Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Interesting stuff, there SDD.

My reply to Leadsled's thought provoking post- ADS-B is the start of something very big. At first it will be the UAP to enable full coverage where there has never been before above FL300. As SDD has pointed and as a number of us on his previous thread advertising the JCP pointed out when Bourke and Longreach went active. It was the first time that en-route surveillance has been ever provided at ground level at those sites.

UAP at first, SSR sites, ten regionals and definitely WA fifo sites. Like building the Hume freeway ( A project that has taken my LIFTIME to complete) ADS-B will eventually be rolled out to a very extensive network. Leadsled, this is not going to be a full rollout on day one. However, AirServices needs those transponders in aircraft the same as the government needed modeC transponders in aircraft for the MSSR to see them in en-route airspace back in the 90's. Enough aircraft with 1090ES will enable the changeover from enroute MSSRs and all we need is time to see the network develop.

BASI made a case for alerted see and avoid. As SDD produced in his post. Traffic Information in Class E or G Enroute MSSR isn't perfect around the J-curve at 5000ft AGL. Sooo, it's not rocket science!

[T28D]

Ozbusdriver so if the network won't be there day one what of the mystical subsidy, also not there day one !!! or maybe not at all !!!!!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

T28D , are you refering to the entire network as envisaged by your mate, some 400plus ground receivers or the 28 UAP's or the ten regionals or something else?

Go and have a read of the AirServices info on ADS-B.
The MSSR sites are already being piggybacked with ADS-B receivers. There is already UAP and extra sites in WA going ahead. For Airservices to start off surveillance using ADS-B there has to be a "critical mass" of aircraft fitted with the transponders. For AirServices to start changing over from MSSR to ADS-B in 2012 requires transponders to be already fitted. You run a business, do you wait for the network to be commisioned before you start stocking up on mobile phones that will work on it? If you do, how much market do you lose on day one of operations?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

T28D, it is very simple. Which method do you prefer? The Carrot, or the Stick?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. a mystical sticky carrot ... apparently

[OZBUSDRIVER]

SDD

[T28D]

Actually, the mystical sometime flexible, undefined subsidy.

[Bob Murphie]

And..... the mystical and flexible cost benefit analysis...... the safety case..... plus the undiscovered, enhanced TCASA..... traffic collision avoidance system Australia,.... (that's got a nice regulatory ring to it),.... and the slippery spindoctoring that turns the carrot into GA A010 air nav charges by stealth.

It's just a sticky brown thing with a nebulous bribe.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ABIT12 IPO11
JCP Stakeholder Positions

AIRLINE VIEWS

Stakeholder viewpoints expressed in this section were made by the following organisations:
regional, domestic and international airlines; local and international airline representative
bodies; and professional pilots’ associations.

Without exception, these respondents supported the proposal, including the proposed
timing and cross-industry funding, as well as acknowledging the safety and operational
benefits that will be provided by satellite-based navigation and surveillance.

Additional input included:
• Airservices must guarantee that charges will not be increased to cover the proposed
funding.
• A number of airlines questioned the retention of radars to support Defence operations,
unless Defence pays to keep those radars operational.
• These same airlines requested the development of a Concept of Operations to ensure
that maximum benefit can be obtained from ADS-B and GNSS implementation without
requirements for additional air traffic controllers.
• Regional operators stated that ADS-B should be required at all CTAFs and below
5,000 ft for ALL powered aircraft – “anything less is inadequate”. Other groups
requested protection for all RPT operations with more than 30 seats.
• One respondent in this group stated that any further delay in implementation is
unacceptable.

All parties expressed support for the consultation carried out to date. Note that some other
respondents that had been afforded the same consultation expressed dissatisfaction.

So, I guess we can take that as firm approval from the Q/Jstar Virgin, REX et al! After all these companies are the ones that will have to "pay for the subsidy" Funny way of putting it. They are forgoing any discounts in charges until after full implimentation of ADS-B.

One respondent expressed concern about reliance on the US GPS.

wonder who that was?

From the PVT community there was mixed response. There are people out there who do not want this in their aeroplanes. If the subsidy is there, then on what grounds do they oppose it?

2012 Transponder equipped aircraft.
2014 VHF equipped aircraft.

ABIT12-IP008
Significance of SA Aware GPS for ADS-B

Recognising the wide scale civilian application of GPS, the US President issued a directive
in the year 2000 turning SA off, thus making higher accuracy GPS available to the world. SA has
been turned off now for many years and the USA have committed to it remaining off to the extent that
new generation GPS satellites do not have this feature.

my bolds

the importance of SA Aware is to enable the increased integrity of the ES signal to be 100% available.

