Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Now I'm confused (but confess that I'm easily confused).
E airspace to circuit height in RADAR range can't work apparently, because there aren't enough controllers to monitor traffic at the necessary screen resolution. We use some other technology to capture and provide RADAR-like information over a greater area than covered by RADAR, and someone's now going to be looking at it?
Is the concept that it won't be ATC/FIS looking at all those ASDB paints OCTA, but 'heavy/medium' metal in the area? For example, will the RPT tracking into / taxiing for departure from Upper Kumbukta West, or Hamilton Island, be assuming that ADSB is providing data on all aircraft in the area, and thereby further reducing the risk of a mid-air?
I comprehend the risks posed by 'head to head' and other potential collision situations. But mid-airs aren't what killed all the people in the tragedies I listed above.
Don’t get me wrong: as a passenger I don't want to die in a mid-air. But I don't want to die at all, and there are lots of ways to die in an aircraft accident. The data show that I'm far, far more likely to be killed by controlled flight into terrain OCTA, than in a mid-air collision. So, in the allocation of finite safety resources, it would be an odd outcome if more and more resources were focussed on collision avoidance, at the expense of reducing the risk of CFIT OCTA.
How does ADSB reduce the risk of my being killed by CFIT OCTA? If the benefit of ADSB is a 'TSO146 Nav system' that tells the pilot there is a rock in front of them, into which they are about to collide, then let's focus on subsidising TSO146 nav systems, or some other technology to prevent aircraft hitting rocks.
Walk me through what would have been different at, say, Lockhart River, Benalla and Mount Hotham, post-ADSB.
I would really, really like specifics on this, not generalities. For example, 'At 0852 and 32 seconds, when the aircraft went below the published approach profile, an alarm would have gone off in [insert location of alarm ] because the [insert system] would have detected that the broadcast ADSB position was below the published approach profile. The [insert position of the person who would have responded to the alarm] would then have [insert the action that the person would have taken], and all of this would have happened within [insert period].
E airspace to circuit height in RADAR range can't work apparently, because there aren't enough controllers to monitor traffic at the necessary screen resolution. We use some other technology to capture and provide RADAR-like information over a greater area than covered by RADAR, and someone's now going to be looking at it?
Is the concept that it won't be ATC/FIS looking at all those ASDB paints OCTA, but 'heavy/medium' metal in the area? For example, will the RPT tracking into / taxiing for departure from Upper Kumbukta West, or Hamilton Island, be assuming that ADSB is providing data on all aircraft in the area, and thereby further reducing the risk of a mid-air?
I comprehend the risks posed by 'head to head' and other potential collision situations. But mid-airs aren't what killed all the people in the tragedies I listed above.
Don’t get me wrong: as a passenger I don't want to die in a mid-air. But I don't want to die at all, and there are lots of ways to die in an aircraft accident. The data show that I'm far, far more likely to be killed by controlled flight into terrain OCTA, than in a mid-air collision. So, in the allocation of finite safety resources, it would be an odd outcome if more and more resources were focussed on collision avoidance, at the expense of reducing the risk of CFIT OCTA.
How does ADSB reduce the risk of my being killed by CFIT OCTA? If the benefit of ADSB is a 'TSO146 Nav system' that tells the pilot there is a rock in front of them, into which they are about to collide, then let's focus on subsidising TSO146 nav systems, or some other technology to prevent aircraft hitting rocks.
Walk me through what would have been different at, say, Lockhart River, Benalla and Mount Hotham, post-ADSB.
I would really, really like specifics on this, not generalities. For example, 'At 0852 and 32 seconds, when the aircraft went below the published approach profile, an alarm would have gone off in [insert location of alarm ] because the [insert system] would have detected that the broadcast ADSB position was below the published approach profile. The [insert position of the person who would have responded to the alarm] would then have [insert the action that the person would have taken], and all of this would have happened within [insert period].
Creampuff, the operative word is incident, an almost, gee that was close, why doesn't the silly bugger look out/listen to radio/follow the rules type of incident.
I had wrote a fair bit on BLA. However, I do not have the experience to have an informed opinion on whether ADS-B to low levels around BLA combined with alerts within TAAATS that would have made a difference.
