Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
In your case as a GA owner, particularly if VFR, you are not considering financial commitment, it's done in the subsidy.
SDD asked:
From where you sit, whats your take on this, how would you summarise the possible airspace outcomes with and without ADS-B?
Returning to OAR and its behaviours, examination of the cases of Moruya and Armidale demonstrates change to CTAF R without data or evidence. Moruya is a classic. Worse, without consultation. Therefore, I will not offer to be your alarm clock and wake you when they make further decisions as you must make your own probability judgement on outcomes.
The system that implemented and sustains ASICs is simply not capable of implementing an aviation and airspace regulation system based on objective data and analysis.
The outcome will be determined by whatever random combination of political pressures happen to prevail from time to time.
I am planning on:
(1) having to fit another box to my aircraft
(2) waiting in a long line to have it fitted and certified (in the US, they simply don't believe me when I say there are no radio LAMEs in the capital city of Australia - nil, zip, nada, not a sausage - in the capital city of a country that presumes first-world aviation status)
(3) having to pay an amount in excess of the subsidy to have the system fitted and certified
(4) complex new operational procedures being rolled out with little or no notice or prior education, causing inconsistency and confusion
(5) unanticipated technical problems that mean the system does not work properly
(6) costly upgrades to deal with (5), after interminable delays as a consequence of (2), then
(7) throwing it all in the bin, because by the time it's been rolled out and all the bugs have been fixed, it will be obsolete.
Anything better than that will be a very pleasant surprise.
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
.... 2 is a worry
.
If the rest comes to pass .... crikey
.
Would you agree that it is a sound idea to ensure a cross section of types and avionics is fitted as a 'proof of concept and costs' before a commitment is made?!
.
I would hope you know my thoughts on this issue .... the context in which I suggested the Known known's, and the Known Unknown's was what I was getting at .... in other words how do you obtain objective data when that data is not really collected and therefore not available for proper Analysis 
.
A case in point was the traffic data assumptions for the 'Unicom' thingo .... they were gross under-estimates from what I heard from locals at one of the NSW locations out NW of the Big Smoke
.... 2 is a worry.
If the rest comes to pass .... crikey
.
Would you agree that it is a sound idea to ensure a cross section of types and avionics is fitted as a 'proof of concept and costs' before a commitment is made?!
.
I'm kicking myself for having wasted my time learning, again, a lesson that I'd learned long ago: aviation and airspace regulation in Australia has got almost nothing to do with objective data and analysis, and everything to do with politics.
.
A case in point was the traffic data assumptions for the 'Unicom' thingo .... they were gross under-estimates from what I heard from locals at one of the NSW locations out NW of the Big Smoke
james michael wrote -
I've just had a look at that thread. First question one asks here on pprun - Did it really happen ? ; Second question - Is somebody standing to gain from making such a claim ? ... and so-on.
Untill confirmed or otherwise it can only be used as a scenario.
More then happy to debate a scenario
Interesting thread on D&G GA re 'Conflict at Bathurst'
Quote:
What happened this morning when the B1900 was landing on 17 and a Duchess was on 35 ??
I guess ADS-B (yes, I know - "IN", you have to pay for that, but Bing sets the lead with his TCAS) would not have helped? No safety gain with ADS-B for we open mindeds, eh?
Quote:
What happened this morning when the B1900 was landing on 17 and a Duchess was on 35 ??
I guess ADS-B (yes, I know - "IN", you have to pay for that, but Bing sets the lead with his TCAS) would not have helped? No safety gain with ADS-B for we open mindeds, eh?
Untill confirmed or otherwise it can only be used as a scenario.
More then happy to debate a scenario
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh FFS
binghi binghi binghi
Your monotomic obsession with GPS participation in ADSB is, ..... well...., obsessive.
You do still have some functioning brain cells, because the keyword in your post was the word if.
For the n'th *#%&!^&* time, the JCP did not propose to have a total reliance on GPS-aided ADSB.
There will be non-GPS based terrestrial backups.
ADSB will augment the ATC infrastructure.
Only certified lunatics would make safety-critical systems such as ATC, totally reliant on systems controlled by foreign entities.
Will you please (*%&@#(*&% read the *%&@#)(*&@#% JCP.
Now imagine what would happen if the entire Oz airspace was ADS-B controlled and the GPS signals were removed - ??? ... chaos.
