Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
The yanks require augmentation for their instrument approach part of ADS-B. If you go and have a read of Capstone it will be clearer, Howabout. hope thats a bit clearer. WAAS is not a required item here. As I said many many posts ago there are probabley more IFR people here who would wish for WAAS than ADS-B. CU
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the tempered responses guys. I do appreciete that this can get a bit heated. I will go away and read some more. However, I still have that WAAS thing. Regardless, I think that this thread has probably educated me more than any of the others.
Good night, sleep tight and I will have a red shortly.
Good night, sleep tight and I will have a red shortly.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout
A late answer to your question - because, had you read my post to TW it said I was going off to have a beer and would catch up tomorrow and you would not have expected me to answer while my green light was off.
I've just had my morning walk and found no shops open. Last night you posted your enquiry at 19:48 and by 20:16 - less than half an hour later - you had decided Dick must be correct because you did not get a technical answer from anyone else. Haste in aviation can be fatal. I'll patiently await the shops to open - while contemplating your comments.
To answer your question in more detail - and it has already been well detailed - WAAS requires satellites, Oz does not have them or the critical mass to make WAAS cost effective, and Airservices are pushing their own ICAO compliant alternative solution GBAS/GRAS.
WAAS is NOT required for ADS-B accuracy (I think I already said that).
Of 156 MILLION samples over 3 months in Oz, the NUC >4 figure (i.e. data considered safe to display on TAAATS for ATC use) was 99.997% for SA Aware data. Do the numbers yourself - I think it means about 5 rejections.
TW
I entirely take your point that the debate may continue without personalities. In examining this thread from my arrival on it, your message will hopefully be well received by quite a number of posters including a favoured one who cast doubt on my veracity and right to anonymity
A late answer to your question - because, had you read my post to TW it said I was going off to have a beer and would catch up tomorrow and you would not have expected me to answer while my green light was off.
I've just had my morning walk and found no shops open. Last night you posted your enquiry at 19:48 and by 20:16 - less than half an hour later - you had decided Dick must be correct because you did not get a technical answer from anyone else. Haste in aviation can be fatal. I'll patiently await the shops to open - while contemplating your comments.
To answer your question in more detail - and it has already been well detailed - WAAS requires satellites, Oz does not have them or the critical mass to make WAAS cost effective, and Airservices are pushing their own ICAO compliant alternative solution GBAS/GRAS.
WAAS is NOT required for ADS-B accuracy (I think I already said that).
Of 156 MILLION samples over 3 months in Oz, the NUC >4 figure (i.e. data considered safe to display on TAAATS for ATC use) was 99.997% for SA Aware data. Do the numbers yourself - I think it means about 5 rejections.
TW
I entirely take your point that the debate may continue without personalities. In examining this thread from my arrival on it, your message will hopefully be well received by quite a number of posters including a favoured one who cast doubt on my veracity and right to anonymity
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry JM, but I didn't say that Dick was correct. Without going back over the thread, I think that I said that I was 'leaning' in his direction, which is a little different. However, thanks for the stats regarding accuracy.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout
Point taken - and conceded. I was biased in my thinking by your later comment about him making more sense than other posters.
The OZBUS post of 21:53 yesterday well sums up your query. To expand, when your life depends on it with ADS-B you need FDE and SA. Summed up by these extracts:
99.997% availability is equivalent to a 6 minute outage for each aircraft every
Point taken - and conceded. I was biased in my thinking by your later comment about him making more sense than other posters.
The OZBUS post of 21:53 yesterday well sums up your query. To expand, when your life depends on it with ADS-B you need FDE and SA. Summed up by these extracts:
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.
Modern GPS receivers can detect whether SA is ON or OFF. These receivers are called SA AWARE receivers.
Modern GPS receivers can detect whether SA is ON or OFF. These receivers are called SA AWARE receivers.
All TSOC145a/146a certified GPS receivers are SA aware. This is a requirement of the standard. Some modern TSO129c receivers may be SA aware but most assume SA is ON because SA awareness is not required by the standard.
