Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Binghi
expletive deleted... this is getting weary..
Scurvy.D.Dog, perhaps you can enlighten us how you know that a 'contingency' would only be of short duration and at specific locations ?
Re-read what you quoted.., it doesn't claim that a outage would be of short duration., just that it would be likely to be so.
In this real world, there are 4 GNSS systems at various stages of operation.
(1) the USA 'GPS/Navstar', which has been working since the late 70's,
(2) the Ruskki 'GLONASS', upish since the early 80's,
(3) the EU 'Galileo', 1 bird up on test, expected to be operational in 2011,
(4) the Chinese 'Compass', 1 bird up on test.
The above systems are independantly controlled.
Most nav receivers only process signals from one system, so even though your 'GPS' receiver gets the 'GLONASS' signals, it can't use them. (usually for technical and cost reasons)
Last year, the EU and the USA agreed to have interoperability on the L1C frequency for civilian use, meaning that over the next few years as new satellites get put into orbit, there will be, in effect, a doubling of the existing constellation of satellites that we civvies can use.
Now tell me that that isn't going to be better and more reliable.
sometimes sovereign states do cooperate for the common good
expletive deleted... this is getting weary..
In other words, the contingency (however ridiculously unlikely, and likely only ever for very short duration in a specific location/s) would return the ATS system to basically what we have today, not bad as a ‘contingency’ fallback only!
In this real world, there are 4 GNSS systems at various stages of operation.
(1) the USA 'GPS/Navstar', which has been working since the late 70's,
(2) the Ruskki 'GLONASS', upish since the early 80's,
(3) the EU 'Galileo', 1 bird up on test, expected to be operational in 2011,
(4) the Chinese 'Compass', 1 bird up on test.
The above systems are independantly controlled.
Most nav receivers only process signals from one system, so even though your 'GPS' receiver gets the 'GLONASS' signals, it can't use them. (usually for technical and cost reasons)
Last year, the EU and the USA agreed to have interoperability on the L1C frequency for civilian use, meaning that over the next few years as new satellites get put into orbit, there will be, in effect, a doubling of the existing constellation of satellites that we civvies can use.
Now tell me that that isn't going to be better and more reliable.
sometimes sovereign states do cooperate for the common good
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
You are now onto security fencing and ASIC cards, give it away.
Bob,
I know its probably a typo, but I hope your beacon is a 406 Mhz and not a 400Mhz
'If I end up in the "boonies" my mandated 400Mhz ELT will save me.'
Also, Bob you don't have to be "in the system" with ADS-B to be seen, if you are in range of a ground station you will be an uncorrelated track i.e. a blip
The subsidy is there, it is budgeted for.
I wouldn't know, but are there really less GA aircraft now than 43 years ago? Or is this on a per capita basis.
Bob you seem like a genuine bloke, cranky, but genuine. I hope all this delivers as promised and in a few years time we chat about this and you tell us how you never realised what a bonus all this would be.
Lifes too short to get your blood pressure up on the internet.
You are now onto security fencing and ASIC cards, give it away.
Bob,
I know its probably a typo, but I hope your beacon is a 406 Mhz and not a 400Mhz
'If I end up in the "boonies" my mandated 400Mhz ELT will save me.'
Also, Bob you don't have to be "in the system" with ADS-B to be seen, if you are in range of a ground station you will be an uncorrelated track i.e. a blip
The subsidy is there, it is budgeted for.
I wouldn't know, but are there really less GA aircraft now than 43 years ago? Or is this on a per capita basis.
Bob you seem like a genuine bloke, cranky, but genuine. I hope all this delivers as promised and in a few years time we chat about this and you tell us how you never realised what a bonus all this would be.
Lifes too short to get your blood pressure up on the internet.
Hmmm.............. so it would seem there is no real answer to the little GPS guided Buzz Bombs eh ? 
... apart from removeing the availability of civvy GPS. Thus, No GPS = No ADS-B
Due to one terrorism event outside Oz, we pilots now have imposed apon us the silly ASICs and security fences for the last several years.
Imagine what would happen if dozens of GPS guided buzz bombs started flying in over the Oz coast line and hitting randomly selected targets - chaos
The civvy GPS signal will have to be stopped until the new terror threat could be neutralised - how long will it take ? ...could be many years. In the meantime, so much for the ADS-B system.