My belief is. Where the accident happened was well outside controlled airspace. However, a characteristic of the NAS is to eventually provide Class E down to the FAF. that implies a responsibility of ATC to monitor the progress of IFR aircraft. If class E and ADS-B to low level and the staff to monitor progress and no assumptions of pilot intention then ATC would have a responsibility to question the pilot and would have the tools to KNOW the pilot was tracking for a specific waypoint and was at the wrong height.
I had wrote a fair bit on BLA. However, I do not have the experience to have an informed opinion on whether ADS-B to low levels around BLA combined with alerts within TAAATS that would have made a difference.
My belief is. Where the accident happened was well outside controlled airspace. However, a characteristic of the NAS is to eventually provide Class E down to the FAF. that implies a responsibility of ATC to monitor the progress of IFR aircraft. If class E and ADS-B to low level and the staff to monitor progress and no assumptions of pilot intention then ATC would have a responsibility to question the pilot and would have the tools to KNOW the pilot was tracking for a specific waypoint and was at the wrong height.
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver, I’ve heard all this rubbish before – i.e. the claim that the US has more radar coverage and that means we can’t have the advantages of NAS. I refer to your statement:
I will ask again. Why can’t we at least give a proper service where we have good radar coverage between Launceston and Cairns? At the present time, if a pilot makes an error (say, at a place like Benalla or Proserpine) the aircraft simply spears into the mountain top because the air traffic controller has no responsibility.
If the airspace was Class E, there is an official “hand over” from the ATC to the pilot – that is when the pilot either cancels IFR or reports visual. Until that time, the alarm system in the Centre is enabled so that pilots do not fly below the legal minimum safe altitude. At least it is a back up for the pilot and enhanced ground proximity warning system.
You probably do not know that I support the North American system – not just the US system. Canada has vast amounts of airspace without radar, just like Australia, but gives a Class E service to low levels to improve safety.
What I laugh about here is people claiming that ADS-B will be the panacea to all problems, whilst we don’t even use the radar properly now!
There is no doubt in the minds of most people that the North American airspace system is one of the best in the world. This is because there is a vast amount of experience and it is a wealthy society – just as ours. The airspace is allocated objectively using a scientific basis (Creampuff would love this), not on “how it was done in the past.”
You are not commenting on the fact that Proserpine still has “upside down” airspace – i.e. Class C in the low risk airspace above, and dropping down into Class G “black hole” dirt road airspace where you actually need a service.
We simply cannot afford the radar infrastructure to give that level of service.
If the airspace was Class E, there is an official “hand over” from the ATC to the pilot – that is when the pilot either cancels IFR or reports visual. Until that time, the alarm system in the Centre is enabled so that pilots do not fly below the legal minimum safe altitude. At least it is a back up for the pilot and enhanced ground proximity warning system.
You probably do not know that I support the North American system – not just the US system. Canada has vast amounts of airspace without radar, just like Australia, but gives a Class E service to low levels to improve safety.
What I laugh about here is people claiming that ADS-B will be the panacea to all problems, whilst we don’t even use the radar properly now!
There is no doubt in the minds of most people that the North American airspace system is one of the best in the world. This is because there is a vast amount of experience and it is a wealthy society – just as ours. The airspace is allocated objectively using a scientific basis (Creampuff would love this), not on “how it was done in the past.”
You are not commenting on the fact that Proserpine still has “upside down” airspace – i.e. Class C in the low risk airspace above, and dropping down into Class G “black hole” dirt road airspace where you actually need a service.
Thread Starter
Creampuff, you are absolutely spot on. The ADS-B proponents claim that we can’t possibly give a Class E service at low levels where we have good radar coverage because the controllers’ screens are set on too large a scale, or there are not enough controllers. However if we install ADS-B, it is all suddenly supposed to work.
Yes, it is all a giant con. If you can’t use the existing radar properly, how can you possibly use ADS-B?
Yes, it is all a giant con. If you can’t use the existing radar properly, how can you possibly use ADS-B?
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 says ATC's have to use the OCTA surveillance (if the traffic density/complexity and other assessment criteria do not warrant an ATC service)?
.
Anyway, you've got it covered ... tis all a con you say
.
.... if you say so!
.
Anyway, you've got it covered ... tis all a con you say
.
.... if you say so!