You do still have some functioning brain cells, because the keyword in your post was the word if.
For the n'th *#%&!^&* time, the JCP did not propose to have a total reliance on GPS-aided ADSB.
There will be non-GPS based terrestrial backups.
ADSB will augment the ATC infrastructure.
Only certified lunatics would make safety-critical systems such as ATC, totally reliant on systems controlled by foreign entities.
Will you please (*%&@#(*&% read the *%&@#)(*&@#% JCP.
Biggles_in_Oz, seems to me 'somebody' needs to be "obsessive" about this issue.
The current ATC staff shortage fiasco is proof positive to me that Airservices management have no idea - Do Airservices think this ADS-B is some 'magic bullet' that will make all their problems go away ? We may very well be solving (or maybe not) one problem, though creating a far, far bigger problem at a later date.
The current ATC staff shortage fiasco is proof positive to me that Airservices management have no idea - Do Airservices think this ADS-B is some 'magic bullet' that will make all their problems go away ? We may very well be solving (or maybe not) one problem, though creating a far, far bigger problem at a later date.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologize for getting the Post number wrong... my typing skills deteriorate rapidly with each successive beer... 
Not pulling your leg Dick, it was presented as a example of where ADS-B would have enhanced safety... and it was presented in the spirit of... spirited ... academic debate. I'm surprised that you haven't researched it already in an attempt to undermine the premise that ADS-B may actually, really, truly, enhance safety above and beyond the capability of the current RADAR surveillance in Australia.
You're side-stepping the question Dick. I'm not your secretary and I'll leave it to you to have a chat with the RFDS in respect of that particular Close Proximity and on the subject of fleet-wide fitment of ADS-B... oh, that's right, you've already discussed ADS-B and 1090ES fitment with the RFDS, haven't you?
... and their answer was?
Not pulling your leg Dick, it was presented as a example of where ADS-B would have enhanced safety... and it was presented in the spirit of... spirited
... academic debate. I'm surprised that you haven't researched it already in an attempt to undermine the premise that ADS-B may actually, really, truly, enhance safety above and beyond the capability of the current RADAR surveillance in Australia. You're side-stepping the question Dick. I'm not your secretary and I'll leave it to you to have a chat with the RFDS in respect of that particular Close Proximity and on the subject of fleet-wide fitment of ADS-B... oh, that's right, you've already discussed ADS-B and 1090ES fitment with the RFDS, haven't you?
... and their answer was?
Methinks we're getting too involved in the detail here. And it's the detail that seems to be the main catalyst for getting the blood boiling. I would consider returning to the basics ... to see where we're at ... if anywhere.
I tend to look at issues methodically .. starting at the the top. These are the boxes I would need to tick:
I think most aviators would agree that it is. Yes, there are some who don't agree and I accept that, but in fairness ... the majority would agree
Now it starts geeting interesting. Most would say that it would mean extra cost to the aviators and that they would want to see what they're getting for their money. I further suggest that most would say that they wouldn't be getting enough extra goodies to warrant it.
Many would say yes ... but I couldn't say there's a clear majority yet. Maybe some more "selling" to be done by the Company
The current thininking is the ICAO wide high level ADS-B system ... for both our high and low level airspace. There seems to be broad agreement on that, but there are still detractors who argue that better kit may become available and become the default ... rendering ours obsolete.
And that last point seems to be the major sticking point. I would ask myself questions like:
I don't think I've solved anything, but it's clearer in my mind now anyway ...
I tend to look at issues methodically .. starting at the the top. These are the boxes I would need to tick:
- Would it be an improvement in safety and efficiency if we had a broader surveillance capability, backed up by existing infrastructure and procedures?
I think most aviators would agree that it is. Yes, there are some who don't agree and I accept that, but in fairness ... the majority would agree
- If getting that extended surveillance capability meant having to install an extra black box in each aircraft ... would that be acceptable?
Now it starts geeting interesting. Most would say that it would mean extra cost to the aviators and that they would want to see what they're getting for their money. I further suggest that most would say that they wouldn't be getting enough extra goodies to warrant it.
- What if the Company paid for the majority of the cost ... would that make it more palitable and would Aviators consider their part of the contribution to be an investment in safety and efficiency for all?
Many would say yes ... but I couldn't say there's a clear majority yet. Maybe some more "selling" to be done by the Company
- Say all's sweet so far ... what kit do we install?