IMHO, I see no reason to change from our current robust ATC system. No random terrorism event can bring down our entire current ATC system - thats the current ATC system that is, in part, proposed to be retained as a back up to the ADS-B system.
It does seem piontless to me to change to a system that needs the current system as a back up
... apart from removeing the availability of civvy GPS. Thus, No GPS = No ADS-B
Due to one terrorism event outside Oz, we pilots now have imposed apon us the silly ASICs and security fences for the last several years.
Imagine what would happen if dozens of GPS guided buzz bombs started flying in over the Oz coast line and hitting randomly selected targets - chaos
The civvy GPS signal will have to be stopped until the new terror threat could be neutralised - how long will it take ? ...could be many years. In the meantime, so much for the ADS-B system.
IMHO, I see no reason to change from our current robust ATC system. No random terrorism event can bring down our entire current ATC system - thats the current ATC system that is, in part, proposed to be retained as a back up to the ADS-B system.
It does seem piontless to me to change to a system that needs the current system as a back up
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
In your UAV dreams Bung
.
... Lithium mate ... don't embarrass yourself unnecessarily …. like the gun tot’n ‘Dinosaur’s in Oz’ travelling internet show do!!
.
... for those 'really' interested in the realities of OZ ADS-B .. go back 1 page
.
... Lithium mate ... don't embarrass yourself unnecessarily …. like the gun tot’n ‘Dinosaur’s in Oz’ travelling internet show do!!
.
... for those 'really' interested in the realities of OZ ADS-B .. go back 1 page
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... deep breaths .... cobalt blue seas ... d1ckheads not worth the time ....beer .... GOOD BEER!
Shutting down the laptop and heading off for a massage and a beer. It's a hard life...
You mount a very compelling and objective argument SDD (reinforced by Oz’s earlier).
I am almost convinced, and may be convinced.
I have a number of (genuine) residual questions. Please, again, bear with me if I’m missing something that is obvious.
The overarching question that I asked, out loud, at the end of your post was:
If the system you’re advocating is so good, why has the US implemented UAT for GA?
I stress that I’m not saying that what the US does is necessarily the best. Nor am I saying that if Australia imposes a system different from the US, the equipment will necessarily become an orphan. But why didn’t the US perceive what appear to be overwhelming arguments to implement a different system?
Secondly, I do have concerns about the implicit assumptions in this:
[Formatting removed]
You’ll understand that there’s a world of difference between the denotation of the word ‘restriction’ compared with the word ‘exclusion’, and ‘possible’ compared with ‘probable’. Your mixture of them is unfortunate, because it’s not clear whether your assumption is that non-ADSB GA will possibly be restricted or probably be excluded. One end of that spectrum is a temporary inconvenience, the other, ugly.
Perhaps more importantly, I don’t see the justification for any restriction or exclusion in G (a least to the extent of restrictions extending beyond the existing requirements for carriage and use of radio). I’m not aware of any accident involving fare paying passengers in Australia that would have been prevented if GA aircraft, without ADSB or equivalent functionality, had been restricted or excluded from the equivalent of the current CTAF(R).
If I had a buck for each time CASA and AA have reminded us of this:
I’d be a richer man.
So my last questions are, in your scenario that I quoted above:
(1) Will non-ASDB equipped aircraft ‘possibly be restricted’ or ‘probably be excluded’?
(2) In either case, who says that restriction or exclusion will be imposed?
I am almost convinced, and may be convinced.
I have a number of (genuine) residual questions. Please, again, bear with me if I’m missing something that is obvious.
The overarching question that I asked, out loud, at the end of your post was:
If the system you’re advocating is so good, why has the US implemented UAT for GA?
I stress that I’m not saying that what the US does is necessarily the best. Nor am I saying that if Australia imposes a system different from the US, the equipment will necessarily become an orphan. But why didn’t the US perceive what appear to be overwhelming arguments to implement a different system?
Secondly, I do have concerns about the implicit assumptions in this:
Outside Capital City PRIM, SSR, WAMLAt ADS-B veils – Regional and Remote areas with ADS-B only surveillance, or no surveillance
a. Unless the (Pressurised) RPT can ‘see’ (ACAS) and/or hear ALL the target aircraft, then restriction/exclusion is possible/probable
a. Unless the (Pressurised) RPT can ‘see’ (ACAS) and/or hear ALL the target aircraft, then restriction/exclusion is possible/probable
You’ll understand that there’s a world of difference between the denotation of the word ‘restriction’ compared with the word ‘exclusion’, and ‘possible’ compared with ‘probable’. Your mixture of them is unfortunate, because it’s not clear whether your assumption is that non-ADSB GA will possibly be restricted or probably be excluded. One end of that spectrum is a temporary inconvenience, the other, ugly.
