Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are they or aren't they?
Well, Dick, are you saying the JCP is simply factually incorrect when listing as one of the three key benefits this (page 29):
A long term reduction in the risk of mid air collisions, especially those
involving small VFR GA aircraft, through fitment of traffic displays
and using aircraft position data from the ADS-B broadcasts, which will
enable aircraft-to-aircraft collision avoidance.
involving small VFR GA aircraft, through fitment of traffic displays
and using aircraft position data from the ADS-B broadcasts, which will
enable aircraft-to-aircraft collision avoidance.
AFAIK, what is called "ADS-B broadcasts" above is what the Garmin manual calls "ATC radar transmission".
Thread Starter
Plank, it's very astutely written to mislead!
If you purchase an ADSB "in" display unit you will have these features however no certified unit exists and the cost isn't factored into the subsidy anyway.
If you purchase an ADSB "in" display unit you will have these features however no certified unit exists and the cost isn't factored into the subsidy anyway.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following statement is completely wrong in relation to me wanting an airspace system:
Quote:in which Dick Smith and his mates do not have to file a flight plan nor talk to anyone and they can do what they like while QF 747s turn to avoid them
Quote:in which Dick Smith and his mates do not have to file a flight plan nor talk to anyone and they can do what they like while QF 747s turn to avoid them
With respect Dick, you wanted Class E and your argument has focused on issues of visual separation and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Not once have I read a discussion in which you have addressed the issue of Traffic Management and the impact on the other industry participants.
Grandpa Aerotart
Dick is mostly right here guys.
You won't get traffic displayed on a G430/530 (W or not) + Mode S via TIS unless AsA transmit the data. TIS is a service provided in the US by the FAA, thus equipment exists to display it, like XM weather.
We are also not getting WAAS so there won't be any GPS precision approaches out in the Boonies either.
From a GA owners point of view this is looking more like a con job.
You won't get traffic displayed on a G430/530 (W or not) + Mode S via TIS unless AsA transmit the data. TIS is a service provided in the US by the FAA, thus equipment exists to display it, like XM weather.
We are also not getting WAAS so there won't be any GPS precision approaches out in the Boonies either.
From a GA owners point of view this is looking more like a con job.
Thread Starter
Quokka,Qantas flies through Class E everyday into LAX and JFK without being moved 20 miles of track.
Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of these airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed?
In Australia we let RPT's and light aircraft get within 500' feet of each other(if your lucky) at places like Hornsby without even a transponder requirement where as in the USA there's a mandatory transponder veil and RPT's and lighties never are allowed by ATC to get within 500' of each other.
Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of these airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed?
In Australia we let RPT's and light aircraft get within 500' feet of each other(if your lucky) at places like Hornsby without even a transponder requirement where as in the USA there's a mandatory transponder veil and RPT's and lighties never are allowed by ATC to get within 500' of each other.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of thes airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You are one of the first advocates of the amount it costs to run GA in this country...in the US small GAs are better equipped than they are here, it is very different.
You advocate your E Airspace, and we know who the first person to cry foul if there is an accident in Class E will be, and of course it will not be the airspace's fault, it will probably be the controllers, who had their powers of positive control removed in this airspace.
Didn't you call this Affordable Safety?
You are one of the first advocates of the amount it costs to run GA in this country...in the US small GAs are better equipped than they are here, it is very different.
You advocate your E Airspace, and we know who the first person to cry foul if there is an accident in Class E will be, and of course it will not be the airspace's fault, it will probably be the controllers, who had their powers of positive control removed in this airspace.
Didn't you call this Affordable Safety?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Traffic information
This sheds light on the traffic info display issue:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...compatible.pdf
Published by AirServices, Dick
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...compatible.pdf
Published by AirServices, Dick
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of thes airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed?
Just like that huh? Should be easy to get time for that...what with all the excess staff we have around here.
Thread Starter
Planky, I note that the displays are "expected" to become available.
No date or price is given.
Earlier in this thread you had been misled into believing that Garmin could provide the units now at a price that would be covered by the subsidy.
Thousands of GA pilots are not as informed as you are now.
No date or price is given.
Earlier in this thread you had been misled into believing that Garmin could provide the units now at a price that would be covered by the subsidy.
Thousands of GA pilots are not as informed as you are now.
Thread Starter
Mjbow2, I instigated the system when I was Chairman of CAA and it was dumped almost immediately after I had finished my term-as were many other of my innitiatives.
Of course I would support it's re-introduction.
Of course I would support it's re-introduction.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK....in my opinion this is what should be implimented.