These results show clearly that SA aware GPS receiver avionics are desirable because they provide
better availability and provide protection against “bad” constellation geometry periods such as that
experienced in September 2007.

the date mentioned had satellites that were NANUd as unavailable during that time.

FB. Unless you can show proof of your asertions on the fragility of the GNSS, your argument will continue to be ignored. NOTE FB, It is important to understand that for integrity of ADS-B signals for Aircraft Traffic Management to the desired 5nm separation only requires a signal integrity of 1300m (GPS is way inside this) for position. 1300m+1300m+1500m<5nm for ATC en-route separation(hope I got that right) Effectively double your position error add the VFR separation parameters and that gives a buffer if either aircraft changes course or slows down. Enough time for ATC to enact procedures to maintain separation.

WRT life without ADS-B?

ABIT12-IP010
File: GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 1 of 5
The Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group
ADS-B Implementation Team
(ABIT)
19 June, 2008
The next 15 years without ATLAS
Prepared and Presented by Greg Dunstone & Ed Williams, Airservices Australia
1 Introduction
1.1 In June 2006, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local
Government announced that air passenger numbers are expected to double to 228 million
within two decades. The Minister was releasing the report Air passenger movements
through capital city airports to 2025-26 at the Committee for Economic Development of
Australia's (CEDA) 2008 State of the Nation Conference.
1.2 The Minster said “The report's long term predictions pose a fundamental question for both
government and the aviation industry: will Australia be able to cope with the growing
number of people wanting to fly.”
1.3 Predicted traffic growth will continue to place strain on Australia’s Air Traffic Management
system. It should not be assumed that future traffic will be safely and efficiently managed
with existing infrastructure, current airspace classifications and today’s procedures. The
industry needs to be aware that changes will be made, whether or not ATLAS is
implemented.
1.4 If new radars and navaids are commissioned by end 2014 with a 15 year life, then an
opportunity for another subsidy for ADS-B will not occur until about 2029.
1.5 This paper briefly examines a number of issues that will arise during the lifetime of new
enroute radars and new navaids, in the event that ATLAS does not proceed.
SUMMARY
This paper attempts to set out possible implications for Air Traffic Management in
Australia, if ATLAS is not implemented from mid-2012 as proposed in the 2007
Joint Consultation Paper. The paper is based on known current and near term
constraints and requirements.