Perhaps more importantly, I don’t see the justification for any restriction or exclusion in G (a least to the extent of restrictions extending beyond the existing requirements for carriage and use of radio). I’m not aware of any accident involving fare paying passengers in Australia that would have been prevented if GA aircraft, without ADSB or equivalent functionality, had been restricted or excluded from the equivalent of the current CTAF(R).
If I had a buck for each time CASA and AA have reminded us of this:
REG 163A Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft
When weather conditions permit, the flight crew of an aircraft must, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules or the Visual Flight Rules, maintain vigilance so as to see, and avoid, other aircraft.
When weather conditions permit, the flight crew of an aircraft must, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules or the Visual Flight Rules, maintain vigilance so as to see, and avoid, other aircraft.
So my last questions are, in your scenario that I quoted above:
(1) Will non-ASDB equipped aircraft ‘possibly be restricted’ or ‘probably be excluded’?
(2) In either case, who says that restriction or exclusion will be imposed?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Binghi
It's a strange concept called redundancy.
Designers of safety-critical systems who sleep peacefully at night use the concept a lot.
It does seem piontless to me to change to a system that needs the current system as a back up
Designers of safety-critical systems who sleep peacefully at night use the concept a lot.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Dog
As a fellow researcher, again congrats on your M.opus.
It raises again this enlightened theory of Dick Smith about "Multilateration" and why don't we go down that path.
I am uncertain what your research has found, but mine notes (ICAO doc again Bob not wild rhetoric):
Multilateration is mainly used for airport surface and terminal area surveillance, although with careful design and deployment it may be used in segments of enroute airspace.
The number of sites and the geographical disposition of those sites (site selection) are the critical factors in achieved performance.
- Sometimes reports false targets (reflections, multipath)
o No error detection provided in downlinked 4 digit code and altitude from
Mode C transponders
o Systems can be moderately expensive to install and maintain because of the
costs associated with the provision and maintenance of multiple sites especially
if existing infrastructure is not available.
o Systems require multiple sites with unobstructed view to aircraft. This can be a
significant problem in some environments
o Requires a transmitter to trigger aircraft to transmit the data required for ATC
applications
There is a wide variability of the costs for multilateration since site costs typically dominate the total costs. In some environments multilat costs could approach those of radar
Not yet endorsed by ICAO
Mr Dog, perhaps you can comment on how the above fits your thinking.
Of extreme concern to me is that we have Dick Smith adamant that we must not proceed with alleged orphan technology - which our mutual research shows to be ICAO standard - yet Dick touting multilateration that is inferior to ADS-B AND NOT ICAO ENDORSED?
Creampuff
Afterthought re UAT - why is the USA considering it - economies of scale. How many aircraft, how many pilots, concentrated in what areas. That's why they have the satellite wx etc also. Find me a willing service provider for aviation in Australia for value added features - and I'll find you a business going broke faster than a family with three pet horses
As a fellow researcher, again congrats on your M.opus.
It raises again this enlightened theory of Dick Smith about "Multilateration" and why don't we go down that path.
I am uncertain what your research has found, but mine notes (ICAO doc again Bob not wild rhetoric):
Multilateration is mainly used for airport surface and terminal area surveillance, although with careful design and deployment it may be used in segments of enroute airspace.
The number of sites and the geographical disposition of those sites (site selection) are the critical factors in achieved performance.
- Sometimes reports false targets (reflections, multipath)
o No error detection provided in downlinked 4 digit code and altitude from
Mode C transponders
o Systems can be moderately expensive to install and maintain because of the
costs associated with the provision and maintenance of multiple sites especially
if existing infrastructure is not available.
o Systems require multiple sites with unobstructed view to aircraft. This can be a
significant problem in some environments
o Requires a transmitter to trigger aircraft to transmit the data required for ATC
applications
There is a wide variability of the costs for multilateration since site costs typically dominate the total costs. In some environments multilat costs could approach those of radar
Not yet endorsed by ICAO
Mr Dog, perhaps you can comment on how the above fits your thinking.