Thread Starter
Those interested in ADS-B should look at the Wikipedia site here - especially the sections under “System design considerations of ADS-B” and “Public access to ADS-B.”
Note how Wikipedia mentions the situation that the system can be easily spoofed, and also how there will be no privacy for anyone flying with this system in the future.
I wonder if typical motorists would object if the Government insisted that they have a transponder in their Toyota so the position of everywhere they drive each weekend can be monitored exactly!
Note how Wikipedia mentions the situation that the system can be easily spoofed, and also how there will be no privacy for anyone flying with this system in the future.
I wonder if typical motorists would object if the Government insisted that they have a transponder in their Toyota so the position of everywhere they drive each weekend can be monitored exactly!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question:
It was mentioned earlier (and I think, to borrow a phrase, "I'm sure you all agree") that glideslope information would be far more useful than traffic info- would've possibly prevented many of the prangs mentioned.
How hard would it be (if the ADS-B fitout goes ahead) to use the GPS component of ADS-B to provide glideslope? If the hardware is in the suite, isnt it just software?
It was mentioned earlier (and I think, to borrow a phrase, "I'm sure you all agree") that glideslope information would be far more useful than traffic info- would've possibly prevented many of the prangs mentioned.
How hard would it be (if the ADS-B fitout goes ahead) to use the GPS component of ADS-B to provide glideslope? If the hardware is in the suite, isnt it just software?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
We have less than 800 'working' controllers, and around 20 manned towers. Even if you believed ASA our numbers are under 900.
America has depending on who you believe, the FAA or NATCA, somewhere between 11-14 000 and pretty much nationwide surveillance coverage for a similar geographic size to Australia.
Their system is NOT user pays , though the move is towards this.
As I have discussed on this forum with Bob M. , there is nothing in it for controllers if we have more or less staff. The way most of us feel now, redundancy would be a blessing.
If you are willing to commit us to a non-user pays environment, nationwide radar coverage, and a 11-1400 % increase in controllers I don't see that we can't have what the US has.
The benefit of ADS-B is ,when in coverage, that we will able to alert the pilots that we can 'see' aircraft in their area of operations, and resolve conflictions in a quicker way than the current procedural way.
The airlines (user) are paying so, initially, they will get the greater benefit.
We have less than 800 'working' controllers, and around 20 manned towers. Even if you believed ASA our numbers are under 900.
America has depending on who you believe, the FAA or NATCA, somewhere between 11-14 000 and pretty much nationwide surveillance coverage for a similar geographic size to Australia.
Their system is NOT user pays , though the move is towards this.
As I have discussed on this forum with Bob M. , there is nothing in it for controllers if we have more or less staff. The way most of us feel now, redundancy would be a blessing.
If you are willing to commit us to a non-user pays environment, nationwide radar coverage, and a 11-1400 % increase in controllers I don't see that we can't have what the US has.
The benefit of ADS-B is ,when in coverage, that we will able to alert the pilots that we can 'see' aircraft in their area of operations, and resolve conflictions in a quicker way than the current procedural way.
The airlines (user) are paying so, initially, they will get the greater benefit.
Last edited by max1; 21st Jul 2008 at 07:35.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
If you have an e-tag toll-payment card then you are monitored when you use a toll-road.
Whilst the intent is to speed-up traffic when paying tolls, that data can also be used for law-enforcement. me ludd, I could not have done that bank robbery in outer woop-woop because I was on the M4 in Sydney at that time., here are the relevant records.
Then there are the records of where and when credit/debit cards are used, so we are (and have been for quite some time) monitored.
At least with ADSB there actually would be an improvement in safety.
I usually fly VFR and I want to know where other traffic is. I'm a great believer in alerted see-and-avoid.
I wonder if typical motorists would object if the Government insisted that they have a transponder in their Toyota so the position of everywhere they drive each weekend can be monitored exactly!
Whilst the intent is to speed-up traffic when paying tolls, that data can also be used for law-enforcement. me ludd, I could not have done that bank robbery in outer woop-woop because I was on the M4 in Sydney at that time., here are the relevant records.
Then there are the records of where and when credit/debit cards are used, so we are (and have been for quite some time) monitored.
At least with ADSB there actually would be an improvement in safety.