ADSB upper level as is moving ahead. Definite benefits enroute.
ADSB Lower level;
- original radio sites etc asa per original proposal.
- all GA from Ultralights to charter to have a minimum combination ADSB/Mode C transponder (ADSB OUT ONLY). Supplied FOC.
- ADSB in is a nice option for RPT or anyone wanting to spend the $$$ to fit it.
The benefits of this is ATC have vastly more coverage. Everyone is in the system, allowing IFR to have better traffic seperation / information. All the non transponder fitted a/c then have a transponder, thus providing TCAS alerts for RPT (or anyone fitted with TCAS) & protection that they do not have at so many regional aerodromes. Examples are Hervey Bay or Ballina.....and dozens more! When a B737/A320 cleans up a Piper Cub and 180 people die, these words will make more sense!
VFR lighties do not need to gain anything for day to day use, however the benefits when needing help, be it weather, navigation or emergencies will be there and over a greater proportion of the country.
And the diverted expenditure on En-Route Radar would allegedly pay for it.
And for the negative mided folk, terminal radar will always remain.
J
ADSB upper level as is moving ahead. Definite benefits enroute.
ADSB Lower level;
- original radio sites etc asa per original proposal.
- all GA from Ultralights to charter to have a minimum combination ADSB/Mode C transponder (ADSB OUT ONLY). Supplied FOC.
- ADSB in is a nice option for RPT or anyone wanting to spend the $$$ to fit it.
The benefits of this is ATC have vastly more coverage. Everyone is in the system, allowing IFR to have better traffic seperation / information. All the non transponder fitted a/c then have a transponder, thus providing TCAS alerts for RPT (or anyone fitted with TCAS) & protection that they do not have at so many regional aerodromes. Examples are Hervey Bay or Ballina.....and dozens more! When a B737/A320 cleans up a Piper Cub and 180 people die, these words will make more sense!
VFR lighties do not need to gain anything for day to day use, however the benefits when needing help, be it weather, navigation or emergencies will be there and over a greater proportion of the country.
And the diverted expenditure on En-Route Radar would allegedly pay for it.
And for the negative mided folk, terminal radar will always remain.
J
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode S
The following link to a good article explaining the various evolutions of mode S (including 1090ES ADS-B)
Mode S technology
The following is an interesting and pertinent article to this discussion. Note the complexities of that which is proposed in the US. Largely as a result of the mix of technologies they are interfacing such as Mode S RADAR (1090ES) with TIS display equipped aircraft, then retransmission of that traffic data on separate ground based TIS-B via ADS-R to ADS-B (UAT) aircraft.
Mixing up TIS and TIS-B.(READBACK)(Letter to the editor) Industry & Business Article - Research, News, Information, Contacts, Divisions, Subsidiaries, Business Associations
On other 1090ES ADS-B stuff
Airbus team tests in-trail surveillance INTRODUCTION: Airframer links with avionics provider ACSS to provide ADS-B system allowing pilots to optimise altitudes and routes
Whilst there are obviously many more Avionics companies ready to jump on ADS-B (1090 and UAT) IN and OUT systems (judging from the patent jockeying), Tis only a matter of time.
http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-con...ght_EN_LR1.pdf
Not sure how much
And another
http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-con...ver_EN_LR1.pdf
But then again, Chuck and Richard may well be right to say it’s a con …. So what to do??
- Forget about it, and stick with what we have and buy more MSSR?
- WAM Lat, without subsidy and a long timeframe ADS mandate (such as the US)??
- Or go with subsidised 1090ES ADS-B?
I could spend some time hypothesizing on the implications of each as far as CTA/OCTA and costs to industry, but then I am 'assured' by Richards protestations that he has all that taken care of!
Irrespective of the ‘surveillance’ part of this, the GNSS vice Navaid replacement part (which is not reliant on the ADS bit) should go ahead irrespective IMHO!
‘ASTRA LA VISTA’ ….. no pun intended!!
The following link to a good article explaining the various evolutions of mode S (including 1090ES ADS-B)
Mode S technology
The following is an interesting and pertinent article to this discussion. Note the complexities of that which is proposed in the US. Largely as a result of the mix of technologies they are interfacing such as Mode S RADAR (1090ES) with TIS display equipped aircraft, then retransmission of that traffic data on separate ground based TIS-B via ADS-R to ADS-B (UAT) aircraft.
Mixing up TIS and TIS-B.(READBACK)(Letter to the editor) Industry & Business Article - Research, News, Information, Contacts, Divisions, Subsidiaries, Business Associations
Publication: IFR
Publication Date: 01-APR-07
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Grappel, Robert D.
