Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?

[Flying Binghi]

I believe equipment will quickly be available at reasonable cost.

james michael, I'm sure Airservices will be releived to know that.

Before we get too carried away with aircraft equipment we better make sure it will work.

In the proposed GPS/ADS-B dependant airways, what will be the back-up system for the ADS-B unit when the GPS system fails, for whatever reason ??? Has it been planned for ???

And remember Airservices do not own the GPS system and the 'guarantees' of continued access are vague at best.

In my little four seat aircraft I already have a traffic aviodance system (TAS) that works off other aircraft transponders. There is no requirement for an unreliable third party input via GPS to make my TAS work.

Many Australian aircraft already have transponders, and most of the light aircraft that mix it with the big jets have transponders (Those pesky Tiger moth drivers) Near all of the pax jets have transponder reading TAS. (There are some pax jets that dont have TAS which is covered in another thread) It probably wouldnt cost much to supply transponders to the very few aircraft that operate around pax-jet airports.

To qoute again from Scurvys reference re NO GPS signal -
..."a signal change could make an already weak economy worse. Collectively it could have a substantial effect on industries as diverse as aviation, agriculture and municipal transportation," says Frost & Sullivan's Stearns...

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Chuckles

SDD is the microair unit certified or homebuilt types only?

http://www.microair.com.au/admin/upl...cation01R1.pdf

Read the linked (again) document Chuck!

The GPS engine unit

The FFS1201 is a TSO C145a (Beta 1) approved product,

The TXPDR

10.0 SPECIFICATIONS

Compliance

ATSO

C1004 Class 1A pending (ADS-B)
1C74c Class 1A pending (mode 3A/C)
1C112 Class 2A pending (mode S)
C88a pending (altitude encoder)

RTCA

DO-144 (mode A/C)
DO-181c (mode S)
DO-260A (ADS-B)
DO-160E (environmental)
DO-178B level C (Software)

SAE

AS8003 (altitude encoder)

Re: installation and maintenance

For non-certified (amateur-built) aircraft, it is possible for the owner / operator who is responsible for the aircraft maintenance to do the physical installation.

For certified aircraft types, an avionics LAME (CAR-30 / Part 145 organisation) must be responsible for the installation. Microair Avionics estimates the installation to take one man one day to complete using the Microair Avionics harness.

In all installation cases, the installed system must be calibrated in accordance with applicable avionics maintenance requirements set down by CASA (eg FAR 43). The T2000ACS and T2000GPS can be calibrated in accordance with published maintenance requirements (FAR 43 – appendix E, & F), without the need to remove any items of equipment from their mountings. All required adjustments for calibration can be inputted from the T2000ACS front display.

STC <5700kg

7.1 STC

Microair Avionics as part of the ATSO approval process, is seeking an STC to cover the installation of the T2000ACS-S in all aircraft types <5700Kg.

Larger aircraft will require specific STC approvals for installation. These STC shall be the responsibility of the aircraft owner / operator.

For non-certified airframes such as ultralights will not require STC approval. Installation can be carried out by the builder of the airframe, or the person responsible for the maintenance of that airframe.

Now, for those that want the nice NAV ... plug a 430W or 530W into the T2000ACS-S .... voila .... 146a NAV, A,C,S,ADS-B TXPDR and CDTI 'IN' to a/the display

If a VFR owner wanted the good NAV and 'in' could it be packaged (similar to the above) to fit within 10K?? or does the subsidy need some tweeking?

The only way to really know is to start trying out some of the combinations of gear, preferably before the 'mandate' decision is taken in Canberra!?

Thoughts

Edit to add:

It is logical to assume Microair will (at some point) certify a 146a unit similar to their 129a Navigator. Those two compact units driving a map (either PDA or installed), well isn't that the end state folks are looking for?

As far as audible 'traffic' alerts, anyone care to bet folding stuff that someone won't be flogging that too (bit like Binghi's TAS system ) before too long!

Binghi

Re: GPS and AsA not owning it ... mate what does that matter ... or are you suggesting that GPS use for IFR in lieu of DME (which happens now, and has done for some time) should be canned because AsA does not own the GPS constellation???

[Quokka]

Dick,

I'm not sure why you think that I need an FAA lesson on E Airspace...

Your statement that I vectored the QF A330 20NM off track is false. The A330 was given a traffic statement on the VFR aircraft and requested it's callsign. The VFR aircraft did not respond to VHF calls from myself and the A330 because it was on "the appropriate frequency", a frequency that was not know to anyone. The absence of monitoring and broadcasting on a control frequency was exactly as per your desire that VFR aircraft in Class E airspace do not monitor or make calls on VHF... something you have suggested on a number of occasions. The A330 then requested to divert "up to 20NM right of track". I approved the diversion in accordance with the procedures published and the training provided.

Dick, could you please publish from your lawyers a legal opinion as to what my reply to the A330 should have been... in your lawyers opinion... under Australian law... Was I correct to comply with the published procedures and training provided? Or, should I have acted contrary to the published procedures and training provided?