Of extreme concern to me is that we have Dick Smith adamant that we must not proceed with alleged orphan technology - which our mutual research shows to be ICAO standard - yet Dick touting multilateration that is inferior to ADS-B AND NOT ICAO ENDORSED?
Creampuff
Afterthought re UAT - why is the USA considering it - economies of scale. How many aircraft, how many pilots, concentrated in what areas. That's why they have the satellite wx etc also. Find me a willing service provider for aviation in Australia for value added features - and I'll find you a business going broke faster than a family with three pet horses
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
…. much obliged Mr Michael
.
The only thing I would add to your first post above is an opinion based on what we all see and have seen in this industry and others with ‘shock and horror profiles’ … and that is …. If (god forbid) a big one does occur OCTA, unless there are safe guards in place or being put in place that the pollies can ‘lean on’, they will react the only way they can to the public outcry. We all know what that reaction would likely be i.e. ‘exclusion protection’ … particularly when O/S experiences are driving things like Annex 6 globally.
.
Another compelling reason IMHO for doing this now, to ensure continued utility of shared airspace!
.
Cheers
.
The only thing I would add to your first post above is an opinion based on what we all see and have seen in this industry and others with ‘shock and horror profiles’ … and that is …. If (god forbid) a big one does occur OCTA, unless there are safe guards in place or being put in place that the pollies can ‘lean on’, they will react the only way they can to the public outcry. We all know what that reaction would likely be i.e. ‘exclusion protection’ … particularly when O/S experiences are driving things like Annex 6 globally.
.
Another compelling reason IMHO for doing this now, to ensure continued utility of shared airspace!
.
Cheers
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
Re your second post above (WAMLat)
The bottom line here is that it is a great system .. there is no doubt about that …. But as suggested by ICAO
1. Infrastructure intensive (14 ground stations in Tasmania alone)
2. Site costs
3. Complexity
4. The system requires very very accurate time synchronicity (atomic clock type accuracy)
For what it does, in the places envisaged GREAT! …. Less cost than MSSR or PRM (precision approach monitor) …. A ****e load more than ADS-B .... does not deliver the GA NAV safety benefits of the ADS-B proposal ... nor any of the other derived benefits (as discussed in this thread) that fleetwide ADS-B brings
…. Why would our industry fund enroute WAMLat when the ADS-B option is there, now!
The bottom line here is that it is a great system .. there is no doubt about that …. But as suggested by ICAO
1. Infrastructure intensive (14 ground stations in Tasmania alone)
2. Site costs
3. Complexity
4. The system requires very very accurate time synchronicity (atomic clock type accuracy)
For what it does, in the places envisaged GREAT! …. Less cost than MSSR or PRM (precision approach monitor) …. A ****e load more than ADS-B .... does not deliver the GA NAV safety benefits of the ADS-B proposal ... nor any of the other derived benefits (as discussed in this thread) that fleetwide ADS-B brings
…. Why would our industry fund enroute WAMLat when the ADS-B option is there, now!
Thread Starter
CrazyMTOWDog, in relation to my comment about an air traffic controller not knowing the location of VFR aircraft in Class C unless there is primary and secondary radar, you state that it is “absolute rubbish”, and that I have made a “false and misleading statement.”
In fact, the evidence for this came from an air traffic controller on this website a number of years ago. I think the controller was referring to Alice Springs, where a VFR aircraft had reported 30 miles north of the airport at about 8,500 feet, and was duly being separated on that basis. However the aircraft happened to be 30 miles south of the airport – a simple error.
If you look at modern aviation countries such as the United States, where the air traffic controller is responsible for separating IFR and VFR (i.e. in Class C and B airspace), there is both primary and secondary radar to ensure that even if a mistake is made, the VFR aircraft is “visible” on the radar to verify its position.
In these countries, Class D airspace is small enough so the air traffic controller can visually confirm the position of the VFR aircraft.
For IFR aircraft, the situation is quite different. An IFR aircraft must file a flight plan, and if the pilot makes a mistake (i.e. calling at 30 miles in the wrong direction) the back up is the flight plan which clearly shows the pilot is not at that particular location.
The international system is basically designed to be fail safe.
I do realise that in the past, to save money (i.e. to put profits in front of safety) air traffic controllers have been forced to separate IFR and VFR aircraft in Australia without proper approach radar (i.e. both primary and secondary). In the past we have probably been able to get away with this in Australia because of the very low traffic densities. This will eventually change.
