Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tid
I apologise to the mods for the work involved in cleaning the thread, not helped by my calling another an idiot, albeit a quid pro quo. It is a pity some of the valuable wheat was lost when the chaff was blown away.
GPS OFFSETS
To clarify the quote from another, in the interests of all readers understanding the GPS offset:
The GPS offset recommends that VFR aircraft remain one mile RIGHT of the GPS direct track, and IFR remain ON track.
Above 5000' VFR will certainly add/subtract 500' depending on their half circle track bearing. IFR will certainly be at a different height.
So, if all follow the recommendation, there will be 500 or 1000' separation vertically and a minimum of 1 Nm separation laterally between aircraft in opposing directions. Link to the recommendation is available if anyone needs to brush up on their reading.
I apologise to the mods for the work involved in cleaning the thread, not helped by my calling another an idiot, albeit a quid pro quo. It is a pity some of the valuable wheat was lost when the chaff was blown away.
GPS OFFSETS
To clarify the quote from another, in the interests of all readers understanding the GPS offset:
If everyone used the 1 nm offset everyone would still prang. Thanks for letting me know where you are which is somewhere else than where others think you are. Perhaps I'll use the same offset rule if you only let me know what side you will be offsetting, and maybe we all should add or subtract 500' just to be on the safe side.
Above 5000' VFR will certainly add/subtract 500' depending on their half circle track bearing. IFR will certainly be at a different height.
So, if all follow the recommendation, there will be 500 or 1000' separation vertically and a minimum of 1 Nm separation laterally between aircraft in opposing directions. Link to the recommendation is available if anyone needs to brush up on their reading.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mods - I'm uncertain if there are restrictions on posting links - if so, please guide my footsteps (although it is to a safe site) 
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...lotops/gps.pdf
TID EDIT: James, that's fine.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...lotops/gps.pdf
TID EDIT: James, that's fine.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This recommendation is directed at VFR "Pilots who use GPS for navigation", not Pilots who use GPS as an "aid" to navigation. The difference is the qualification to use the particular navaid be it ADF, VOR or GPS.
Yes I know, thread drift, but it needed tidying up.
Yes I know, thread drift, but it needed tidying up.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob
The recommendation provides guidance to - exact words - 'pilots who operate using GPS for navigation' and 'GPS for VFR navigation.'
It does not state they need to be GPS qualified, nor does it indicate whether primary means navigation or just mother's little helper.
Both CASA and Airservices recognise that many many pilots are using handhelds with high accuracy, terrain alert, etc and that they need not necessarily be certified GPS operators.
The instruction is a safety message to any pilot - even those not using GPS - to avoid flying straight down the dotted line.
I think you are splitting hairs.
The recommendation provides guidance to - exact words - 'pilots who operate using GPS for navigation' and 'GPS for VFR navigation.'
It does not state they need to be GPS qualified, nor does it indicate whether primary means navigation or just mother's little helper.
Both CASA and Airservices recognise that many many pilots are using handhelds with high accuracy, terrain alert, etc and that they need not necessarily be certified GPS operators.
The instruction is a safety message to any pilot - even those not using GPS - to avoid flying straight down the dotted line.
I think you are splitting hairs.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess this bloke and CASA are splitting hairs also. The Airservices "recommendation" makes a mockery of people who pay good money to be endorsed on the Navaids and to keep current and the need for flight tests. Remember CASA are The Regulator, and these over-ride some "recommendations by Airservices.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/d-g-gen...ts-cir-me.html
http://www.pprune.org/forums/d-g-gen...ts-cir-me.html
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I pointed out that the advice is an excellent safety item for VFR pilots. You have gone looking for a rebuttal and, sadly, picked the wrong topic.