I usually fly VFR and I want to know where other traffic is. I'm a great believer in alerted see-and-avoid.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ferris
A basic GPS data-stream is not very accurate or stable in the vertical axis. For maritime, hiking (and a lot of automobile) units, the raw data is substantially filtered and smoothed and massaged to produce less 'jerkiness' in direction and position., unfortunately, aviation needs accurate data right now, especially on a glide-slope.
So., some form of local augmentation and correction is required (ala WAAS et al) and this also improves the horizontal accuracy.
How hard would it be (if the ADS-B fitout goes ahead) to use the GPS component of ADS-B to provide glideslope? If the hardware is in the suite, isnt it just software?
So., some form of local augmentation and correction is required (ala WAAS et al) and this also improves the horizontal accuracy.
Looks like we are going to have to go over it all again...
Biggles_in_Oz, where have you identified this improvement will be ?
At least with ADSB there actually would be an improvement in safety.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes FB, it looks like you will have to read Scurvy's Opus all over again. Man, this is tiresome.
Biggles; so, we've seen that 1090ES is being adopted as a world standard, and all we would have to do to have precision GPS approaches with glideslope info is have the cheap box/unit at the airfield (insert whichever country location you choose- Benalla, Hotham etc.) which will be providing the ADS-B veil also provide the local correction (ala WAAS)?
Would that provide any safety benefit, FB?
Biggles; so, we've seen that 1090ES is being adopted as a world standard, and all we would have to do to have precision GPS approaches with glideslope info is have the cheap box/unit at the airfield (insert whichever country location you choose- Benalla, Hotham etc.) which will be providing the ADS-B veil also provide the local correction (ala WAAS)?
Would that provide any safety benefit, FB?
I do think your word ‘con’ is a little strong, Dick.
And I’m not concerned if anyone knows where I’m flying.
However, I also think some of the stated benefits of ASDB are over-stated and, even if accurate, I’m not sure why those benefits are something to divert money to.
Nobody has yet taken up my request to:
May I be so bold as to suggest that, perhaps with the exception of Benalla, none of the tragedies I listed would have been avoided if the aircraft had had ASDB functionality? Whether Benalla would have been avoided depends on why the aircraft was where it was.
And the concept of our under-resourced and over-stretched ATC resources monitoring, or responding to alarms triggered by, more aircraft OCTA is, to me, fanciful. (Standby ABC, I’m just going to work out who’s triggered that alarm and work out what frequency they may be on and see if I can give them a call … ooops too late: they’ve just impacted.)
So it seems that the primary benefit is that ‘heavy/medium’ metal OCTA will be able to ‘see’ VFRs in the area.
And that’s only going to work if everyone’s excluded unless they have serviceable ADSB functionality.
Hmmmmmm
And I’m not concerned if anyone knows where I’m flying.
However, I also think some of the stated benefits of ASDB are over-stated and, even if accurate, I’m not sure why those benefits are something to divert money to.
Nobody has yet taken up my request to:
Walk me through what would have been different at, say, Lockhart River, Benalla and Mount Hotham, post-ADSB.
I would really, really like specifics on this, not generalities. For example, 'At 0852 and 32 seconds, when the aircraft went below the published approach profile, an alarm would have gone off in [insert location of alarm ] because the [insert system] would have detected that the broadcast ADSB position was below the published approach profile. The [insert position of the person who would have responded to the alarm] would then have [insert the action that the person would have taken], and all of this would have happened within [insert period].
I would really, really like specifics on this, not generalities. For example, 'At 0852 and 32 seconds, when the aircraft went below the published approach profile, an alarm would have gone off in [insert location of alarm ] because the [insert system] would have detected that the broadcast ADSB position was below the published approach profile. The [insert position of the person who would have responded to the alarm] would then have [insert the action that the person would have taken], and all of this would have happened within [insert period].
And the concept of our under-resourced and over-stretched ATC resources monitoring, or responding to alarms triggered by, more aircraft OCTA is, to me, fanciful. (Standby ABC, I’m just going to work out who’s triggered that alarm and work out what frequency they may be on and see if I can give them a call … ooops too late: they’ve just impacted.)
So it seems that the primary benefit is that ‘heavy/medium’ metal OCTA will be able to ‘see’ VFRs in the area.
And that’s only going to work if everyone’s excluded unless they have serviceable ADSB functionality.