Then a statement as to whether you consider it acceptable that the arrivals sequence into Perth is disrupted as a result of an IFR aircraft diverting to avoid an unidentified VFR aircraft...

...and by the way Dick, I don't have a closed mind in respect of E Airspace. In fact, I have been quite happy to provide the service anywhere that it doesn't infringe on the descent profiles of IFR aircraft into Primary Airports where a FLOW control service is required, and is being provided. The effect of IFR/VFR separation on FLOW control in Class E Airspace is a subject that you consistently avoid. Perhaps now would be a good opportunity for you to state whether it is acceptable or not?

[james michael]

Flying Binghi

I am still uncertain of this 4 seater TCAS.

You tell me

I already have a traffic aviodance system (TAS) that works off other aircraft transponders

Can you please advise make and model. As already I have said on here, I am unaware of cheap systems that work off other aircraft transponders WITHOUT monopulse radar ping or equivalent. My understanding that aircraft transponders are passive and only respond to MSSR or equivalent pulse. I understand full airline TCAS works because it pings other aircrafts transpondrs.

I have read JCP. In event of GPS failure there is backup by ADF/VOR/DME navaids retained and primary radar in terminal areas of major airport.

If GPS turned off, I suspect mushroom cloud more to my worry than GPS.

[CaptainMidnight]

when the GPS system fails

Chicken Little, and still sounding like a broken record.

If the GPS system did ever fail or a proposal is made to turn it off, I dare say amongst others the American public would have something to say about it. All those street navigators, vehicle trackers, time check systems etc. etc all affected?

Do we not get pay TV (or terrestrial TV for that matter) in case a satellite fails or someone turns one off?

[Dick Smith]

I ask everyone to look at my first post again. The Airservices ADSB project is clearly another Seasprite in the making -but with a far greater downside.

I have just read again the Transports Dept, "JCP" on this proposal. It's undoubtly one of the most dishonest missives from a Government Department of all times.

Look at the way it just spruiks the positives without mentioning the downsides.

There is no way I and others will allow the removal of the en-route SSR network until the ADSB system is totally operational and proven.This will then throw the "subsidy" figures on the scrap heap!

They won't take any notice of us? Don't you believe it -watch the media.

And despite misleading statements from others, the FAA is keeping all SSR's to provide a service above FL180 after their planned ADSB introduction date of 2020.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

They won't take any notice of us? Don't you believe it -watch the media.

.
.
.
ah dear ... tis like a 'fire side' with Sir Murray Rivers

[james michael]

Mr Dick Smith

I have read you first post as you suggest to us all, and will await your media release.

This issue is very clouded by our many comments and distractions herein.

Could you pleas advise what is your hoped outcome if you intervene, and what the benefits and/or expenses may accrue due to intervention or non-intervention? Or is this matter to complex?

[GaryGnu]

There is no way I and others will allow the removal of the en-route SSR network until the ADSB system is totally operational and proven.This will then throw the "subsidy" figures on the scrap heap!

Dick, ADS-B has already been proven. The trial at Bundaberg (or thereabouts) led to the approval of 5nm lateral separation standard using ADS-B alone.

The only reason the standard is not being applied with other ground stations is a lack of comms infrastructure.

Now you're just being obstructionist.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ummm Dick, the time for commenting on that JCP has long passed.(31OCT07) was the reply date)

The transition from the old system to TAAATS didn't happen overnight so why would ADS-B be any different. AirServices is going to have a tleast six years of data on how the system works BEFORE any ADS-B transition starts today plus 4 years time. The last SSR will be decommissioned six years after that time.

Dick I am sure you read pageiii of the intro of the JCP-

Should the proposal not be adopted or be delayed. It will be necessary to begin replacing existing ground-based systems at the end of their life. It is likely that this would reduce the funding available to assist light aircraft to transition, and erode the operational and commercial benefits offered by transition to satellite technolgy

Is this your aim, Mr Smith?

[Flying Binghi]

Re: GPS and AsA not owning it ... mate what does that matter ... or are you suggesting that GPS use for IFR in lieu of DME (which happens now, and has done for some time) should be canned because AsA does not own the GPS constellation???

Scurvy.D.Dog, I've made no comment on GPS us apart from re ADS-B.

I would ask what would happen if GPS was turned off today ? probably not too trumatic compared to if our entire airspace system was reliant on the GPS system as it would be under ADS-B And yes, I use GPS - I have a garmin 530 and 430 in my aircraft.

I am still uncertain of this 4 seater TCAS.

james michael, The unit is an Avidyne TAS600. It is at the low end of the certified transponder reading Traffic Aviodance Systems (TAS). The four seats I mentioned has nothing to do with the TAS, just the size of the aircraft -i.e. small. To pre-emt the question - No, I am NOT sugesting all aircraft have one fitted. For a full discription of the unit and what it can, or can-not do, please visit www.avidyne.com
(please note, I have NO financial interest in any avionics sales or manufacturer)

[Flying Binghi]

If the GPS system did ever fail or a proposal is made to turn it off, I dare say amongst others the American public would have something to say about it. All those street navigators, vehicle trackers, time check systems etc. etc all affected?