Full Article:
"Life After Capstone" in the February 2007 issue of IFR has a few technical errors that need correcting.
The article states that Mode S ADS-B transmissions can't contain both latitude and longitude in the same message. In fact, Mode S ADSB transmissions for aircraft in flight contain a full position report (latitude/longitude/altitude) in a singlemessage. A separate Mode S ADS-B message is used for the airborne velocity data.
I was one of the engineers who worked on Mode S ADS-B. We worked hard to fit all the required ADS-B functionality into the Mode S broadcast 56-bit data payload!
The article implies that Traffic Information System--Broadcast (TIS-B) is only supported via UAT. This is not so. Both Mode S and UAT support the TIS-B application.
TIS-B often gets confused with "Traffic Information Service" (TIS). TIS is a part of the Mode S sensor-network of the FAA. It transmits traffic data to aircraft equipped with a Mode S transponder and the right display. (I'm one of the principal designers of TIS.) TIS-B, however, is a bridge for the transition of our airspace to ADS-B. It is not intended to be an equivalent service to TIS or TCAS.
For Mode S ADS-B aircraft to see non-ADS-B aircraft, the FAA will build a network of ground transmitters (TIS-B stations) that receive surveillance (probably from existing radars). These TIS-B ground installations detect the non-ADS-B-aircraft, convert the surveillance data to ADS-B format, and transmit the ADS-B data themselves.
The fact that the FAA is supporting two ADS-B links (Mode S and UAT) complicates things. A given aircraft will probably only equip with one of the two links. So, how does it find out about aircraft equipped with the alternate link? Again, the FAA must build a network of ground equipment that receives data from each link and re-transmits it (after reformatting) on the other link. This function is termed "ADS-B Rebroadcast" (ADS-R). The FAA's ground stations will combine ADS-B, TIS-B, and Flight Information Service--Broadcast (FIS-B) functionality.
Mode S cannot support FIS-B efficiently using only broadcast operations because of its message length limitation (56 bits) for a single broadcast message. Mode S demonstrated "Flight Information Service" operation in the 1990s using a request-reply protocol (I was one of the designers back then). UAT has a longer message packet, so it has been chosen by the FAA to support FIS-B operations independently from ADS-B and TIS-B, which are supported by both links.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues. I read your magazine avidly, and appreciate the effort required to assimilate and describe much highly-technical material.
Robert D. Grappel
Concord, Mass.
Thanks for your clarifications. Our information on the ADS-13 position report came from a government source who either had it wrong or we misunderstood what had to be split. The point is the same, however: The limited data capabilities of Mode-S was a driver in the UAT link decision.
We stand by our comments on the problems with a two-link system, though. As you so clearly pointed out, it will require extensive ground infrastructure for everyone to see everyone else. All over the center of this country, commuter airlines are shooting approaches to airports below radar coverage.
Unless the FAA intends to put a UAT at every FAR Part 139 airport in the country, there will be lots of gaps where 1090ES airplanes will not see UAT airplanes. Aircraft that fly both high and rural, such as the coming crop of light jets, will have to choose which system to adopt or pony up for both.
And if the UAT doesn't relieve the Mode-C requirement, then the whole effort is likely to be derailed.
Publication Date: 01-APR-07
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Grappel, Robert D.
Full Article:
"Life After Capstone" in the February 2007 issue of IFR has a few technical errors that need correcting.
The article states that Mode S ADS-B transmissions can't contain both latitude and longitude in the same message. In fact, Mode S ADSB transmissions for aircraft in flight contain a full position report (latitude/longitude/altitude) in a singlemessage. A separate Mode S ADS-B message is used for the airborne velocity data.
I was one of the engineers who worked on Mode S ADS-B. We worked hard to fit all the required ADS-B functionality into the Mode S broadcast 56-bit data payload!
The article implies that Traffic Information System--Broadcast (TIS-B) is only supported via UAT. This is not so. Both Mode S and UAT support the TIS-B application.
TIS-B often gets confused with "Traffic Information Service" (TIS). TIS is a part of the Mode S sensor-network of the FAA. It transmits traffic data to aircraft equipped with a Mode S transponder and the right display. (I'm one of the principal designers of TIS.) TIS-B, however, is a bridge for the transition of our airspace to ADS-B. It is not intended to be an equivalent service to TIS or TCAS.