ABIT12-IP010
GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 2 of 5
2 Navigation
2.1 Airservices operates a network of ground navigation aids (NDB, VOR and DME – Nav Aids)
which provide guidance along fixed routes, support terminal area arrival procedures, nonprecision
approach procedures and guidance to intercept the ILS. The network is old, well
past its design life; reliability and maintainability are problematic; the Nav Aids are in need
of immediate replacement. The replacement value of the network is approximately $200M.
This cost is born by industry through air navigation charges.
2.2 Australia has accrued more than a decade of successful GPS experience. GPS was approved
for Oceanic and En-Route primary means navigation in 1995; Terminal and NPA
supplementary means in 1998 and Terminal and NPA Primary means in March 2006. There
are some 550 GPS Non Precision Approach Procedures published.
2.3 Jet and larger regional aircraft use a navigation suite comprising Flight Management
System (FMS) supported by GPS and/or Inertial to provide Area Navigation capability; not
just route navigation. Modern jet aircraft conduct all oceanic, en route, terminal and NPA
operations using guidance from the navigation suite. Nav Aids are used to cross check the
navigation.
2.4 Smaller regional, charter and GA aircraft use a mixture of GPS (primary means oceanic and
en route; supplementary means terminal and NPA) and Nav Aid navigation.
2.5 Without the ATLAS Proposal, there is no driver to cause these smaller aircraft to rapidly
transition to GPS as the primary means of navigation.
2.6 While there are significant numbers of aircraft NOT suitably equipped for primary means
GPS navigation, there will be a requirement to keep existing Nav Aid service available for
these aircraft. The costs of replacing and subsequently maintaining the Nav Aids is
recovered from industry through navigation charges.
2.7 ICAO has set direction for the rapid implementation of Area Navigation using the
Performance Based Navigation (PBN) concept and Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV).
PBN. The large geographic area and small aviation population makes GPS the only cost
viable technology to support PBN implementation in Australia.
2.8 Jet and larger Regional aircraft will continue their transition to PBN using GPS as the
primary means of navigation. They will require only a small set of Nav Aids as a
contingency backup. This will accelerate as increasing fuel price makes new fuel efficient
aircraft attractive compared to older fuel inefficient aircraft.
2.9 Legacy aircraft, smaller regional, charter and GA will slowly migrate to primary means GPS
as aircraft are renewed and as individual organisations recognise the benefits. This will be a
protracted transition during which both the old and new systems will operate in parallel
with the attendant dual costs.
2.10 There will be increasing pressure from operators who do not use Nav Aids to have the
costs associated with the non backup Nav Aids to be removed from navigation charges
levied from them. Without ATLAS, the small aircraft can expect to shoulder an increasing
proportion of the cost of the non backup Nav Aids. Thus the bulk of the cost of the Nav Aid
service will be recovered from the legacy and smaller aircraft.
2.11 Without ATLAS, fitment of avionics to comply with requirements of PBN will be borne by
the aircraft owner.
ABIT12-IP010
GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 3 of 5
2.12 Accommodating mixed navigation capability (GPS and Nav Aids) will preclude full utilisation
of the capabilities of modern aircraft. The greater the disparity between the most and least
capable aircraft, the greater the greater the limitations. This will have adverse effect on the
safety, environmental and economic performance of operations. It can be expected that
owners of the more capable aircraft will not accept this limitation and will press for priority
over less capable aircraft; alternatively, there may be pressure for the exclusion of less
capable aircraft.
3 Radars
3.1 To ensure service continuity, in the very near future, Airservices will need to place orders
for 11 replacement enroute radars. It must be remembered that the planning for the
number and location of the existing enroute radars was done almost 20 years ago, and was
based on traffic predictions made in the late 1980s. Since the existing enroute radars were
commissioned, Australia we have seen some dramatic increases in traffic density and
complexity in areas without radar surveillance. These areas also tend to be served largely
by older, smaller aircraft (that are not ADS-B equipped).
3.2 Therefore, it is almost certain that Airservices will need to commission surveillance systems
to maintain safety and efficiency in these areas.
3.3 Additionally, in 2005 the then Minister for Transport & Regional Services directed
Airservices to provide radar approach services at ten additional locations – none of which
support the increased traffic volume & complexity in Western Australia and Queensland.
This will bring Australia’s enroute radar count to well over 20.
3.4 As traffic density increases, the performance of the radar based surveillance system will be
stretched when dealing with Mode A/C transponders. In some airspace it may become
necessary for Mode S transponders1 to be required to operate with Airservices Mode S
radars with the objective of eliminating performance limitations imposed by Mode A/C
legacy technology2.
3.5 Similarly, in regions where it is simply uneconomical to introduce radar surveillance, the
regulator may need to change airspace classification or introduce other measures to
protect the safety of larger aircraft.
4 GA Fleet transponders
4.1 The GA fleet aircraft fleet includes a large number of aged ATC transponders approaching
end of life. If ATLAS does not proceed, it is likely that these transponders will need to be
replaced at the owners expense. Increased transponder performance monitoring is
expected to be deployed as traffic increases.
4.2 As traffic increases CASA may need to review our implementation of the international ICAO
Annex 6 recommendations that essentially requires all aircraft sharing airspace with TCAS
equipped aircraft to have ATC transponders, and these will need to be fitted at owners
expense (see Appendix A for ICAO 6 extract)
5 ASMGCS operations
1 All TCAS II capable aircraft have Mode S transponders
2 ADS-B can overcome these performance limitations
ABIT12-IP010
GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 4 of 5
5.1 As explained in ABIT11 WP3, modern ASMGCS systems work much more efficiently when
all aircraft operate with Mode S transponders.
5.2 As demonstrated in the UK, as traffic movements increase in some areas it may become
necessary to ensure that all aircraft operate with Mode S transponders and that mode A/C
transponders are phased out.
6 ADS-B
6.1 Increasing traffic will require efficiency improvements – or access restrictions – to maintain
safety. When fully commissioned, Airservices’ Upper Airspace Program (UAP) will go a long
way to improving safety for equipped aircraft, particularly those traversing the country at
higher levels, through enhanced surveillance and access to surveillance safety nets.
6.2 To further improve safety and to maximise efficiency benefits available through reduced
separation, ADS-B equipment may be required before an aircraft will be cleared to operate
in certain areas (for example, upper airspace across the continent).
6.3 If any future ADS-B requirements are introduced after Airservices has committed to radar
and navaid replacement, there will be no savings available to support aircraft affected by
these requirements, as proposed by ATLAS. It is most likely that more traditional
management of mandates would apply, namely funding by aircraft owners.
7 Environmental pressures
7.1 Compounding pressures on the Australian ATM system over the coming 20 years will be
increasing concerns about aviation’s impact on the environment and new emissions levies
burdening an airline industry already struggling with soaring fuel prices.
7.2 Unequipped aircraft will impose efficiency costs on equipped aircraft since reduced
separation standards will not be applicable to aircraft pairs when one aircraft is not
equipped. Non optimal flight levels and routes will result despite operational priority being
provided to equipped aircraft.
7.3 Many of the key applications that are being developed to address these concerns are
centred on ADS-B. ADS-B based Airborne Separation Assistance Systems (ASAS) are an
early step in enabling aircraft to fly closer to their most efficient trajectory. Unequipped
aircraft will reduce the effectiveness of ASAS, thereby putting added pressure on regulators
to increase airspace that can only be accessed by ADS-B equipped aircraft.
8 Recommendation
8.1 It is recommended that members of ABIT:
a) Note the contents of this paper, and
b) Consider some of the possible changes that may required to the ATM system.
==== END ====