We are a wealthy country. I believe we can at least have the level of equipment and staffing (which Class C with radar requires) to at least match other leading aviation countries.
James Michael, I’m not “touting multilateration.” I’ve made it quite clear that I want more information on multilateration – i.e. why is Airservices installing a multilateration system over the whole of Tasmania when they are telling us that they want to go ahead with ADS-B? I also want to know the cost comparison of installing multilateration between Melbourne and Cairns in a similar way to the installation in Tasmania.
With multilateration there is no requirement for the $100 million subsidy, as aircraft that require Mode C transponders have already had them fitted.
You also state that multilateration is not ICAO endorsed, however there are no ICAO endorsed ADS-B ‘out’ or ‘in’ units that are affordable for GA aircraft.
I will say once again (for probably the 5th time) that I support ADS-B, and my support has always been towards the Mode S squitter system. However I do not believe that we should rush into this when there is no other purpose than maximising Airservices’ profits. We in Australia should be conservative as we have no immediate safety problem that would be addressed by the low level ADS-B proposal – and waiting will reduce costs dramatically.
In fact, the evidence for this came from an air traffic controller on this website a number of years ago. I think the controller was referring to Alice Springs, where a VFR aircraft had reported 30 miles north of the airport at about 8,500 feet, and was duly being separated on that basis. However the aircraft happened to be 30 miles south of the airport – a simple error.
If you look at modern aviation countries such as the United States, where the air traffic controller is responsible for separating IFR and VFR (i.e. in Class C and B airspace), there is both primary and secondary radar to ensure that even if a mistake is made, the VFR aircraft is “visible” on the radar to verify its position.
In these countries, Class D airspace is small enough so the air traffic controller can visually confirm the position of the VFR aircraft.
For IFR aircraft, the situation is quite different. An IFR aircraft must file a flight plan, and if the pilot makes a mistake (i.e. calling at 30 miles in the wrong direction) the back up is the flight plan which clearly shows the pilot is not at that particular location.
The international system is basically designed to be fail safe.
I do realise that in the past, to save money (i.e. to put profits in front of safety) air traffic controllers have been forced to separate IFR and VFR aircraft in Australia without proper approach radar (i.e. both primary and secondary). In the past we have probably been able to get away with this in Australia because of the very low traffic densities. This will eventually change.
We are a wealthy country. I believe we can at least have the level of equipment and staffing (which Class C with radar requires) to at least match other leading aviation countries.
James Michael, I’m not “touting multilateration.” I’ve made it quite clear that I want more information on multilateration – i.e. why is Airservices installing a multilateration system over the whole of Tasmania when they are telling us that they want to go ahead with ADS-B? I also want to know the cost comparison of installing multilateration between Melbourne and Cairns in a similar way to the installation in Tasmania.
With multilateration there is no requirement for the $100 million subsidy, as aircraft that require Mode C transponders have already had them fitted.
You also state that multilateration is not ICAO endorsed, however there are no ICAO endorsed ADS-B ‘out’ or ‘in’ units that are affordable for GA aircraft.
I will say once again (for probably the 5th time) that I support ADS-B, and my support has always been towards the Mode S squitter system. However I do not believe that we should rush into this when there is no other purpose than maximising Airservices’ profits. We in Australia should be conservative as we have no immediate safety problem that would be addressed by the low level ADS-B proposal – and waiting will reduce costs dramatically.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scurvy.D.dog;
Can you tell us what has changed at AsA since this:
MEDIA RELEASE : 07 February 2006 - ATSB Final Report into fatal accident near Benalla on 28 July 2004.
And what has been done to prevent it happenig again, and why I should believe you or AsA and how would ADSB prevent this particular accident if it had been around then?
Can you tell us what has changed at AsA since this:
MEDIA RELEASE : 07 February 2006 - ATSB Final Report into fatal accident near Benalla on 28 July 2004.
And what has been done to prevent it happenig again, and why I should believe you or AsA and how would ADSB prevent this particular accident if it had been around then?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
max1:
I apologise for not answering your post. It's amazing jm hasn't answered on my behalf. Seems compelled to answer anybody's.
You are correct about the ELT. Why I wasn't more accurate was I simply forgot. You see I haven't got one. Still rely on the old 121.5 which is still good until 2009.
The reason I haven't gone out to buy one yet is that I am waiting until the last minute in the hope the price may come down. A bit like Dick's position on ADSB. Also the ones I have seen appear to be a bit larger than my GME MT310 which fits nicely in my top pocket where I can access it instead of at the bottom of my flight bag.