The current thininking is the ICAO wide high level ADS-B system ... for both our high and low level airspace. There seems to be broad agreement on that, but there are still detractors who argue that better kit may become available and become the default ... rendering ours obsolete.
And that last point seems to be the major sticking point. I would ask myself questions like:
- How widespread is the use of the proposed system? Has it gone past a point of no return yet ... in other words, are enough States using it now that any new player would be ignored ... too costly to change, even if kit is better?
- If we are not at that point, should we wait a bit?
- What are the knock on effects if we did wait?
- What is the worst that could happen if we proceeded and another piece of kit became the default? Are we able to mitigate the consequences to any degree?
I don't think I've solved anything, but it's clearer in my mind now anyway ...
Thread Starter
Quokka, I am now starting to doubt this incident,(ie the alleged near miss between a RFDS plane and a crop duster that ADSB would have prevented) happened at all.
Next week I will contact each RFDS branch and attempt to confirm the claim. It's interesting that you claim to be the controller involved (everyone check post 557) however you are not prepared to name the airport!
There may be people involved with the RFDS who do not understand risk management and therefore will allocate a large amount of finite resources to areas where the risk is small resulting in an under allocation of resources where the risks are higher!
In the meantime can anyone else shine some light on this particular incident?
Next week I will contact each RFDS branch and attempt to confirm the claim. It's interesting that you claim to be the controller involved (everyone check post 557) however you are not prepared to name the airport!
There may be people involved with the RFDS who do not understand risk management and therefore will allocate a large amount of finite resources to areas where the risk is small resulting in an under allocation of resources where the risks are higher!
In the meantime can anyone else shine some light on this particular incident?
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
... who do not understand risk management and therefore will allocate a large amount of finite resources to areas where the risk is small resulting in an under allocation of resources where the risks are higher!
Creampuff, found this buried in a MITRE site-
CAASD/MITRE go half way down the page to The Universal Access Transceiver Digital Data Link From there you will see how it got into the ADS-B race.
I think I originally read about in a US FLYING mag. If you are in the US, maybe you can discover the lineage a lot easier than me on GOOGLE. The bottom line is that UAT was in the soup before ADS-B.
This report in 2006 also gives a broadoutline of the history of the different systemsATW ONLINE
And an earlier report AVTODAY 2004
It would appear that 1090ES is the ICAO standard as of 2003. FAA had a barrow to push with UAT, The Swedes also had their VDL4 which thay had been working on since 1996.
However, Mode S has been with us since the seventies.
RFDesign.com good article explaining how mode S works and basics of operation. Go to the last page and read up on DF17 to give an idea where ADS-B fitted in with a ModeS transponder.
The original argument for the yanks to go UAT was because the US AOPA and others had this idea that ModeS was airline only and came in big expensive AIRINC boxes. Sounds familiar
NOW to really knock your socks off-VOLKSLOGGER
which translates to-
Prices as per page at about 2500EUR
Now the biggest argument is the availability of the product. SOOOOOO! (are you taking notice T28D) Creampuff ,if you have the TSO146a GPS in your panel and....dare I say it.... a $10.00 cable from Dick Smith to hook up from the transponder to the NEMA outlet of the GPS and apply to your friendly local AirServices and you really are live in the system.
VT02 slides into the same hole as the KT76 for $4307.16AU
Don't you just looooove GOOGLE on a day off
Developed under internal research and development funds at MITRE beginning in 1995, the UAT was originally conceived as a simple, multifunction broadcast data link alternative for small aircraft.
I think I originally read about in a US FLYING mag. If you are in the US, maybe you can discover the lineage a lot easier than me on GOOGLE. The bottom line is that UAT was in the soup before ADS-B.
This report in 2006 also gives a broadoutline of the history of the different systemsATW ONLINE
And an earlier report AVTODAY 2004
It would appear that 1090ES is the ICAO standard as of 2003. FAA had a barrow to push with UAT, The Swedes also had their VDL4 which thay had been working on since 1996.
However, Mode S has been with us since the seventies.
RFDesign.com good article explaining how mode S works and basics of operation. Go to the last page and read up on DF17 to give an idea where ADS-B fitted in with a ModeS transponder.