For Mode S ADS-B aircraft to see non-ADS-B aircraft, the FAA will build a network of ground transmitters (TIS-B stations) that receive surveillance (probably from existing radars). These TIS-B ground installations detect the non-ADS-B-aircraft, convert the surveillance data to ADS-B format, and transmit the ADS-B data themselves.
The fact that the FAA is supporting two ADS-B links (Mode S and UAT) complicates things. A given aircraft will probably only equip with one of the two links. So, how does it find out about aircraft equipped with the alternate link? Again, the FAA must build a network of ground equipment that receives data from each link and re-transmits it (after reformatting) on the other link. This function is termed "ADS-B Rebroadcast" (ADS-R). The FAA's ground stations will combine ADS-B, TIS-B, and Flight Information Service--Broadcast (FIS-B) functionality.
Mode S cannot support FIS-B efficiently using only broadcast operations because of its message length limitation (56 bits) for a single broadcast message. Mode S demonstrated "Flight Information Service" operation in the 1990s using a request-reply protocol (I was one of the designers back then). UAT has a longer message packet, so it has been chosen by the FAA to support FIS-B operations independently from ADS-B and TIS-B, which are supported by both links.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues. I read your magazine avidly, and appreciate the effort required to assimilate and describe much highly-technical material.
Robert D. Grappel
Concord, Mass.
Thanks for your clarifications. Our information on the ADS-13 position report came from a government source who either had it wrong or we misunderstood what had to be split. The point is the same, however: The limited data capabilities of Mode-S was a driver in the UAT link decision.
We stand by our comments on the problems with a two-link system, though. As you so clearly pointed out, it will require extensive ground infrastructure for everyone to see everyone else. All over the center of this country, commuter airlines are shooting approaches to airports below radar coverage.
Unless the FAA intends to put a UAT at every FAR Part 139 airport in the country, there will be lots of gaps where 1090ES airplanes will not see UAT airplanes. Aircraft that fly both high and rural, such as the coming crop of light jets, will have to choose which system to adopt or pony up for both.
And if the UAT doesn't relieve the Mode-C requirement, then the whole effort is likely to be derailed.
Airbus team tests in-trail surveillance INTRODUCTION: Airframer links with avionics provider ACSS to provide ADS-B system allowing pilots to optimise altitudes and routes
ACSS is now developing similar capabilities for Airbus as part of the T3CAS integrated surveillance and safety system that the airframer will certificate for its entire A320, A330 and A340 aircraft models in late 2009. The ADS-B information will be displayed on each pilot's navigation screen.
T3CSS includes traffic alert collision avoidance, terrain awareness and a Mode S transponder with ADS-B capabilities. ACSS plans to deliver T3CAS with ADS-B "In" software applications that include in-trail procedures, vertical separation on approach a surface position and traffic awareness programme. Each software application will be activated through Airbus service bulletins, says Salazar.
T3CSS includes traffic alert collision avoidance, terrain awareness and a Mode S transponder with ADS-B capabilities. ACSS plans to deliver T3CAS with ADS-B "In" software applications that include in-trail procedures, vertical separation on approach a surface position and traffic awareness programme. Each software application will be activated through Airbus service bulletins, says Salazar.
http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-con...ght_EN_LR1.pdf
Not sure how much
And another
http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-con...ver_EN_LR1.pdf
But then again, Chuck and Richard may well be right to say it’s a con …. So what to do??
- Forget about it, and stick with what we have and buy more MSSR?
- WAM Lat, without subsidy and a long timeframe ADS mandate (such as the US)??
- Or go with subsidised 1090ES ADS-B?
I could spend some time hypothesizing on the implications of each as far as CTA/OCTA and costs to industry, but then I am 'assured' by Richards protestations that he has all that taken care of!
Irrespective of the ‘surveillance’ part of this, the GNSS vice Navaid replacement part (which is not reliant on the ADS bit) should go ahead irrespective IMHO!
‘ASTRA LA VISTA’ ….. no pun intended!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
I apologise if this seems contradictory but yesterday you told me ADS-B IN is an Airservices con.
I googled to check what happened overseas in trials and by fluke found this unit I can purchase in Australia that plugs into a basic computer.
I realise this is not certified for aircraft but surely if GA goes ahead with ADS-B here is a market opportunity for someone to churn out similar suitable for aircraft?
The difficulty I'm having trying to follow all this is the conflicting advice I am reading often unsupported by any publication or paper.
Mr Dog
More of these links etc please - for a researcher like myself thses are a more concrete aspect of the debate, thank you.
I apologise if this seems contradictory but yesterday you told me ADS-B IN is an Airservices con.
I googled to check what happened overseas in trials and by fluke found this unit I can purchase in Australia that plugs into a basic computer.