If you need a second, CASA, reference - try http://casa.gov.au/fsa/2005/aug/34-36.pdf
You will find there that Mike Smith - good guy - provides a CASA flying ops perspective that ACKNOWLEDGES exactly what I stated about many people using GPS for navigating WITHOUT THE NEED TO BE GPS ENDORSED for appch or NVFR. (Edited to add - re-reading this, it is a bit ambiguous, what it is meant to state is that one can fly VFR using GPS without the need to obtain an endorsement as for appch or NVFR)
You may then care to read the CAAP mentioned in Mike's article - try
http://casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/179a_1.pdf
You will note the applicability to day VFR therein (page 21), and also check the table on page 27. Particularly note 'pilot qualifications' on page 28.
I certainly accept CASA is the regulator - so do they and their instruction on VFR navigation acknowledges exactly what is in the earlier information I posted, which from memory began life as an AIP SUP or similar, therefore having been through CASA first.
If you are interested in getting the facts, rather than following me around trying to discredit my posts and/or provoke me, you will find the links above worth a read to increase your knowledge.
If you need a second, CASA, reference - try http://casa.gov.au/fsa/2005/aug/34-36.pdf
You will find there that Mike Smith - good guy - provides a CASA flying ops perspective that ACKNOWLEDGES exactly what I stated about many people using GPS for navigating WITHOUT THE NEED TO BE GPS ENDORSED for appch or NVFR. (Edited to add - re-reading this, it is a bit ambiguous, what it is meant to state is that one can fly VFR using GPS without the need to obtain an endorsement as for appch or NVFR)
You may then care to read the CAAP mentioned in Mike's article - try
http://casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/179a_1.pdf
You will note the applicability to day VFR therein (page 21), and also check the table on page 27. Particularly note 'pilot qualifications' on page 28.
I certainly accept CASA is the regulator - so do they and their instruction on VFR navigation acknowledges exactly what is in the earlier information I posted, which from memory began life as an AIP SUP or similar, therefore having been through CASA first.
If you are interested in getting the facts, rather than following me around trying to discredit my posts and/or provoke me, you will find the links above worth a read to increase your knowledge.
Last edited by james michael; 6th Aug 2008 at 01:27. Reason: Clarity of comment
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This post was noted after your link and my response. It is relevant. You are a sad person to think I use it to provoke or discredit you.
Your links prove nothing that would absolve the pilot from the legal requiurements, but feel free to have the last say.
Your links prove nothing that would absolve the pilot from the legal requiurements, but feel free to have the last say.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You didn't read it, did you 
Go to the CAAP, have a read of page 28, and you will find not only the pilot qual for day VFR (NIL GPS) but the VFR OFFSET advice spelled out by CASA - you know, the one you claimed to be
A pilot abiding by the rules AND the CAAP is not quite in the position you claim of
In fact, the pilot is most law and safety abiding. 
followed by
Hopefully the effort wasted on placing the facts before you is not lost, as it may be of assistance to readers genuinely interested in safe piloting under GPS navigation assistance.
Go to the CAAP, have a read of page 28, and you will find not only the pilot qual for day VFR (NIL GPS) but the VFR OFFSET advice spelled out by CASA - you know, the one you claimed to be
The Airservices "recommendation"
Your links prove nothing that would absolve the pilot from the legal requiurments
You are a sad person to think I use it to provoke or discredit you
but feel free to have the last say
Hopefully the effort wasted on placing the facts before you is not lost, as it may be of assistance to readers genuinely interested in safe piloting under GPS navigation assistance.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR 174D para 19.2 of AIP ENR 1.1 (flight under VFR) and CAO 20.18 appendix !V
VFR pilots must either obtain a visual fix at least every 30 minutes, which makes VFR flight above 3/8 to 4/8 cloud impractical, or obtain a positive fix every 2 hours from navaids if operating above more than SCT cloud. To do this your aircraft must be approved for NVFR/ IFR operations and the pilot must be qualified to use the appropriate navaids.
The fact is, anyone flying any aircraft that is not qualified to use the navaids installed, except to supplement visual navigation is breaking the law. This in particular applies to persons flying VFR on top. So in this case tell me how can you fly 1 nm to the right of track if you are not qualified to use the navaids,
Nothing you have posted absolves the pilot from the legal requirements.