The statistic I mentioned in my previous post can also be expressed as:
99.997% availability is equivalent to a 6 minute outage for each aircraft every
approx 138 days. (Good enuf for me anyway)
FDE on the other hand is best summarised as to identify and exclude the malfunctioning satellite in order to continue navigating using the remaining satellites.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bing
Based on many others replies to you about this repetitive low probability terrorist UAV scenario, and my need not to be biased, repetitive, or antagonistic - can I suggest as I prepare to rip my first ring pull of the day:
The USA has NORAD, Australia is best served by GONAD - in other words, we'd be nuts to worry about a scenario with odds less than winning Tattslotto
Based on many others replies to you about this repetitive low probability terrorist UAV scenario, and my need not to be biased, repetitive, or antagonistic - can I suggest as I prepare to rip my first ring pull of the day:
The USA has NORAD, Australia is best served by GONAD - in other words, we'd be nuts to worry about a scenario with odds less than winning Tattslotto
Bing
Based on many others replies to you about this repetitive low probability terrorist UAV scenario, and my need not to be biased, repetitive, or antagonistic - can I suggest as I prepare to rip my first ring pull of the day:
The USA has NORAD, Australia is best served by GONAD - in other words, we'd be nuts to worry about a scenario with odds less than winning Tattslotto
Based on many others replies to you about this repetitive low probability terrorist UAV scenario, and my need not to be biased, repetitive, or antagonistic - can I suggest as I prepare to rip my first ring pull of the day:
The USA has NORAD, Australia is best served by GONAD - in other words, we'd be nuts to worry about a scenario with odds less than winning Tattslotto
james michael, please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?
OZBUSDRIVER made the assessment that a sparrow would'nt get through NORAD. I wonder what the Oz equivalent is - a couple of airborne plateforms perhaps ? ............
Binghi, you really are bottom shelf at Dimmey's mate!
Has it ever occured to you that your scenario can exist with or without ADS-B roll out. SO, your scenario has no bearing on any argument for or against ADS-B. Your assertion has no validity. It has been pointed out ad infinitatum
If ANY loss of integrity is detected there is still the back up of selected Navaids and Primary Radar around our major airports.....except Hobart..to ensure safety of airbourne aircraft. Why the mods let you continue with this totally ludicrous line of argument is beyond me.
Your use of GPS is in the same catagory as the use of mobile phones as detonators of IEDs and the internet to forment terrorism. Terrorists are common criminals who work outside state sanction. How do you defend against a bank robber FB? Effective local policing!
EDIT- I've even left you a flaw in my argument, FB. That is if you are really up to speed on how a terrorist thinks?
Has it ever occured to you that your scenario can exist with or without ADS-B roll out. SO, your scenario has no bearing on any argument for or against ADS-B. Your assertion has no validity. It has been pointed out ad infinitatum
If ANY loss of integrity is detected there is still the back up of selected Navaids and Primary Radar around our major airports.....except Hobart..to ensure safety of airbourne aircraft. Why the mods let you continue with this totally ludicrous line of argument is beyond me.
Your use of GPS is in the same catagory as the use of mobile phones as detonators of IEDs and the internet to forment terrorism. Terrorists are common criminals who work outside state sanction. How do you defend against a bank robber FB? Effective local policing!
EDIT- I've even left you a flaw in my argument, FB. That is if you are really up to speed on how a terrorist thinks?
FLying Binghi
Have you done a study of the odds ?.
What do you reckon is the probability of your scenario.
Come on., tell us all your figure.
You seem to think that it's a high probability event.
please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?
What do you reckon is the probability of your scenario.
Come on., tell us all your figure.
You seem to think that it's a high probability event.
Binghi, you really are bottom shelf at Dimmey's mate!
Has it ever occured to you that your scenario can exist with or without ADS-B roll out. SO, your scenario has no bearing on any argument for or against ADS-B. Your assertion has no validity. It has been pointed out ad infinitatum
If ANY loss of integrity is detected there is still the back up of selected Navaids and Primary Radar around our major airports.....except Hobart..to ensure safety of airbourne aircraft. Why the mods let you continue with this totally ludicrous line of argument is beyond me.
Your use of GPS is in the same catagory as the use of mobile phones as detonators of IEDs and the internet to forment terrorism. Terrorists are common criminals who work outside state sanction. How do you defend against a bank robber FB? Effective local policing!
EDIT- I've even left you a flaw in my argument, FB. That is if you are really up to speed on how a terrorist thinks?
Has it ever occured to you that your scenario can exist with or without ADS-B roll out. SO, your scenario has no bearing on any argument for or against ADS-B. Your assertion has no validity. It has been pointed out ad infinitatum
If ANY loss of integrity is detected there is still the back up of selected Navaids and Primary Radar around our major airports.....except Hobart..to ensure safety of airbourne aircraft. Why the mods let you continue with this totally ludicrous line of argument is beyond me.
Your use of GPS is in the same catagory as the use of mobile phones as detonators of IEDs and the internet to forment terrorism. Terrorists are common criminals who work outside state sanction. How do you defend against a bank robber FB? Effective local policing!
