation described and offer according safety?
third, If you were distraught about PTO and GA mixing at Avalon - why should a busy CTAF R be exempt from some extra safety measures - comment welcomed?
(Off to meetings, lot's happening in this disneyland today)
Well said.
Dick Smith
I cannot see any immediate safety problem that would require VFR aircraft which fly in the low levels to be fitted with an expensive ADS-B ‘out’ unit.
Second, You cannot see any problem - how about exclusion from CTAF R in the longer term. How about your fabulous Class E cones over CTAF R - have I got something wrong re your NAS - does it not have that Class E situation described and offer according safety?
third, If you were distraught about PTO and GA mixing at Avalon - why should a busy CTAF R be exempt from some extra safety measures - comment welcomed?
(Off to meetings, lot's happening in this disneyland today)