VFR pilots must either obtain a visual fix at least every 30 minutes, which makes VFR flight above 3/8 to 4/8 cloud impractical, or obtain a positive fix every 2 hours from navaids if operating above more than SCT cloud. To do this your aircraft must be approved for NVFR/ IFR operations and the pilot must be qualified to use the appropriate navaids.
The fact is, anyone flying any aircraft that is not qualified to use the navaids installed, except to supplement visual navigation is breaking the law. This in particular applies to persons flying VFR on top. So in this case tell me how can you fly 1 nm to the right of track if you are not qualified to use the navaids,
Nothing you have posted absolves the pilot from the legal requirements.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the wrong answer to the right question. There was never any suggestion that pilots should fly ignoring any legal requirements.
The VFR offset, unsurprisingly, is designed for pilots flying under the VFR. That means they have to abide by the VFR, or get qualified on navaids/GPS, or a PIFR, or an IFR.
The CAAP I quoted is a CASA publication giving good advice to pilots operating under VFR. It will become more important if the ADS-B mandate and subsidy proceeds and more aircraft are GPS equipped.
In the most recent definitive survey 89% of respondents indicated they use GPS for navigation, with a quarter of the group using hand held GPS. Therefore, the VFR track offset advice is a fundamental safety item.
The VFR offset, unsurprisingly, is designed for pilots flying under the VFR. That means they have to abide by the VFR, or get qualified on navaids/GPS, or a PIFR, or an IFR.
The CAAP I quoted is a CASA publication giving good advice to pilots operating under VFR. It will become more important if the ADS-B mandate and subsidy proceeds and more aircraft are GPS equipped.
In the most recent definitive survey 89% of respondents indicated they use GPS for navigation, with a quarter of the group using hand held GPS. Therefore, the VFR track offset advice is a fundamental safety item.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: International
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Down to Earth again - pleeeeease
Perhaps if some of those posting regarded their posts and those of others as an attempt to chat over a beer, then the ball rather than the person would remain the main focus. I don't recall chats at the aeroclub or similar ever degenerating like those in this thread.
Legal Perspectives
I wonder if any of the legal egals out there could clarify something for me...
It is my understanding that there is a definite heirarchy of various forms of legislation - in our case the heirarchy would look something like...
My point is... Even though a recommendation (from the regulator) exists and it appears to contradict legilstaion higher up the heirarchical tree, a person following the former in contravention of the latter risks successful prosecution. The existence of the recommendation (eg a CAAP) may mitigate the sentence and/or penalty.
I am guessing that the reason CAAPs and other forms of 'recommendations' are published is because the regulator is still playing the 'parental' role rather than letting industry participants develop their own methods of compliance and having ti face the consequences of inadequate compliance or misinterpretation of the law. Intresting that in most other areas of law, method of compliance is not 'provided' but may well be tested in court.
If CASA is keen to see certain behaviour for safety reasons, then it should simply enshrine that behaviour in legislation and stay away from potentially misleading guidelines and recommendations.
ID
Perhaps if some of those posting regarded their posts and those of others as an attempt to chat over a beer, then the ball rather than the person would remain the main focus. I don't recall chats at the aeroclub or similar ever degenerating like those in this thread.
Legal Perspectives
I wonder if any of the legal egals out there could clarify something for me...
It is my understanding that there is a definite heirarchy of various forms of legislation - in our case the heirarchy would look something like...
My point is... Even though a recommendation (from the regulator) exists and it appears to contradict legilstaion higher up the heirarchical tree, a person following the former in contravention of the latter risks successful prosecution. The existence of the recommendation (eg a CAAP) may mitigate the sentence and/or penalty.