The original argument for the yanks to go UAT was because the US AOPA and others had this idea that ModeS was airline only and came in big expensive AIRINC boxes. Sounds familiar
NOW to really knock your socks off-VOLKSLOGGER
ADS-B ready durch Direct-GPS NMEA-Interface, kein weiterer Adapter erforderlich
ADS-B ready by Direct GPS NMEA interface, no further adapter necessarily
Now the biggest argument is the availability of the product. SOOOOOO! (are you taking notice T28D) Creampuff ,if you have the TSO146a GPS in your panel and....dare I say it.... a $10.00 cable from Dick Smith to hook up from the transponder to the NEMA outlet of the GPS and apply to your friendly local AirServices and you really are live in the system.
VT02 slides into the same hole as the KT76 for $4307.16AU
Don't you just looooove GOOGLE on a day off
Moderator
Thread back after a rather extensive clean out. My apologies if some posts or comments lost their context due to other posts being removed.
Tail Wheel
Tail Wheel
Before the ‘clean out’, OZ had sold me on the VOLKSLOGGER. If whoever’s running this show says: On X date, deliver your aircraft to Z location, and it will be available 2 working days later with a serviceable VOLKsLOGGER ADS-B system in accordance with 20.18, at a cost within the subsidy, I’m there.
But I’m guessing no one’s running this show, because this one requires someone to make, and take responsibility for making, some hard decisions. I think a lot of people are going to be very underwhelmed by the new government’s appetite for hard decisions in the aviation sector, among others.
Earlier SDD made some valid points about data and known, knowns and known unknowns.
I’d like to make one point that is independent of the ‘which system’ debate: I do also agree with some of the protagonists who ask what safety problem the wholesale fitment of ADS-B is meant to address.
I know that there’s the dilemma about whether to spend money replacing existing technology or instead spend that money on technology that delivers the same or even better functionality at (it is assumed) lower cost. But that’s a false dichotomy. It’s possible to do neither, and divert the resources to something else.
We do have some known, knowns: the number of people actually killed and injured in aircraft accidents and incidents in Australia. I’ve asked myself: which of those accidents would have been prevented if there had been wholesale fitment of ASD-B? None jump to mind, but I hasten to add that I may well stand corrected, and I am happy to stand corrected.
Lockhart River? Not from my perspective.
Mount Hotham? Not from my perspective.
Benalla? Not from my perspective.
Whyalla? Not from my perspective.
Uzu? Not from my perspective.
Aquatic? Not from my perspective.
Seaview? Not from my perspective.
Monarch? Not from my perspective.
I have probably missed some other tragedies, and for that I apologise. But in respect of the ones I recall, I don’t see how some, or an extra, technology broadcasting ‘this is where I am’ would have helped prevent the accident.
But I’m guessing no one’s running this show, because this one requires someone to make, and take responsibility for making, some hard decisions. I think a lot of people are going to be very underwhelmed by the new government’s appetite for hard decisions in the aviation sector, among others.
Earlier SDD made some valid points about data and known, knowns and known unknowns.
I’d like to make one point that is independent of the ‘which system’ debate: I do also agree with some of the protagonists who ask what safety problem the wholesale fitment of ADS-B is meant to address.
I know that there’s the dilemma about whether to spend money replacing existing technology or instead spend that money on technology that delivers the same or even better functionality at (it is assumed) lower cost. But that’s a false dichotomy. It’s possible to do neither, and divert the resources to something else.
We do have some known, knowns: the number of people actually killed and injured in aircraft accidents and incidents in Australia. I’ve asked myself: which of those accidents would have been prevented if there had been wholesale fitment of ASD-B? None jump to mind, but I hasten to add that I may well stand corrected, and I am happy to stand corrected.
Lockhart River? Not from my perspective.
Mount Hotham? Not from my perspective.
Benalla? Not from my perspective.
Whyalla? Not from my perspective.
Uzu? Not from my perspective.
Aquatic? Not from my perspective.
Seaview? Not from my perspective.
Monarch? Not from my perspective.
I have probably missed some other tragedies, and for that I apologise. But in respect of the ones I recall, I don’t see how some, or an extra, technology broadcasting ‘this is where I am’ would have helped prevent the accident.
Thread Starter
Creampuff, I agree 100%. The low level ADSB subsidy is not directed at any objective safety issue. It's all about getting VFR aircraft back into ATS system as they were before Feb 91.