Track Mode-S / ADS-B equipped aircraft in real time, for under $1000 (freight free to anywhere in Australia)
The difficulty I'm having trying to follow all this is the conflicting advice I am reading often unsupported by any publication or paper.
Mr Dog
More of these links etc please - for a researcher like myself thses are a more concrete aspect of the debate, thank you.
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
Binghi et al
Here is some bedtime reading on Space Weather and GPS. It is focused on the scientific atmospheric aspects, but provides some good info on ‘down in the weeds’ specifics on current and future GPS constellations and DGPS systems (terminal area/landing protection)
Space Weather :: Free Articles - Space Weather and the Global Positioning System
As far as ‘switching off’ GPS goes
GPS, The War And You - Forbes.com
Perhaps someone with more ‘tech’ knowledge might be able to explain the link (if there is one) between the GPS III constellation and TSO 145/6
Here is some bedtime reading on Space Weather and GPS. It is focused on the scientific atmospheric aspects, but provides some good info on ‘down in the weeds’ specifics on current and future GPS constellations and DGPS systems (terminal area/landing protection)
Space Weather :: Free Articles - Space Weather and the Global Positioning System
As far as ‘switching off’ GPS goes
GPS, The War And You - Forbes.com
Perhaps someone with more ‘tech’ knowledge might be able to explain the link (if there is one) between the GPS III constellation and TSO 145/6
Thanks for the links scurvy, You probably havnt read my previous posts on 'why' the GPS signal maybe turned off, I tend to remove the posts fairly quikly. They were about UA-Vehicles and the miss-use off.
The Forbes article you quote goes a little vague when it talks of terrorist miss-use of the GPS signal (good reasons I guess) suffice to say that when GPS is eventualy miss-used it will likely be the end of the civy system for a while.
Also, probably not a good idea for Oz to spend money on an airnav system when we dont own or control a core component of the system.
From the Forbes article -
"We are not planning to degrade GPS, and there are no plans to degrade GPS," says Jason Kim, a GPS board spokesman. "The decision to turn off SA was a serious national policy decision. Obviously it could be overruled, but no one is seriously contemplating that right now."
And why Oz should not rely on a system that can be switched of at the whim of others.... Forbes again -
and re signal loss ... And a signal change could make an already weak economy worse. "Collectively it could have a substantial effect on industries as diverse as aviation, agriculture and municipal transportation," says Frost & Sullivan's Stearns.
Quotes via - GPS, The War And You - Forbes.com
(I have bolded and underlined parts of the article)
The Forbes article you quote goes a little vague when it talks of terrorist miss-use of the GPS signal (good reasons I guess) suffice to say that when GPS is eventualy miss-used it will likely be the end of the civy system for a while.
Also, probably not a good idea for Oz to spend money on an airnav system when we dont own or control a core component of the system.
From the Forbes article -
"We are not planning to degrade GPS, and there are no plans to degrade GPS," says Jason Kim, a GPS board spokesman. "The decision to turn off SA was a serious national policy decision. Obviously it could be overruled, but no one is seriously contemplating that right now."
And why Oz should not rely on a system that can be switched of at the whim of others.... Forbes again -
and re signal loss ... And a signal change could make an already weak economy worse. "Collectively it could have a substantial effect on industries as diverse as aviation, agriculture and municipal transportation," says Frost & Sullivan's Stearns.
Quotes via - GPS, The War And You - Forbes.com
(I have bolded and underlined parts of the article)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Garmin ADS-B
Here's the answer from Garmin in the states about ADS-B IN:
The GTX 330ES supports ADS-B Out capabilities. In order to support ADS-B In capabilities a 1090 MHz receiver would need to be added to the transponder. This would be a major change and would involve a new product development effort. Garmin has no plans to add a 1090-receive capability to the 330ES. It is possible to add a separate receiver box that would support ADS-B In functions. We do not have a development under way to add the 1090 receive capability at this time. We are closely monitoring the proposed ADS-B mandate in the States and the Lower Airspace Program in Australia, and will make a decision on future ADS-B product offerings when the final decisions are made.
The GNS 530 will display traffic and will support ADS-B In display of traffic information. No future modifications should be required of the GNS 530 to support the display of ADS-B traffic. In the unlikely event that mods are required they would involve a field upgradeable software revision.
The GNS 530 will display traffic and will support ADS-B In display of traffic information. No future modifications should be required of the GNS 530 to support the display of ADS-B traffic. In the unlikely event that mods are required they would involve a field upgradeable software revision.