Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I don't know much about this and I am definitely not a technophobe, but in trying to learn something, I lifted the following from the US NPRM on ADS-B:
Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is the only navigation position service that
provides the level of accuracy and integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS–B Out to be used for NAS based surveillance operations with sufficient availability
Now, I may have taken that out of context; I genuinely don't know, but it seems that there is a reliance on WAAS in the US for 'accuracy and integrity', which we don't have.
Can someone please explain how we propose introducing ADS-B without augmentation when the FAA appears to regard it as mandatory.
Presently, GPS augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is the only navigation position service that
provides the level of accuracy and integrity (NIC, NACp, and NACv) to enable ADS–B Out to be used for NAS based surveillance operations with sufficient availability
Now, I may have taken that out of context; I genuinely don't know, but it seems that there is a reliance on WAAS in the US for 'accuracy and integrity', which we don't have.
Can someone please explain how we propose introducing ADS-B without augmentation when the FAA appears to regard it as mandatory.
Last edited by Howabout; 8th Aug 2008 at 10:03.
Moderator
Hallelujah! There is a light at the end of the tunnel!!! 
So the airlines are not paying, AirServices are not paying but they are not saying the tax payer is not paying?
So, the airlines will continue to pay inflated charges to fund ADSB fitment to private and GA aircraft? Will they, or more importantly, their shareholders agree to that, particularly if the reputed saving is $100 milllion? 
100% of the cost?
This would not involve any additional charges to customers, and will be ‘revenue-neutral’ to Airservices.
Airservices would draw upon the savings achieved through not replacing existing enroute radar and navigation aids until the avionics costs were covered. Once the avionics costs are met, the ongoing savings would be passed on to customers.
Airservices’ customers would fund the acquisition and installation of approved avionics for light aircraft.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail Wheel,
You're allowed to have it,BUT, your bias is showing.
A little education before commenting please.I appreciate it is a long thread, but the reasoning behind the airlines coughing up the moohla, is dotted throughout this thread.
It involves ASA being able to drop their charges, long term.
Through not having to install new, or replace and maintain old, expensive SSRs.
You're allowed to have it,BUT, your bias is showing.
A little education before commenting please.I appreciate it is a long thread, but the reasoning behind the airlines coughing up the moohla, is dotted throughout this thread.
It involves ASA being able to drop their charges, long term.
Through not having to install new, or replace and maintain old, expensive SSRs.
Moderator
Not at all Max. Simply trying to remove one impediment to intelligent debate.
I accept your view, however being somewhat skeptical, I wanted to see evidence that the Government were prepared to give back anything.
I accept your view, however being somewhat skeptical, I wanted to see evidence that the Government were prepared to give back anything.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dunno, I'm starting to side with Dick. While I think he has avoided some questions on other threads, I noticed that every 'green light' was on when I asked my question regarding WAAS. Debate has ensued, which has been in the realms of catty, but nobody has addressed the fundamental question that I posed.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tailwheel
I'm about to go and have that beer you mentioned elsewhere and will certainly catch up tomorrow re other matters.
The point is that if ASA have to replace the radars THEY have to spend money and will continue to charge airlines on that basis. If they can move to ADS-B instead, there are LONG TERM savings that can be passed to the airlines - both in actual ASA costs and in airline efficiency costs (separation etc) - that offer a cost benefit plus to the airlines and their shareholders.
I say again - given that the four heads of departments signed off on the JCP, and also given the involvement of the airlines in the ASTRA forum and the ASTRA ATMSP - the onus is on those claiming the subsidy cannot eventuate to put up or shut up.
It is particularly frustrating to have put up so much factual reference to counter a waffle of rhetoric, and personal attack, and find the Government document of committal being challenged.
In business it is quite common to speculate to accumulate. The JCP is a business opportunity where ASA not committing to radar replacement enables savings to be made long-term. That requires investment now. If funding investment NOW provides a NPV greater than 1, why would any commonsense business not embrace it - i.e. the airlines, the government, and Airservices.