In those days IFR aircraft were given a directed traffic information service on all VFR aircraft that were flying over 50 nm. or within an AFIZ.
This system was unique in the world, cost a fortune, and not one life has been attributed to it's removal despite the 1.7 Billion dollars that has been saved by our industry since then.
I have spoken to Regional Airline pilots who have tried to convince me that not knowing were all VFR aircraft are all the time is a major safety issue!
Many want to use modern technology to go back to this old system while not really knowing what risk is being addressed.
Now if we spent the $100m or better training and more modern aircraft and equipment we could actually be doing something to improve safety in a cost effective way.
In those days IFR aircraft were given a directed traffic information service on all VFR aircraft that were flying over 50 nm. or within an AFIZ.
This system was unique in the world, cost a fortune, and not one life has been attributed to it's removal despite the 1.7 Billion dollars that has been saved by our industry since then.
I have spoken to Regional Airline pilots who have tried to convince me that not knowing were all VFR aircraft are all the time is a major safety issue!
Many want to use modern technology to go back to this old system while not really knowing what risk is being addressed.
Now if we spent the $100m or better training and more modern aircraft and equipment we could actually be doing something to improve safety in a cost effective way.
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
I’m guessing that the various people involved in this project would have the collective ability to drive the appropriate direction within the context of stewardship .. now, I agree with you (as I don’t know them directly) that this will take smart, determined folks to see it through properly … in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary, I am less pessimistic (maybe naively so) that the wheels will fall off!
I hate being a pessimist, but in this regard, I‘m with you in the ‘keep an eye on this lot’ tent!
… I won’t revisit the ATS aspects as they have been done to death …. The big one from my perspective is Fleetwide, IFR 146 Navigators! .. granted, many IFR have TSO 129 GPS, and that is good gear, the number of GA IFR that will receive the benefit of modern 146 GNSS is in itself worth the investment.
That’s why I asked the other bloke
Note the comprehensive answer he provided (NOT, NADA, NIL)!
Hmmm, interesting hypothetical
- The cost and functionality comparison of ADS-B surveillance/collision mitigation systems V’s status quo are proved and published by ICAO (of all people …. I thought that odd to be honest)
- The Nav benefit IMHO is being overlooked separately
Not withstanding, what would you do instead with the doe?
At the very least:-
1. Refirb (intensive and life limited .. stand to be corrected) or replace 11+ enroute MSSR’s,
2. Retain (refirb or replace) the ground based navaids due to be decommissioned?
Give the rest (**** all that would be left) to bureaucrats to fight over for ‘worthwhile safety projects’ …. Please don’t tell me you think that will provide worthwhile outcomes of a greater safety value!
What about TSO146 Nav systems, most of which nowadays include moving maps of various capabilities ….. less chance of a woopsie than with the old ‘two line Lat Long’ GPS jobbie with a CDI if you are lucky?! …. How does the list look in that context?
The other bloke
…. Substantiation thanks!
What would you suggest as alternatives to the ADS-B/GA NAV proposal?
But I’m guessing no one’s running this show, because this one requires someone to make, and take responsibility for making, some hard decisions.
I think a lot of people are going to be very underwhelmed by the new government’s appetite for hard decisions in the aviation sector, among others.
I’d like to make one point that is independent of the ‘which system’ debate: I do also agree with some of the protagonists who ask what safety problem the wholesale fitment of ADS-B is meant to address.
That’s why I asked the other bloke
What would you suggest for the 'YBNA', 'YHOT' and 'YLHR' (and any other regional location that an approach accident occurs in the future) areas then?
I know that there’s the dilemma about whether to spend money replacing existing technology or instead spend that money on technology that delivers the same or even better functionality at (it is assumed) lower cost. But that’s a false dichotomy. It’s possible to do neither, and divert the resources to something else.
- The cost and functionality comparison of ADS-B surveillance/collision mitigation systems V’s status quo are proved and published by ICAO (of all people …. I thought that odd to be honest)
- The Nav benefit IMHO is being overlooked separately
Not withstanding, what would you do instead with the doe?
At the very least:-
1. Refirb (intensive and life limited .. stand to be corrected) or replace 11+ enroute MSSR’s,
2. Retain (refirb or replace) the ground based navaids due to be decommissioned?
Give the rest (**** all that would be left) to bureaucrats to fight over for ‘worthwhile safety projects’ …. Please don’t tell me you think that will provide worthwhile outcomes of a greater safety value!