I apologise for not answering your post. It's amazing jm hasn't answered on my behalf. Seems compelled to answer anybody's.
You are correct about the ELT. Why I wasn't more accurate was I simply forgot. You see I haven't got one. Still rely on the old 121.5 which is still good until 2009.
The reason I haven't gone out to buy one yet is that I am waiting until the last minute in the hope the price may come down. A bit like Dick's position on ADSB. Also the ones I have seen appear to be a bit larger than my GME MT310 which fits nicely in my top pocket where I can access it instead of at the bottom of my flight bag.
Thread Starter
Scurvy.D.Dog, you mention that there are 14 ground stations for the multilateration system in Tasmania. Do you have any idea of the cost per ground station, and for the total system?
You may remember that I was once the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, which at the time was responsible for air traffic control. We were totally open in every one of our capital equipment projects – publicising the costs and making sure we had an expert spokesman to answer every question as openly and as honestly as possible.
You are an air traffic controller in the Class D Launceston Tower, and I admire you for becoming the “spokesman” for Airservices Australia. Don’t you wonder why there is no one from Canberra explaining why they are installing a multilateration system in Tasmania, when they have a proposal to go to ADS-B (both high and low level) right across Australia?
There is no immediate safety problem to be addressed in Tasmania, so why spend the millions (if it is that much) on the multilateration system there?
To everyone else reading this thread with an open mind, I’m sure you endorse my sentiments. That is, why can’t Airservices Australia tell us the facts – both pros and cons – so we can support their proposal if it is correct, or we can recommend changes if there are flaws?
You may remember that I was once the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, which at the time was responsible for air traffic control. We were totally open in every one of our capital equipment projects – publicising the costs and making sure we had an expert spokesman to answer every question as openly and as honestly as possible.
You are an air traffic controller in the Class D Launceston Tower, and I admire you for becoming the “spokesman” for Airservices Australia. Don’t you wonder why there is no one from Canberra explaining why they are installing a multilateration system in Tasmania, when they have a proposal to go to ADS-B (both high and low level) right across Australia?
There is no immediate safety problem to be addressed in Tasmania, so why spend the millions (if it is that much) on the multilateration system there?
To everyone else reading this thread with an open mind, I’m sure you endorse my sentiments. That is, why can’t Airservices Australia tell us the facts – both pros and cons – so we can support their proposal if it is correct, or we can recommend changes if there are flaws?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We in Australia should be conservative as we have no immediate safety problem that would be addressed by the low level ADS-B proposal
I noticed that you left the room when the crop-duster vs. RFDS Close Proximity was presented... and stayed out of the room whilst it was being discussed. Now that you've joined us again... would you care to review Post 577.
Would ADS-B have prevented the Close Proximity between the crop-duster and the RFDS aircraft?
Thread Starter
Sorry Quokka, I thought you were pulling my leg. I’ve checked the post (by the way, it is post number 557, not 577) and I want to know if you really believe that the Royal Flying Doctor Service is supporting $100 million of expenditure because of that particular incident. Is this the same Royal Flying Doctor Service which correctly flies single engine aircraft IFR in cloud at night?
Before I can answer your questions, can you advise if an incident report was filed, what the particular airport was and approximately what was the date? Was any enquiry made by the RFDS as to which cropdusting aircraft was flying at the location, and was the pilot of that aircraft contacted?
I look forward to your advice, then I will go ahead and answer your questions in full.
Before I can answer your questions, can you advise if an incident report was filed, what the particular airport was and approximately what was the date? Was any enquiry made by the RFDS as to which cropdusting aircraft was flying at the location, and was the pilot of that aircraft contacted?
I look forward to your advice, then I will go ahead and answer your questions in full.
Without stealing Mr Dog's thunder the answer to your two questions is
1. Yes, read Annex 6 as previously cited
2. ICAO, as represented here by the CASA OAR - read NAS DP V1.4 as previously cited.
1. Yes, read Annex 6 as previously cited
2. ICAO, as represented here by the CASA OAR - read NAS DP V1.4 as previously cited.
'Yes' is not a helpful answer to my question about which of two stated alternatives were being asserted - but I now understand the confusion I caused. When it comes to different probabilities, higher probabilities necessarily include lower probabilities. I apologise if I did not make my question clear.