ABIT12-IP010
GIT-13_ABIT-12_ IP10_The Aviation Environment without ATLAS.doc Page 5 of 5
Appendix A
Extract from ICAO Annex 6
6.13 Aeroplanes required to be equipped with a
pressure-altitude reporting transponder
6.13.1 From 1 January 2003, unless exempted by the
appropriate authorities, all aeroplanes shall be equipped with a
pressure-altitude reporting transponder which operates in
accordance with the relevant provisions of Annex 10,
Volume IV.
6.13.2 Recommendation.— All aeroplanes should be
equipped with a pressure-altitude reporting transponder which
operates in accordance with the relevant provisions of
Annex 10, Volume IV.
Note.— The provisions in 6.13.1 and 6.13.2 are intended to
support the effectiveness of ACAS as well as to improve
effectiveness of air traffic services. Effective dates for carriage
requirements of ACAS are contained in Annex 6, Part I, 6.18.1
and 6.18.2. 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. To this end, exemptions from the
carriage requirement for pressure-altitude reporting transponders
could be given by designating airspace where such
carriage is not required.

Sorry about the long cut and paste.(This stuff isn't as yet available on the net) Not only NAVAIDS but extra SSR and still the requirment to conform with ICAO at user expense. note the bit about smaller aircraft users being burdened with the cost of maintaining the NAVAID network as the larger users transition to satellite based nav and demand cost benefits.

I hope there are some people in CB that are reading this. I say to them, for Gawd sake do not listen to Smith, keep him away from the Minister. He really doesn't know everything about this system. If you listen to him you will relegate Australia to 2027 before another opportunity arises to enable the changeover to ADS-B. Even though the UAP will allow Airline compatability with the ICAO requirments for 2015. Legacy will require the purchase of replacement SSR numbering in their twenties at an individual cost of some $120,000,000.00 and replacement of all ground based navaids at a cost on in excess of $200,000,000.00.

If Smith has his way there will be added expense of maintaining the current equipment whilst still requiring to upgrade to ADS-B. If the oportunity is not grasped now it will cost many millions of dollars of REAL money. Not accrued savings of accounts derived expenses carried forward from the previous financial year multiplied twentry times to come up with an imaginery saving.

It is going to cost the government in excess of $24,000,000,000.00 if you listen to Smith! Who is going to pay for that!

[Jabawocky]

Quote:
One respondent expressed concern about reliance on the US GPS.
wonder who that was?

I can think of a few possibilities...... care to drop names? (Assuming its someone with influence, political or commercial, not a mere omeba in the aviation world like myself) I reckon the Thales salesman is out there somewhere....

J

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.... exactly OZBUS
.
... there are only a few (literally) dinosaurs who refuse to get it!
.
... if this does not go ahead, there will be one person only responsible for that
.
The thread title and his musings within speaks loudly to that end!

[Flying Binghi]

Can I take it FB is me ?

Extract from OZBUSDRIVER post -

FB. Unless you can show proof of your asertions on the fragility of the GNSS, your argument will continue to be ignored. NOTE FB, It is important to understand that for integrity of ADS-B signals for Aircraft Traffic Management to the desired 5nm separation only requires a signal integrity of 1300m (GPS is way inside this) for position. 1300m+1300m+1500m<5nm for ATC en-route separation(hope I got that right) Effectively double your position error add the VFR separation parameters and that gives a buffer if either aircraft changes course or slows down. Enough time for ATC to enact procedures to maintain separation.

OZBUSDRIVER... the GPS guided Buzz Bomb scenario certainly created a lot of hysteria, for some reason or another...