EDIT- I've even left you a flaw in my argument, FB. That is if you are really up to speed on how a terrorist thinks?
FLying Binghi
Quote:
please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?
Have you done a study of the odds ?.
What do you reckon is the probability of your scenario.
Come on., tell us all your figure.
You seem to think that it's a high probability event.
Quote:
please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?
Have you done a study of the odds ?.
What do you reckon is the probability of your scenario.
Come on., tell us all your figure.
You seem to think that it's a high probability event.
................
.
james michael My compliments to you for persevering with the debate here.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 April 2004
There is a high probability there will one day be a terrorist attack in Australia, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.
According to a Newspoll published in the Daily Telegraph today, 68 per cent of adult Australians believe terrorists would "strike before too long".
But it found 91 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds would not change their daily routine despite recent terrorist attacks in western countries.
Mr Ruddock said it was likely there would be a terrorist attack in Australia.
"I think it's a high probability (there could be a terrorist attack), a high probability," he told reporters.
"But in my judgment you still have to do everything you can to deal with it and I would hope that inevitability that many believe, won't be realised."
Mr Ruddock said Australians were concerned about the threat of terrorism but would not allow it to change the way they lived their lives.
Bing
Come out of the bomb shelter and your diet of dickmite - it's four years later, Ruddock has not been razed by resurgents, and Oz has moved on.
The question remaining is why you - allegedly the owner and pilot of an aircraft well equipped - persist in this repetitious thread drift and improbable scenario and innuendo about fellow posters.
Smokescreen anyone? Constant attempt to pervert the ADS-B thread to closure perhaps
There is a high probability there will one day be a terrorist attack in Australia, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.
According to a Newspoll published in the Daily Telegraph today, 68 per cent of adult Australians believe terrorists would "strike before too long".
But it found 91 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds would not change their daily routine despite recent terrorist attacks in western countries.
Mr Ruddock said it was likely there would be a terrorist attack in Australia.
"I think it's a high probability (there could be a terrorist attack), a high probability," he told reporters.
"But in my judgment you still have to do everything you can to deal with it and I would hope that inevitability that many believe, won't be realised."
Mr Ruddock said Australians were concerned about the threat of terrorism but would not allow it to change the way they lived their lives.
Bing
Come out of the bomb shelter and your diet of dickmite - it's four years later, Ruddock has not been razed by resurgents, and Oz has moved on.
The question remaining is why you - allegedly the owner and pilot of an aircraft well equipped - persist in this repetitious thread drift and improbable scenario and innuendo about fellow posters.
Smokescreen anyone? Constant attempt to pervert the ADS-B thread to closure perhaps
Via james michael -
........................................
I'll repeat myself - james michael, please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?
.
22 April 2004
There is a high probability there will one day be a terrorist attack in Australia, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.
According to a Newspoll published in the Daily Telegraph today, 68 per cent of adult Australians believe terrorists would "strike before too long".
But it found 91 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds would not change their daily routine despite recent terrorist attacks in western countries.
Mr Ruddock said it was likely there would be a terrorist attack in Australia.
"I think it's a high probability (there could be a terrorist attack), a high probability," he told reporters.
"But in my judgment you still have to do everything you can to deal with it and I would hope that inevitability that many believe, won't be realised."
Mr Ruddock said Australians were concerned about the threat of terrorism but would not allow it to change the way they lived their lives.
Bing
Come out of the bomb shelter and your diet of dickmite - it's four years later, Ruddock has not been razed by resurgents, and Oz has moved on.
The question remaining is why you - allegedly the owner and pilot of an aircraft well equipped - persist in this repetitious thread drift and improbable scenario and innuendo about fellow posters.
Smokescreen anyone? Constant attempt to pervert the ADS-B thread to closure perhaps
There is a high probability there will one day be a terrorist attack in Australia, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.
According to a Newspoll published in the Daily Telegraph today, 68 per cent of adult Australians believe terrorists would "strike before too long".
But it found 91 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds would not change their daily routine despite recent terrorist attacks in western countries.
Mr Ruddock said it was likely there would be a terrorist attack in Australia.
"I think it's a high probability (there could be a terrorist attack), a high probability," he told reporters.
"But in my judgment you still have to do everything you can to deal with it and I would hope that inevitability that many believe, won't be realised."
Mr Ruddock said Australians were concerned about the threat of terrorism but would not allow it to change the way they lived their lives.