I want to know which of the following alternatives you say is a basis on which I should fit ASDB to a GA aircraft.
Is it because, without it, in future I will possibly be restricted from sharing the kinds of airspace with the kinds of aircraft described by SDD?
Or is it because, without it, in future I will probably be excluded from sharing the kinds of airspace with the kinds of aircraft described by SDD?
If neither, what is the probability and operational consequence?
I chose the words 'restriction', 'exclusion', 'possible' and 'probable', because those were the words SDD mixed and matched.
In response to your suggestion that I:
read Annex 6, previously sited
ICAO Annex 6 - the part we need to consider - relates to airspace and access. The 2003 revision is worthy of our consideration for what it MIGHT likely do to GA and airspace sharing - if we don't do it better first.
Think through the note to 6.13.2 (Recommendations):
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 equipped with airborne collision avoidance systems.
Think through the note to 6.13.2 (Recommendations):
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 equipped with airborne collision avoidance systems.
In response to my question 2, your answer was 'CASA OAR', and you suggested that I
read NAS DP V1.4 as previously cited
That document is just a draft, and is just a discussion paper. Page 9 is just some pictorial representations of 'possible' airspace architecture.
Page 13 says, among other things:
Class E airspace may replace Class G with DTI, in some circumstances, to protect passenger transport aircraft. Using ADS-B, it may be possible to maintain VFR flexibility in the system and provide appropriate services to passenger transport operations. Increased surveillance using ADS-B could be a precursor to introducing Class E airspace at some existing non-radar locations. For example the risk-based analysis may determine that there may be a full surveillance requirement using ADS-B, with mandatory fitment of avionics, to specific Class G CTAF locations. To introduce Class E over Class D locations it may be a requirement that all aircraft broadcast their position (ADS-B Out) and for passenger transport aircraft to receive that information in the cockpit using CDTI. The progressive implementation of ADS-B, combined with any CASA ADS-B avionics mandate, may see the gradual introduction of low level Class E, where warranted to protect passenger transport operations. It will also facilitate the introduction of FUA innovations to lower levels.
Those things may happen; then again, they may not. Any airspace architecture is 'possible'.
I'm the CEO of a business at a board meeting considering the commitment of $$$ to a project. The GM responsible for making the recommendation has made this submission to me: Boss, there's a note about an intent to do something that might likely, or possibly, or probably, restrict or exclude something, and a draft discussion paper says something may happen, and because of that risk you should commit those $$$.
I'm now pressing the red button under the board table, and the GM has just disappeared through a trapdoor and will shortly exit the building through a chute into a dumpster at the rear loading dock.
Fortunes are won and lost, businesses make fortunes or go broke, people go to jail or are set free, and life or death decisions are made, on the strength of the distinction between what words like 'might', 'possible', 'probable' and 'likely' mean.
Wake me up again when the OAR makes whatever decision happens to be dictated by the prevailing politics.
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
Creampuff
.
Fair enough
.
It is for precisely those reasons I used 'restriction', 'exclusion', 'possible' and 'probable' .... either of those possibilities could be considered probabilities .. does anyone really know how it will end up? .... I am suprised you would 'snooze' on this and let fate take its course!
.
From where you sit, whats your take on this, how would you summarise the possible airspace outcomes with and without ADS-B?
.
Smith
.
.
I am no spokesman for AsA
... My opinions are just that mine!
.
.. the information I provide (links etc) here is for the rumination of those in attendance to stimulate considered discussion .. in your case that does not occur very often I'm afraid
.
So, if you want the cost information on WAMLat, ask AsA directly!
.
eh Bob,
.
That dummy must be mighty gritty by now 
.
Fair enough
.
It is for precisely those reasons I used 'restriction', 'exclusion', 'possible' and 'probable' .... either of those possibilities could be considered probabilities .. does anyone really know how it will end up? .... I am suprised you would 'snooze' on this and let fate take its course!
.
From where you sit, whats your take on this, how would you summarise the possible airspace outcomes with and without ADS-B?
.
Smith
.
I admire you for becoming the “spokesman” for Airservices Australia
I am no spokesman for AsA
... My opinions are just that mine! .
.. the information I provide (links etc) here is for the rumination of those in attendance to stimulate considered discussion .. in your case that does not occur very often I'm afraid
.
So, if you want the cost information on WAMLat, ask AsA directly!
.
eh Bob,
.
That dummy must be mighty gritty by now