I am guessing that the reason CAAPs and other forms of 'recommendations' are published is because the regulator is still playing the 'parental' role rather than letting industry participants develop their own methods of compliance and having ti face the consequences of inadequate compliance or misinterpretation of the law. Intresting that in most other areas of law, method of compliance is not 'provided' but may well be tested in court.
If CASA is keen to see certain behaviour for safety reasons, then it should simply enshrine that behaviour in legislation and stay away from potentially misleading guidelines and recommendations.
ID
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO D
Your point is well made, so why beat around the bush - unfortunately, my research shows that when you have someone who seemingly left an organisation under a cloud and now wishes to denigrate or payback anything related to what that organisation does or supports (ADS-B in this case) - logic and even a chat over a beer will not work.
You are a low time poster but if you follow the threads here and were to review other forums you would find the one, sometimes two, posters as common causes of the angst. The post 3 Aug 22:13 will give you the clue.
Most of us prefer to follow the thread line - it is unfortunate the agro of the one or two detractors sometimes engenders a response, as occurred to Bob from at least three (unrelated) posters on the weekend. I have already apologised that I finally took the bait and was one of that three.
Back on track - as regards the CAAP, an expert legal opinion would certainly be well received.
In that regard, do not allow Bob's confusion and drift to mislead. That's why I said right answer to wrong question.
The CAAP is a CASA publication, well vetted before issue. I do not find anything in it that suggests one should breach any higher order rule or regulation. The CAAP gives instructions on GPS use under the VFR - the emphasis being that GPS use is an operational consideration but the onus rests with the PIC to ensure compliance with the flight rules - in this case VFR. No different to the PIC having to also aviate and communicate, and ensure fuel sufficient, etc, this CAAP merely advises on one small operational consideration of the flight but a most significant one as regards avoiding a possible head to head (more so below 5000').
My argument would be that anyone following the AIP or CAAP - after all, operational documents issued by the regulator - would not be in the hypothetical concern you raise of "The existence of the recommendation (eg a CAAP) may mitigate the sentence and/or penalty" - rather, the average person would anticipate that the beak would accept compliance with operational material issued by the safety regulator as exemption from sentence or penalty under a reasonable man hypothesis. In logic (perhaps questionable re legal decisions) the regulator should not issue any instruction in contravention of its own regulation (not that I think it has with this CAAP).
My reason for raising the GPS offset, and CAAP, is that an ADS-B mandate and subsidy opens the way to far more GPS navigation and risk of head on. It may even be wise to issue a reminder re the CAAP should the 'Son of JCP' be born.
Your point is well made, so why beat around the bush - unfortunately, my research shows that when you have someone who seemingly left an organisation under a cloud and now wishes to denigrate or payback anything related to what that organisation does or supports (ADS-B in this case) - logic and even a chat over a beer will not work.
You are a low time poster but if you follow the threads here and were to review other forums you would find the one, sometimes two, posters as common causes of the angst. The post 3 Aug 22:13 will give you the clue.
Most of us prefer to follow the thread line - it is unfortunate the agro of the one or two detractors sometimes engenders a response, as occurred to Bob from at least three (unrelated) posters on the weekend. I have already apologised that I finally took the bait and was one of that three.
Back on track - as regards the CAAP, an expert legal opinion would certainly be well received.
In that regard, do not allow Bob's confusion and drift to mislead. That's why I said right answer to wrong question.
The CAAP is a CASA publication, well vetted before issue. I do not find anything in it that suggests one should breach any higher order rule or regulation. The CAAP gives instructions on GPS use under the VFR - the emphasis being that GPS use is an operational consideration but the onus rests with the PIC to ensure compliance with the flight rules - in this case VFR. No different to the PIC having to also aviate and communicate, and ensure fuel sufficient, etc, this CAAP merely advises on one small operational consideration of the flight but a most significant one as regards avoiding a possible head to head (more so below 5000').