We do have some known, knowns: the number of people actually killed and injured in aircraft accidents and incidents in Australia. I’ve asked myself: which of those accidents would have been prevented if there had been wholesale fitment of ASD-B?
The other bloke
…. 1.7 Billion dollars that has been saved by our industry since then.
and more modern aircraft and equipment we could actually be doing something to improve safety in a cost effective way.
Last edited by Scurvy.D.Dog; 20th Jul 2008 at 13:42. Reason: added some bits
First off. Tailwheel, apols for my last post.
Mr Smith-
and there, you show your true colours.
I suggest everyone sit down with a cuppa and read Mac Job's article in the current Flight Safety, "Air Traffic Services, a goodly heritage" Study the history.
The crash of the Stinson in 1937 and the ensuing
[my bolds]
VFR back in the system, how about VFR actually being seen by the system. Exactly the same way that PRIMARY radar does a hard paint and SSR receives a signal after interogation of a transponder. ADS-B is just another modeS transponder that doesn't need as much ground infrastructure. SDDs last post before cleanout said as much.
I have allways feared that the economic rationalists where operating a perverse study on aviation safety by cutting out systems until there actually was an accident that could be attributable to the system. Then, just add that level of safety required and then they would finally arrive at "Affordable Safety"
Safety despite of the system rather than because of it!
Mr Smith, you still do not know how much damage you did by championing NAS in Australia. HISTORY, the US devised a system that was suitable for the environment that evolved for their country. A country as vast as Australia yet is densly populated for much of it's landmass. A country of 10 times the taxable population to afford infrastructure to service that environment. We simply cannot afford the radar infrastructure to give that level of service. As desireable as it is to have that type of service, the cost is prohibitive! ADS-B gives AirServices that possibility to at least put a service in where it would be useful, like those ten regional aerodromes and a few more units over in WA to actually provide a service to those FIFO charters that are bordering on RPT like frequency in RPT standard jet aircraft for a start.
I tender the near miss at Olympic Dam a few years ago as an incident that would have been avoided by ADS-B. The numerous incidents of RPT going head to head with GA at regional aerodromes after a straight in approach. A near miss between two RPT near Mount Isa after a breakdown in procedural separation. granted that was a long time ago and the Upper Airspace rollout is directly aimed at providing for preventing that type of incident.
Mr Smith, you have regularly grumbled about procedural standards at Hamilton Island causing all sorts of problems for helicopters and other aircraft having to hold at the boundary. The only way to fix that problem is to install a terminal SSR and have an approach controller tasked to the zone. Or, you could put a cheap ADS-B receiver on top of the tower.
No one has been killed because of the reduction in service, maybe true. I can think of a story on Australian Story that could well refute that. maybe it was a SAR problem, maybe it was the relaxation of the rules on reporting procedures. Either way, a pilot died a long time after the crash. The ELT was damage in the crash. The panacia? PLBs. This hasn't much to do with ADS-B but more to do with the demise of FS units. You know them, they used to be called 'Aeradio' Already said my bit about them. We could have had the best system in the world if we still had FS.(like they still do in the US well looking like being privatised but still a FS just the same)
FS with ADS-B monitors to MONITOR traffic outside controlled airspace and ATC using ADS-B CONTROLLING airspace in the GAFA in Controlled Airspace. A two level model, how simple was that? I can guarantee that ADS-B receivers will appear at every aerodrome that has an RPT service bigger than a Dash and eventually, coverage at every aerodrome with a published approach. Now, if we ever get WAAS that could well mean a LOT of aerodromes.
Now, the resources required to monitor all this airspace. Remember what I posted about a FS in an ADS-B world. Now, the way TAAATS works these people do not have to be based in the regional units like they used to. A shame for the local communities, note the article by Mac Job. The system is there to re-create a service for IFR outside controlled airspace without requiring the CONTROL of an ATC. Better than CAGR, safer than a UNICOM or a CAGR. Only need 28 consoles Aus wide. Unique frequency in each one and an ADS-B monitor just to see the traffic. Not a separation service but definitely a better service than just a radio and a strip of paper.