... as theres been no real rebutal, I'll just sit back and watch for a bit

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Flying Binghi, you haven't proved your case! Your scenario isn't credible. There is no need for a rebuttal if there is nothing to rebutt!

How can anyone argue a case against if you haven't provided a credible argument. You have to prove an attack on the owner of the system will justify the owner to deny availabilty of the GNSS to the planet. You have to realise there are serious consequences to such an action. There is a mob called NORAD that has been tasked to track everything bigger than a pencil both within and without airspace around the US and Canada. So unless you have a stealthy device your attack is doomed before you begin. In fact, you would probably be the recipient of an attack guided by the very same system you wish to shut down.In either case.... This has no bearing on the argument for ADS-B in Australia.

There is no argument, and you remain on my exclude list!

[CaptainMidnight]

Before someone claims a conspiracy theory with this stuff not being publically available - it is:

ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT)

And I don't know why some of the the monkeys keep getting fed peanuts. Fanatics, those with obsessions and those with fixed opinions will not be swayed by any evidence, expert advice or any argument presented.

However those not in one or more of those categories may hopefully learn something and form their own opinion ......... which is why we keep posting

[Flying Binghi]

Flying Binghi, you haven't proved your case! Your scenario isn't credible. There is no need for a rebuttal if there is nothing to rebutt!

How can anyone argue a case against if you haven't provided a credible argument. You have to prove an attack on the owner of the system will justify the owner to deny availabilty of the GNSS to the planet. You have to realise there are serious consequences to such an action. There is a mob called NORAD that has been tasked to track everything bigger than a pencil both within and without airspace around the US and Canada. So unless you have a stealthy device your attack is doomed before you begin. In fact, you would probably be the recipient of an attack guided by the very same system you wish to shut down.In either case.... This has no bearing on the argument for ADS-B in Australia.

There is no argument, and you remain on my exclude list!

Hmmm... miss-represented again

...Might pay to read some of my posts OZBUSDRIVER

[Flying Binghi]

Before someone claims a conspiracy theory with this stuff not being publically available - it is:

ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT)

And I don't know why some of the the monkeys here keep getting fed peanuts. Fanatics, those with obsessions and those with fixed opinions will not be swayed by any evidence, expert advice or any argument presented.

However those not in one or more of those categories may hopefully learn something and form their own opinion ......... which is why we keep posting

Interesting that you think there might be a conspiracy CaptainMidnight

...monkeys here keep getting fed peanuts. Fanatics... Looks like we have to put up with name calling again


... back to sitting on the fence

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Flying Binghi, you have not proved your case. SA is no longer available.

Your premise is use of GPS is unreliable because you believe the Owner has the ability to "Switch OFF GNSS" because of a terrorist attack using GPS driven UAVs launched from a boat off shore. You have not proved anything!

Your scenario will not result in the shutdown of the GNSS. Nor GLONASS or GALILEO.

[CaptainMidnight]

Don't sit on the fence too long - its painful.

No, I wasn't suggesting a conspiracy - just the opposite.

I was just saying that all the info is available on the net at that link, before someone latched onto an earlier post saying it didn't appear to be, and thinking it was being deliberately hidden

[Bob Murphie]

Stone the crows, Dick gets it in the neck if things don't go your way.

$24,000,000,000.00? (some rounding out obviously), This is the stick you get if you don't accept the carrot is it?

[Jabawocky]

Did you love the section 7 bit, so many responses and so many plagairised copys...... sorry form letters.

Really makes you wonder how the credibility of further inputs from the lighter end of town will be treated.

I think they shot themselves in the foot here!

7

Light Sports & Recreational Aviation Views (individuals)

7.1 By far the majority of responses came from this group. While it is not possible to classify all
of the responses, in general, they can be grouped as follows:

•

Support the proposal without change 3

•

The proposal may be acceptable with changes (various exemptions) 43

•

Do not support the proposal 61

•

Do not support the proposal (form letter response) 59
7.2 Input included:

•

Most objections to the proposal (including from many who rejected the proposal
outright) related only to operations in Class G airspace and at CTAF(R) airports. Many
respondents clearly identified that they were only commenting on the mid-2014
requirements.

•

A significant number of respondents stated that they understand the safety and
operational benefits associated with the proposal and the proposal sounds good, but
they would not support it because they believe the exemptions available for their
operation (particularly gliding and hang-gliding) would be eroded over time.

•

A number of respondents who suggested that all aircraft – including unpowered
aircraft – should be required to be ADS-B equipped.

•

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).