TW I have been researching this for about 5 years. To ensure no misunderstanding, you made 3 quotes.
Q1 - The taxpayer is not paying because the equation changes when ADS-B is used to replace radar (and there is a further saving with navaids, let's ignore that even if it's bigger).
Q2 - The airlines realise that if they DO NOT get ADS-B, and the radar is replaced, they will continue to pay higher charges FOREVER. Why not pay them for the several years needed to outfit GA to enable ADS-B then reap the harvest.
Q3 - I doubt it. But, Microair claim it can be done. Chicken and egg - no JCP decision, no equipment release. However, what do YOU prefer TW - some subsidy now or NO subsidy once ADS-B arrives by technology push? And, by providing the $10K and $15K voucher system as proposed, many owners may decide to undertake more significant upgrades - e.g. TSO 146 NAV I/L/O TSO 145 - and that means the voucher will have a gap but that's the owners choice.
Have a read of the ASTRA ATMSP and the USA JPDO NGATS for what's coming down the pipeline. And remember - in the USA they KNOW they will have to pay for ADS-B in the 2020 MANDATE. In Oz, there is a chance we may get a subsidy - if someone single handedly does not stuff it. And before that's called picking on the god figure - remember the post he made on the now vanished BLA thread about myself that would have had anyone else sin binned. Might be a great idea if Dick is prepared to debate as robustly as he serves
I'm about to go and have that beer you mentioned elsewhere and will certainly catch up tomorrow re other matters.
The point is that if ASA have to replace the radars THEY have to spend money and will continue to charge airlines on that basis. If they can move to ADS-B instead, there are LONG TERM savings that can be passed to the airlines - both in actual ASA costs and in airline efficiency costs (separation etc) - that offer a cost benefit plus to the airlines and their shareholders.
I say again - given that the four heads of departments signed off on the JCP, and also given the involvement of the airlines in the ASTRA forum and the ASTRA ATMSP - the onus is on those claiming the subsidy cannot eventuate to put up or shut up.
It is particularly frustrating to have put up so much factual reference to counter a waffle of rhetoric, and personal attack, and find the Government document of committal being challenged.
In business it is quite common to speculate to accumulate. The JCP is a business opportunity where ASA not committing to radar replacement enables savings to be made long-term. That requires investment now. If funding investment NOW provides a NPV greater than 1, why would any commonsense business not embrace it - i.e. the airlines, the government, and Airservices.
TW I have been researching this for about 5 years. To ensure no misunderstanding, you made 3 quotes.
Q1 - The taxpayer is not paying because the equation changes when ADS-B is used to replace radar (and there is a further saving with navaids, let's ignore that even if it's bigger).
Q2 - The airlines realise that if they DO NOT get ADS-B, and the radar is replaced, they will continue to pay higher charges FOREVER. Why not pay them for the several years needed to outfit GA to enable ADS-B then reap the harvest.
Q3 - I doubt it. But, Microair claim it can be done. Chicken and egg - no JCP decision, no equipment release. However, what do YOU prefer TW - some subsidy now or NO subsidy once ADS-B arrives by technology push? And, by providing the $10K and $15K voucher system as proposed, many owners may decide to undertake more significant upgrades - e.g. TSO 146 NAV I/L/O TSO 145 - and that means the voucher will have a gap but that's the owners choice.
Have a read of the ASTRA ATMSP and the USA JPDO NGATS for what's coming down the pipeline. And remember - in the USA they KNOW they will have to pay for ADS-B in the 2020 MANDATE. In Oz, there is a chance we may get a subsidy - if someone single handedly does not stuff it. And before that's called picking on the god figure - remember the post he made on the now vanished BLA thread about myself that would have had anyone else sin binned. Might be a great idea if Dick is prepared to debate as robustly as he serves
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout
WAAS is not required for ADS-B accuracy.