CaptainMidnight, you've not made any reference to terrorist miss-us of the system... whats your thoughts there ?

[Plazbot]

My thoughts are you should take off your tin foil hat

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... one thing I've noted, is that nobody has come up with a serious rebuttal to my terrorist miss-us of GPS scenario

[james michael]

Flying Binghi

I admire your unit as it is active not passive. You are obviously a cautious pilot and to be commended.

Without acting derogatory to your effort, this unit must be $10,000 plus and is range limited in comparison to ADS-B IN (but one accepts that the range of your unit is more than adequate for avoidance).

In analysis, if $15,000 enables a GPS and ADS-B IN, I feel is a good alternative for many owners.

I am intrigued at this terroruist misuse of GPS. Spoofing is not restricted to GPS. Turn off transponder, spoof MSSR radar - and primary radar when beyond range. If GPS is turn off, we are probably at war.

With ADS-B spread around, surely ADS-B is more protected than radar - one shoulder launch misile takes out radar aerial more easily than takes out ADS-B multiple stations. Can you be specific of your concerns?

[CaptainMidnight]

nobody has come up with a serious rebuttal to my terrorist miss-us of GPS scenario

Terrorists can make use of the mobile phone network to detonate IED’s – do we turn it off?

They make use of the satphone network & internet - do we turn it off?

In Cold War times, the Ruskies could (and no doubt did on Oz overflights) make use of the VOR NDB & Omega networks – did we turn them off?

Criminals use cars to commit crimes – do we ban cars?

No. The greater good outweighs those who will attempt to misuse them, and measures are taken to mitigate or prevent the misuse.

In the case of aviation, measures are taken to address GPS & ADS-B outage & degradation, as they are when other navaids are off. Spoofing is addressed in the Airservices system. ‘nuf said on that.

Sleep safely in your bed.

[Dick Smith]

Gary, Was the Bundaberg trial certified by CASA? Need I say any more! They don't appear to have the skills to monitor a small airline let alone the skills and expertise to certify the worlds first stand alone ADSB system.

I understand even the airborne equipment was never fully certified as it consisted of boxes from different companies strung together with a few wires. And of course, it didn't include the ADSB "in" part.

The Bundaberg trial was as proven as the Super Seasprites were in 2001. That is to say a demonstation of a few experimental units is totally different to a fully certified safe operational system.

James, the media release will not be comming from me.

Commonsense alone is all that is necessary to know that the system as proposed will not go ahead- I bet the two systems- existing SSR and the completed ADSB system- will co-exist for at least 5 years before a properly informed Minister would allow even one SSR to be de-commissioned.

This means that a major SSR refurbishment or replacement decision will need to be made and this has the implication of tens of millions of dollars of unplanned Airservices expenditure.

This of course means the $100 mil. will not be available for the subsidy for GA.-which then means the whole proposal will need to be looked at again.

Hopefully they will involve competent people next time.

[Pera]

Hmmm... one thing I've noted, is that nobody has come up with a serious rebuttal to my terrorist miss-us of GPS scenario

You've rebutted it yourself. You are saying that shutting off GPS will cause havok. That's precisely the argument that others are using to say that it won't be shut off...(even in the event of terrorist use) because it would cause havok, and not only to aviation.

You have raised a valid point, but the risk is low and the safety consequences to aircraft are not major.

Using Dick's affordable safety argument, it appears that the cost benefit of shutting off secondary radar and using ADSB is compelling. It's already being used in areas that previously had no radar like coverage.

To answer your question, if the GPS signal is interupted,(which is unlikely), then we will revert to procedural separation where ADSB is being used to separate. Aircraft will be delayed but safety will not be compromised. There is certainly no doomsday argument to be made here.

I am not in favour or against replacing secondary radar with ADSB, but I don't find your argument a compelling reason to stop ADSB introduction.

[Flying Binghi]

Terrorists can make use of the mobile phone network to detonate IED’s – do we turn it off?

They make use of the satphone network & internet - do we turn it off?

In Cold War times, the Ruskies could (and no doubt did on Oz overflights) make use of the VOR NDB & Omega networks – did we turn them off?

Criminals use cars to commit crimes – do we ban cars?

No. The greater good outweighs those who will attempt to misuse them, and measures are taken to mitigate or prevent the misuse.

In the case of aviation, measures are taken to address GPS & ADS-B outage & degradation, as they are when other navaids are off. Spoofing is addressed in the Airservices system. ‘nuf said on that.

All valid pionts you raise CaptainMidnight. I agree with you on the banning of cars, phones etc, will not stop an 'in-house' event. Unforetunatly, the scenarios you raise are all 'in house', or within Australia.

My scenario 'starts' outside Oz, outside of the control of our 'people' who work to stop terrorist threats.

Re Spoofing, I will leave that to Dick Smith.

[Flying Binghi]

I admire your unit as it is active not passive. You are obviously a cautious pilot and to be commended

james michael, After near 25 years of successfully flying without a TAS, I just got the unit so I could speak with at least some personal experience of these systems.