This is all big picture stuff, all enabled by ADS-B. Dick, you managed to get rid of FS because of the limiting service units and a bit of arm tieing and reduction of service and well you know more about this than me. ADS-B could save AirServices money by actually going back to providing a service that doesn't need the level of training required for even an enroute controller. A service that is happy to deal with GA VFR, IFR and RPT out in the GAFA and could provide a traffic INFORMATION service. Not a CONTROL service. And the beauty of it? GA PVT VFR doesn't have to talk to them. Just as long as they have the ADS-B OUT on it does the same thing as reporting in every half an hour.
AirServices just want to see everyone in a specified parcel of airspace. They do not need to talk to everyone, or everyone talk to them. Although they woul like you to be listening on THE appropriate frequency. This is the very basic of premises that show there is no benefit for GA drivers and who has to pay for it to start it off. For future airframe purchases it matters not. Just right now to get it all started needs some understanding from both sides of the fence.
I am very disappointed there are still people that cling to the utopia they think they created for themselves in 1991. Poor Airmanship!
Anyway, that's my idea of the best use of resources. It's way past my bedtime...again!
Mr Smith-
It's all about getting VFR aircraft back into ATS system as they were before Feb 91.
I suggest everyone sit down with a cuppa and read Mac Job's article in the current Flight Safety, "Air Traffic Services, a goodly heritage" Study the history.
The crash of the Stinson in 1937 and the ensuing
Nation-wide adverse publicity and the promise of the Minister that "beacons would shortly be installed" resulted in numbers of 'Aeradio' stations being established as a matter of urgency. Pending the commisioning of the radio range beacons, they were equipped with Bellini-Tosi direction finding aerials to provide bearings to aircraft on request.
The proposed radio ranges would be German-designed Lorenz transmitters operating free of interference on 33mc, then regarded as ultra-high frequency. Yet, despite pressure by pilots, the airlines and the aviation press, citing the dangers of maintaining schedules in bad weather, they were not operational when the Kyeema crashed. The reason? Protracted government haggling over the price and availability of a suitable aircraft to test and calibrate them
The proposed radio ranges would be German-designed Lorenz transmitters operating free of interference on 33mc, then regarded as ultra-high frequency. Yet, despite pressure by pilots, the airlines and the aviation press, citing the dangers of maintaining schedules in bad weather, they were not operational when the Kyeema crashed. The reason? Protracted government haggling over the price and availability of a suitable aircraft to test and calibrate them
VFR back in the system, how about VFR actually being seen by the system. Exactly the same way that PRIMARY radar does a hard paint and SSR receives a signal after interogation of a transponder. ADS-B is just another modeS transponder that doesn't need as much ground infrastructure. SDDs last post before cleanout said as much.
I have allways feared that the economic rationalists where operating a perverse study on aviation safety by cutting out systems until there actually was an accident that could be attributable to the system. Then, just add that level of safety required and then they would finally arrive at "Affordable Safety"
Safety despite of the system rather than because of it!
Mr Smith, you still do not know how much damage you did by championing NAS in Australia. HISTORY, the US devised a system that was suitable for the environment that evolved for their country. A country as vast as Australia yet is densly populated for much of it's landmass. A country of 10 times the taxable population to afford infrastructure to service that environment. We simply cannot afford the radar infrastructure to give that level of service. As desireable as it is to have that type of service, the cost is prohibitive! ADS-B gives AirServices that possibility to at least put a service in where it would be useful, like those ten regional aerodromes and a few more units over in WA to actually provide a service to those FIFO charters that are bordering on RPT like frequency in RPT standard jet aircraft for a start.
I tender the near miss at Olympic Dam a few years ago as an incident that would have been avoided by ADS-B. The numerous incidents of RPT going head to head with GA at regional aerodromes after a straight in approach. A near miss between two RPT near Mount Isa after a breakdown in procedural separation. granted that was a long time ago and the Upper Airspace rollout is directly aimed at providing for preventing that type of incident.
Mr Smith, you have regularly grumbled about procedural standards at Hamilton Island causing all sorts of problems for helicopters and other aircraft having to hold at the boundary. The only way to fix that problem is to install a terminal SSR and have an approach controller tasked to the zone. Or, you could put a cheap ADS-B receiver on top of the tower.