ADS-B is in use across Australia today by airlines - we don't have WAAS.
If you need references, ask.
This may help:
JM
WAAS is not required for ADS-B accuracy.
ADS-B is in use across Australia today by airlines - we don't have WAAS.
If you need references, ask.
This may help:
1.8 Australia has analysed 3 months’ of ADS-B data from aircraft which are known to have acceptable ADS-B avionics – i.e. aircraft which have been authorised to receive ADS-B services in Australia. We have examined about 160 million ADS-B reports and correlated these with the GPS
receiver onboard the aircraft. Details of the analysis method are discussed in Appendix A.
1.9 None of the authorised aircraft have TSOC145a/C146a avionics and none of the avionics are SBAS/ WAAS certified. However some aircraft are fitted with GPS receivers that are “SA Aware.”
receiver onboard the aircraft. Details of the analysis method are discussed in Appendix A.
1.9 None of the authorised aircraft have TSOC145a/C146a avionics and none of the avionics are SBAS/ WAAS certified. However some aircraft are fitted with GPS receivers that are “SA Aware.”
JM
Moderator
james
My skepticism was based upon the fact that in three score plus years in Australia, over half in aviation, I'm yet to see a benevolent Government!
If the funding issue is resolved beyond all reasonable doubt, then the technical debate may continue - without personalities!
Tail Wheel
My skepticism was based upon the fact that in three score plus years in Australia, over half in aviation, I'm yet to see a benevolent Government!
If the funding issue is resolved beyond all reasonable doubt, then the technical debate may continue - without personalities!
Tail Wheel
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry JM, that doesn't answer the question. I am only asking for clarification. If the FAA is saying that WAAS is essential, then how come we don't need it? It's a pretty basic question.
Thread Starter
Howabout, It is a most important question about WAAS. I think you will find there are those who are so hell bent on the subsidy proposal going ahead that they will not answer it!
My information is that the Airline CEO's have never signed off on the subsidy and never will as there is no measurable safety issue that the $100m subsidy deals with.
My information is that the Airline CEO's have never signed off on the subsidy and never will as there is no measurable safety issue that the $100m subsidy deals with.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Howabout
WAAS is not needed for ADSB, here or anywhere else.
WAAS really gives big gains in Vertical accuracy, ADSB uses the Altitude Encoder like you have now in your Mode C set up.
ADSB does not have or warrant the WAAS vertical accuracy any more so than radar and Mode C.
WAAS is needed for making a NPA into a PA, so the ILS type of accuracy and Minima that the yanks have on GPS approaches.
Australia would also benefit from WAAS.
Regionals would greatly benefit and the big three also at regional aerodromes. As an example a few weeks back while battling VFR around low cloud, mist and light rain, I could here the Sunstate guys and girls having several misses at Roma, Charleville, Blackall and so on. A week before Jetstar and Virgin were having the same trouble at Hervey Bay, and I think Sunnies at Bundy as well. Maroochydore was also having the same trouble.
WAAS is another thing of the future with BIG safety gains and efficiency gains, when the weather is not so good.
And if anyone can..... they should push it ant any opportunity.
J
WAAS is not needed for ADSB, here or anywhere else.
WAAS really gives big gains in Vertical accuracy, ADSB uses the Altitude Encoder like you have now in your Mode C set up.
ADSB does not have or warrant the WAAS vertical accuracy any more so than radar and Mode C.
WAAS is needed for making a NPA into a PA, so the ILS type of accuracy and Minima that the yanks have on GPS approaches.
Australia would also benefit from WAAS.
Regionals would greatly benefit and the big three also at regional aerodromes. As an example a few weeks back while battling VFR around low cloud, mist and light rain, I could here the Sunstate guys and girls having several misses at Roma, Charleville, Blackall and so on. A week before Jetstar and Virgin were having the same trouble at Hervey Bay, and I think Sunnies at Bundy as well. Maroochydore was also having the same trouble.