Hmmmmmm
I feel this is going to be a wasted effort, but here goes again anyway ...
Forgetting about the kit for a moment ... that's another issue ...
If we could just knock the "there's no safety benefit idea" on the head first ..
Some Safety Benefits of Surveillance in areas previously un-surveilled:
I'm sure i could go on ....
Forgetting about the kit for a moment ... that's another issue ...
If we could just knock the "there's no safety benefit idea" on the head first ..
Some Safety Benefits of Surveillance in areas previously un-surveilled:
- "Melbourne, ABC ...I've gone into cloud, where am I"
- "ABC, this is Melbourne .... heavy thunderstorms have been reported about 30 miles straight ahead of you"
- "ABC, this is Melbourne, an aircraft has been reported missing in the area about 20 miles west of you, could you divert and provide search assistance"
- "ABC, this is Melbourne, a Military P3 Orion is operating along the coast in your area"
- "Bigshot 26, there appears to be an aircraft operating at low level close to your next turning point ... possibly a crop duster ... callsign is DEF"
- "Melbourne, ABC .. it's getting dark and I think I'm still 50 miles east of Argadagada ... any suggestions?"
I'm sure i could go on ....
Peuce: I agree that all of those services in those circumstances would be fantastic. But you're not seriously suggesting that those services cannot be provided in the absence of ADSB functionality, and, in any case, that those services are promised to be provided, post ADSB?
If today someone VFR calls 'Melbourne Centre' and says 'there's a thunderstorm 30 miles ahead of me I request actual WX for Upper Kumbukta West and Argadagada', what do you think the response is? I gave up trying to contact Flightwatch years ago, and those other folks who provide services on a 'workload permitting' basis seem to have had an ever-increasing workload.
Are you seriously suggesting that, post ASDB, there will be a bunch of people in 'Centre' who will be monitoring and contacting VFRs who have a 'thunderstorm 30 miles ahead', or a 'P3 Orion operating along the coast in your area'?
If today someone VFR calls 'Melbourne Centre' and says 'there's a thunderstorm 30 miles ahead of me I request actual WX for Upper Kumbukta West and Argadagada', what do you think the response is? I gave up trying to contact Flightwatch years ago, and those other folks who provide services on a 'workload permitting' basis seem to have had an ever-increasing workload.
Are you seriously suggesting that, post ASDB, there will be a bunch of people in 'Centre' who will be monitoring and contacting VFRs who have a 'thunderstorm 30 miles ahead', or a 'P3 Orion operating along the coast in your area'?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now how will this work for an ultra light or sport aircraft ??
So it seems that the primary benefit is that ‘heavy/medium’ metal OCTA will be able to ‘see’ VFRs in the area.
Will gliders and sport aircraft get ADSB out ???
So it seems that the primary benefit is that ‘heavy/medium’ metal OCTA will be able to ‘see’ VFRs in the area.
Will gliders and sport aircraft get ADSB out ???
Will gliders and sport aircraft get ADSB out ???
7 Light Sports & Recreational Aviation Views (individuals)
• A considerable number of respondents had not read or had misunderstood the JCP, with objections including:
• Ultralight flyers shouldn’t be expected to fund their own avionics (they would have been eligible for cross industry funding).
• Recreational aviation has never been consulted on this (a number of groups
representing recreational aviation are active participants of ABIT).
• Hang gliders should be exempt (they would be).
• A considerable number of respondents had not read or had misunderstood the JCP, with objections including:
• Ultralight flyers shouldn’t be expected to fund their own avionics (they would have been eligible for cross industry funding).
• Recreational aviation has never been consulted on this (a number of groups
representing recreational aviation are active participants of ABIT).
• Hang gliders should be exempt (they would be).
• One respondent expressed concern about reliance on the US GPS.
T28, do you think they should?
Dick, OK, LL Class E around BLA is 8500. the NPA for BLA starts at 5000ft. How can class E be lowered to 5000ft or lower when radar coverage for that area is marginal at that height. Note-ATSB report and transponder recordings for the accident in question. If there was "perfect" coverage, there would have been a continuous transponder recording from when the Cheyanne left class C airspace right down to the point of impact. Everyone wants better coverage but you gotta give the guys and girls the tools to do the job.