My argument would be that anyone following the AIP or CAAP - after all, operational documents issued by the regulator - would not be in the hypothetical concern you raise of "The existence of the recommendation (eg a CAAP) may mitigate the sentence and/or penalty" - rather, the average person would anticipate that the beak would accept compliance with operational material issued by the safety regulator as exemption from sentence or penalty under a reasonable man hypothesis. In logic (perhaps questionable re legal decisions) the regulator should not issue any instruction in contravention of its own regulation (not that I think it has with this CAAP).
My reason for raising the GPS offset, and CAAP, is that an ADS-B mandate and subsidy opens the way to far more GPS navigation and risk of head on. It may even be wise to issue a reminder re the CAAP should the 'Son of JCP' be born.
...my research shows that when you have someone who seemingly left an organisation under a cloud and now wishes to denigrate or payback anything related to what that organisation does or supports (ADS-B in this case)...
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
Smith
.
Changed the thread name today back to your hollow conspiracy inference question - eh?
.
Nothing quite like a headline (even if it is a crock), is there
.
Changed the thread name today back to your hollow conspiracy inference question - eh?
.
Nothing quite like a headline (even if it is a crock), is there
Hmmm... I wonder who really stands to benefit from ADS-B ? 
Are we pilots/aircraft owners going to be expected to buy/maintain those ADS-B boxs to suport another 'industry' ???
Thanks to gpn01 for this article -
Unmanned spy planes to police Britain - Home News, UK - The Independent
gpn01's thread -
http://www.pprune.org/forums/private...oking-out.html
Are we pilots/aircraft owners going to be expected to buy/maintain those ADS-B boxs to suport another 'industry' ???
Thanks to gpn01 for this article -
Unmanned spy planes to police Britain - Home News, UK - The Independent
gpn01's thread -
http://www.pprune.org/forums/private...oking-out.html
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO D;
Now you have a heresay allegation. Unfounded because nobody by the name of james michael was ever involved in any organisation that I was. Make your own mind up who is causing trouble here.
Now you have a heresay allegation. Unfounded because nobody by the name of james michael was ever involved in any organisation that I was. Make your own mind up who is causing trouble here.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bing
Bob knows which organisation he departed - I don't think that knowledge is critical to this debate. What is critical is an end to his ceaseless pricking as otherwise this thread which has required 'moderator repair' twice already might vanish, taking with it the wealth of positive on topic information it contains. (As an aside, I note his running mate at it again on another forum in the last 24 hours - same problem).
Your second post - UAV. They are becoming a fact of life - another technology leap.
You ask
Answer - just my opinion - YES.
Which industry? - not UAV but the carriage of fare paying passengers. I anticipate the CTAF R will ultimately become the CTAF T and then the CTAF ADS-B as a consequence.
If I were you I'd worry more about the regulatory moves to protection of RPT than those UAV!
And, I'm absolutely uncertain how you draw the conclusion on the other thread
It's the UAV that carry the avoidance responsibility, not the VFR pilot. Google up earlier minutes of Vic RAPAC re trials at St Leonards and West Sale, and I think NQ or SQ RAPAC re trials in Qld (Kingaroy being one).
Bob knows which organisation he departed - I don't think that knowledge is critical to this debate. What is critical is an end to his ceaseless pricking as otherwise this thread which has required 'moderator repair' twice already might vanish, taking with it the wealth of positive on topic information it contains. (As an aside, I note his running mate at it again on another forum in the last 24 hours - same problem).
Your second post - UAV. They are becoming a fact of life - another technology leap.
You ask
Are we pilots/aircraft owners going to be expected to buy/maintain those ADS-B boxs to suport another 'industry' ???
Which industry? - not UAV but the carriage of fare paying passengers. I anticipate the CTAF R will ultimately become the CTAF T and then the CTAF ADS-B as a consequence.
If I were you I'd worry more about the regulatory moves to protection of RPT than those UAV!
And, I'm absolutely uncertain how you draw the conclusion on the other thread
I guess to fit in with all that 'unmanned' traffic, the only way to fly in the UK will be under IFR .