WAAS is another thing of the future with BIG safety gains and efficiency gains, when the weather is not so good.
And if anyone can..... they should push it ant any opportunity.
J
Howabout, Have a look at the spec of a WAAS receiver. You will notice it is TSO146a When you look at that TSO you will see something called FDE or Fault Detection Exclusion, it is this particular feature that is required for the integrity message of the NUC. If no FDE then NUC delivers a value that signals TAAATS to ignore your signal transmission. The original trials were done with TSO129 gear which just flagged the pilot that RAIM was not available. This isn't good enough for the ADS-B 1090ES message. Hence, the need for TSO145a/6a gear. WAAS is great but not needed for the gear to produce the right message for the transponder.
You should start a thread up about WAAS so someone can explain to you about what it really would mean for instrument approaches across the GAFA.
ADS-B doesn't need WAAS, it does need FDE. Is that clear enough
You should start a thread up about WAAS so someone can explain to you about what it really would mean for instrument approaches across the GAFA.
ADS-B doesn't need WAAS, it does need FDE. Is that clear enough
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jab, thanks. As I said before, my knowledge is limited. However, I stiill don't have a straight answer.
If the FAA say that augmentaion is essential, and they are probably the supreme organisation (accepting their faults) regarding aviation regulation, how come we don't, at least, try and learn from them?
I ain't pushing Dick's barrow, but sometimes he makes more sense to me than some of the other posters on this thread.
If the FAA say that augmentaion is essential, and they are probably the supreme organisation (accepting their faults) regarding aviation regulation, how come we don't, at least, try and learn from them?
I ain't pushing Dick's barrow, but sometimes he makes more sense to me than some of the other posters on this thread.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief, this is like asking questions akin to pulling teeth. I apologise in advance to everyone else on here, but the question I asked was 'If the yanks require augmention why don't we?'
I don't think that I have got a definitive answer yet.
I don't think that I have got a definitive answer yet.
Tailie, there is no official piece of paper until the minister signs off on it.
As for your asking me to put up or shut up. I put it to Mr Smith to back up his "RUMOUR".
The time for this debate passed in October last year. To be honest? I await Minister Albanese and his response. I am very sure AirServices would like to know. They have to sign a deal that will cost them more money just to keep the opportunity for ADS-B uptake alive.
When this thread started it was about a supposed bungling of ADS-B. In all the years I have researched it, I have never seen anything other than a single goal with a singal peice of equipment.1090ES upper and lower airspace all on the same page. That message hasn't changed The costs haven't changed.
The only thing that has changed is the argument against. First it was equipment and standards, then it was an orphan technology, then equipment components were not available then it was WAAS then it was equipment costs again and now we have again the airlines will not pay for it....OH yeh, I forgot the most biggest purphy of them all. Spoofing ADS-B signals and the terrorist threat of being able to track ADS-B equipped aircraft with a ten dollar aerial.
This argument is so old, I grow tired.
As for your asking me to put up or shut up. I put it to Mr Smith to back up his "RUMOUR".
The time for this debate passed in October last year. To be honest? I await Minister Albanese and his response. I am very sure AirServices would like to know. They have to sign a deal that will cost them more money just to keep the opportunity for ADS-B uptake alive.
When this thread started it was about a supposed bungling of ADS-B. In all the years I have researched it, I have never seen anything other than a single goal with a singal peice of equipment.1090ES upper and lower airspace all on the same page. That message hasn't changed The costs haven't changed.
The only thing that has changed is the argument against. First it was equipment and standards, then it was an orphan technology, then equipment components were not available then it was WAAS then it was equipment costs again and now we have again the airlines will not pay for it....OH yeh, I forgot the most biggest purphy of them all. Spoofing ADS-B signals and the terrorist threat of being able to track ADS-B equipped aircraft with a ten dollar aerial.
This argument is so old, I grow tired.