Bing
Come out of the bomb shelter and your diet of dickmite - it's four years later, Ruddock has not been razed by resurgents, and Oz has moved on.
The question remaining is why you - allegedly the owner and pilot of an aircraft well equipped - persist in this repetitious thread drift and improbable scenario and innuendo about fellow posters.
Smokescreen anyone? Constant attempt to pervert the ADS-B thread to closure perhaps
I'll repeat myself - james michael, please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?
.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont actually think you have put much thought into your buzz bomb scenario, FB. Your attempts to garner support for opposition to ADS-B are tiresome because they are so tenuous. You really will have to think up better reasons than this, and your repetitive recital is doing you no favours. It makes you look like a bit of a nutter- so it's gotten to the point where you are now working against the other nay-sayers.
- terror can be had by much simpler means, and in much greater quantities, using other methods (as has been descibed to you).
- even if your scenario were to eventuate, turning off the GPS signal is highly unlikely. The authorities would weigh up whether the attacks would stop (and they wouldnt, as "buzz bombs" wouldn't NEED a GPS signal, and could still be utilised blind and perpetuate any 'terror' achieved) Vs the benefit of GPS.
- continually claiming that, because something cannot be absolutely ruled out gives it credence, is poor argument, and has been treated as such. Your continued attempts at breathing life back into your argument have seriously diminished your premise.
By all means, continue to press your lame-duck argument.
- terror can be had by much simpler means, and in much greater quantities, using other methods (as has been descibed to you).
- even if your scenario were to eventuate, turning off the GPS signal is highly unlikely. The authorities would weigh up whether the attacks would stop (and they wouldnt, as "buzz bombs" wouldn't NEED a GPS signal, and could still be utilised blind and perpetuate any 'terror' achieved) Vs the benefit of GPS.
- continually claiming that, because something cannot be absolutely ruled out gives it credence, is poor argument, and has been treated as such. Your continued attempts at breathing life back into your argument have seriously diminished your premise.
By all means, continue to press your lame-duck argument.
I dont actually think you have put much thought into your buzz bomb scenario, FB. Your attempts to garner support for opposition to ADS-B are tiresome because they are so tenuous. You really will have to think up better reasons than this, and your repetitive recital is doing you no favours. It makes you look like a bit of a nutter- so it's gotten to the point where you are now working against the other nay-sayers.
- terror can be had by much simpler means, and in much greater quantities, using other methods (as has been descibed to you).
- even if your scenario were to eventuate, turning off the GPS signal is highly unlikely. The authorities would weigh up whether the attacks would stop (and they wouldnt, as "buzz bombs" wouldn't NEED a GPS signal, and could still be utilised blind and perpetuate any 'terror' achieved) Vs the benefit of GPS.
- continually claiming that, because something cannot be absolutely ruled out gives it credence, is poor argument, and has been treated as such. Your continued attempts at breathing life back into your argument have seriously diminished your premise.
By all means, continue to press your lame-duck argument.
- terror can be had by much simpler means, and in much greater quantities, using other methods (as has been descibed to you).
- even if your scenario were to eventuate, turning off the GPS signal is highly unlikely. The authorities would weigh up whether the attacks would stop (and they wouldnt, as "buzz bombs" wouldn't NEED a GPS signal, and could still be utilised blind and perpetuate any 'terror' achieved) Vs the benefit of GPS.
- continually claiming that, because something cannot be absolutely ruled out gives it credence, is poor argument, and has been treated as such. Your continued attempts at breathing life back into your argument have seriously diminished your premise.
By all means, continue to press your lame-duck argument.
..."it's gotten to the point where you are now working against the other nay-sayers"
I have written on several occasions that my views/concerns are entirly my own. It may be you who wants to tie me to other posters ?
..."terror can be had by much simpler means, and in much greater quantities, using other methods"
I think you have missed my piont about Oz based (i.e. 'inhouse') potential terrorists having a high probability of being 'found' by our security people before any 'event' happens - exibit A, the Footy bombers. The problem with the GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bombs' scenario, is they are launched outside of the majority of Oz securitys 'influence'
"buzz bombs wouldn't NEED a GPS signal"
ferris, You'll have to explain that further.
..."continually claiming that, because something cannot be absolutely ruled out gives it credence, is poor argument, and has been treated as such. Your continued attempts at breathing life back into your argument have seriously diminished your premise"
I'm yet to see any serious rebutal to the dangers that the GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bombs' present to an increasingly GPS reliant Oz ATC system. As I wrote previously, ...by saying the scenario has a low probability ...admiting it to be a valid probability