Why are you so determined to make ATC responsible for IFR outside radar coverage? Surely, even you can see that ADS-B represents your best chance to get the same airspace utility for both IFR and VFR as is found in America.
How can I live in the past when I advocate for something that is the future of air traffic management? Am I not allowed to dream at what might have become? Motherhood statments aside, ADS-B is going to happen! Do not get caught up in differing technologies just because the single biggest market is doing it. The whole market is going with ADS-B 1090ES. Dick I can equip an aeroplane with a TRT800 a TSO146aGPS connected to a Funkwerk MFD capable for ADS-B IN and fly in Europe and the device will work, fly to Canada and the device will work, even the US, the device will work. Equip that aeroplane with UAT and try the same thing. The US and a training operation in China, lots of places there. UAT will not work in Canada or Mexico. It will not work in Russia or Sweden.
What you DO with your tools is the measure of your ability.
Back to YBLA for one bit. ADS-B facilitates the ability of AirServices to supply a surveillance service for IFR down to the ground from a remote facility, what ever that facility may be called! With proper fitment that facility is able to supply a separation service to ALL aircraft in that controlled airspace. With proper fitment that facility will be able to monitor movements and supply navigation advice as well as terrain awareness advisories to all aircraft as needed.
No amount of posturing is going to change this outcome. The only change will be a delay which will force AirServices to refurbish/replace it's SSR facilities. ADS-B will still go ahead with the equipment as currently supplied. It will still go ahead with regional aerodrome installations. However, no money will be available for GA fitment. The customer will still be charged full fees until the last SSR is turned off in the 2015-2027 period. No one gets a cost benefit and everyone pays. AirServices still get their safety benefit with state of the art equipment. I still get my ADS-B"IN" because I want it. I still get my GPS because I want it! you lot that want to still fly around in dirt road can stay there. Just stay right away from my airspace! Class E right down to 1200ft just like the US, sorry about that!
Dick, OK, LL Class E around BLA is 8500. the NPA for BLA starts at 5000ft. How can class E be lowered to 5000ft or lower when radar coverage for that area is marginal at that height. Note-ATSB report and transponder recordings for the accident in question. If there was "perfect" coverage, there would have been a continuous transponder recording from when the Cheyanne left class C airspace right down to the point of impact. Everyone wants better coverage but you gotta give the guys and girls the tools to do the job.
Why are you so determined to make ATC responsible for IFR outside radar coverage? Surely, even you can see that ADS-B represents your best chance to get the same airspace utility for both IFR and VFR as is found in America.
How can I live in the past when I advocate for something that is the future of air traffic management? Am I not allowed to dream at what might have become? Motherhood statments aside, ADS-B is going to happen! Do not get caught up in differing technologies just because the single biggest market is doing it. The whole market is going with ADS-B 1090ES. Dick I can equip an aeroplane with a TRT800 a TSO146aGPS connected to a Funkwerk MFD capable for ADS-B IN and fly in Europe and the device will work, fly to Canada and the device will work, even the US, the device will work. Equip that aeroplane with UAT and try the same thing. The US and a training operation in China, lots of places there. UAT will not work in Canada or Mexico. It will not work in Russia or Sweden.
What you DO with your tools is the measure of your ability.
Back to YBLA for one bit. ADS-B facilitates the ability of AirServices to supply a surveillance service for IFR down to the ground from a remote facility, what ever that facility may be called! With proper fitment that facility is able to supply a separation service to ALL aircraft in that controlled airspace. With proper fitment that facility will be able to monitor movements and supply navigation advice as well as terrain awareness advisories to all aircraft as needed.
No amount of posturing is going to change this outcome. The only change will be a delay which will force AirServices to refurbish/replace it's SSR facilities. ADS-B will still go ahead with the equipment as currently supplied. It will still go ahead with regional aerodrome installations. However, no money will be available for GA fitment. The customer will still be charged full fees until the last SSR is turned off in the 2015-2027 period. No one gets a cost benefit and everyone pays. AirServices still get their safety benefit with state of the art equipment. I still get my ADS-B"IN" because I want it. I still get my GPS because I want it! you lot that want to still fly around in dirt road can stay there. Just stay right away from my airspace! Class E right down to 1200ft just like the US, sorry about that!
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 22nd Jul 2008 at 13:47.