No one has been killed because of the reduction in service, maybe true. I can think of a story on Australian Story that could well refute that. maybe it was a SAR problem, maybe it was the relaxation of the rules on reporting procedures. Either way, a pilot died a long time after the crash. The ELT was damage in the crash. The panacia? PLBs. This hasn't much to do with ADS-B but more to do with the demise of FS units. You know them, they used to be called 'Aeradio' Already said my bit about them. We could have had the best system in the world if we still had FS.(like they still do in the US well looking like being privatised but still a FS just the same)
FS with ADS-B monitors to MONITOR traffic outside controlled airspace and ATC using ADS-B CONTROLLING airspace in the GAFA in Controlled Airspace. A two level model, how simple was that? I can guarantee that ADS-B receivers will appear at every aerodrome that has an RPT service bigger than a Dash and eventually, coverage at every aerodrome with a published approach. Now, if we ever get WAAS that could well mean a LOT of aerodromes.
Now, the resources required to monitor all this airspace. Remember what I posted about a FS in an ADS-B world. Now, the way TAAATS works these people do not have to be based in the regional units like they used to. A shame for the local communities, note the article by Mac Job. The system is there to re-create a service for IFR outside controlled airspace without requiring the CONTROL of an ATC. Better than CAGR, safer than a UNICOM or a CAGR. Only need 28 consoles Aus wide. Unique frequency in each one and an ADS-B monitor just to see the traffic. Not a separation service but definitely a better service than just a radio and a strip of paper.
This is all big picture stuff, all enabled by ADS-B. Dick, you managed to get rid of FS because of the limiting service units and a bit of arm tieing and reduction of service and well you know more about this than me. ADS-B could save AirServices money by actually going back to providing a service that doesn't need the level of training required for even an enroute controller. A service that is happy to deal with GA VFR, IFR and RPT out in the GAFA and could provide a traffic INFORMATION service. Not a CONTROL service. And the beauty of it? GA PVT VFR doesn't have to talk to them. Just as long as they have the ADS-B OUT on it does the same thing as reporting in every half an hour.
AirServices just want to see everyone in a specified parcel of airspace. They do not need to talk to everyone, or everyone talk to them. Although they woul like you to be listening on THE appropriate frequency. This is the very basic of premises that show there is no benefit for GA drivers and who has to pay for it to start it off. For future airframe purchases it matters not. Just right now to get it all started needs some understanding from both sides of the fence.
I am very disappointed there are still people that cling to the utopia they think they created for themselves in 1991. Poor Airmanship!
Anyway, that's my idea of the best use of resources. It's way past my bedtime...again!
Great post OZBUS ...
If you read some of my posts over the years, you'll see that I've always been a supporter of the " you're either in or you're out" airspace model ... if "you're in, he looks after you ... if you're "out" he looks after you. How simple was that ?
You bring up an interesting point too ... with all the added surveillance, what is the ATC manpower call on that? Maybe it's nil ... but I'd like to know ... especially as we can't manpower what we've got now!
If you read some of my posts over the years, you'll see that I've always been a supporter of the " you're either in or you're out" airspace model ... if "you're in, he looks after you ... if you're "out" he looks after you. How simple was that ?
You bring up an interesting point too ... with all the added surveillance, what is the ATC manpower call on that? Maybe it's nil ... but I'd like to know ... especially as we can't manpower what we've got now!
.. the depth of understanding of how 'it should be' in the future is most heartening 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
OZBUS
.
I have asked TW where the post (think it was yours) that had the links including the VOLKSLOGGER.
.
Any chance you can re post it?
.
Ta
Post restored.
Tail Wheel
.
I have asked TW where the post (think it was yours) that had the links including the VOLKSLOGGER.
.
Any chance you can re post it?
.
Ta
Post restored.
Tail Wheel
VOLKSLOGGER.DE
Need to get bablefish happening to translate from German.
to
prices are all there in Euro.
Becker-Avionics.de
These guys say that they support ADS-B but not as specific as the volkslogger. The site also has minor modification approvals for over 400types.
FunkWerk
I think you already know these guys.
Need to get bablefish happening to translate from German.
ADS-B ready durch Direct-GPS NMEA-Interface, kein weiterer Adapter erforderlich
ADS-B ready by Direct GPS NMEA interface, no further adapter necessarily
Becker-Avionics.de
These guys say that they support ADS-B but not as specific as the volkslogger. The site also has minor modification approvals for over 400types.
FunkWerk
I think you already know these guys.