Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just wonder what safety increase we are looking for.
If we use ADS-B right; we could have your alphabet airspace without 'fear' that has accompanied the change in the past; simply because of the increased surveillance; also we could use it for better use of low level airspace management in terms of vectoring aircraft onto radials, localisers etc and for terrain avoidance advice too; if we staff it correctly (which I have no confidence).
If you are a positive subject to the two questions, how will the mandatory impost of any ADSB impact upon your bottom line if the aircraft/ bus, is/are operated below mainly AO10?
So in our system, want to go in class A/B/C/D then you need ADS-B, want to operate in the vicinity of a "passenger" CTAF (lets call them CTAF(R)'s) need ADS-B. The big question is class E and class G? If we get to Class E to A007 or A012 then we need to have it universally.
But can WAM do what we want ADS-B to do? Without the airborne expense?
WAM is more expensive than ADS-B in terms of ground infrastructure, but overall probably significantly cheaper; particularly for the East Coast and where infrastructure is available.
The big issue is the GAFA in terms of coverage, WAM works on 'triangulation' so you need to be in range of three or more WAM receivers for it to work; then there are the combined ADS-B WAM boxes, which is another story.
Do we need (it) what ever it is for the GAFA? Can we just have veils at certain 'higher risk' locations?
Remember though, getting GPS into every aircraft effectively means that the old 'radio navaid' network can be decommissioned. How many rusting radio towers are out there needing urgent repair? Some of ASA sights whilst still 'operational' are 'hazardous hard hat safety areas' only, with reports suggesting that a strong wind could blow some of them over.
So there is more to it than one source of costs alone. Hence show us the business cases, why the "secret squirrel" stuff? What other hidden agendas are linked to this project. TiNR etc.
Dick,
That’s what "a few uninformed and closed minded" (from your CTAF post; thanks) "experts" think. Get onto 133.5, 133.8, 127.0 and the Low matching freqs (the Pilbara and Goldfields for those of you in the East) one day and listen. Nose to nose jets, off-track diversion radials, fuel wastage, blocked comms, not to mention 30 minutes traffic holding at Perth, and more. Open your mind and ears, listen to what people are saying and perhaps you may see that ADS-B would be a god-send in some parts. Perhaps not in Terry Hills, but for other places it would be a huge benefit.
hardly anyone actually gives the scenario of what particular accidents we are going to reduce.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get onto 133.5, 133.8, 127.0 and the Low matching freqs (the Pilbara and Goldfields for those of you in the East)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binghi
To answer your question, why does ADS-B need a backup network? Because any system may fail (eg a massive sunspot interference).
We DO backup the current navaid network actually - have a look at your IFR alternates.
Account for GA air time? - my understanding from the association I contacted is that they have a submission to Airservices about LESS accounts for GA airtime.
Bob Murphie
Not two transponders. You throw away your tired old existing one and start afresh with a new one with probable minimal maintenance.
There are probably many VFR and IFR owners who will take the subsidy and either include extra upgrade in the deal or pocket the surplus $. The subsidy was based on a $10,000 or $15,000 one off payment not related to actual expenditure but merely to the aircraft being VFR/working txpdr or IFR on the maintenance release.
Dick Smith
You state
Do the aircraft owners care about the safety issue? If one has a VFR aircraft and can put ADS-B plus a TSO 146 GPS in for an outlay of $3,000 to $5,000 - that answers the 'what's in it for me' as far as I'm concerned. Or do I go along with you and find it later mandated by CASA and me having to pay $10,000 without a GPS on my dash?
I comprehend your concerns - mine are that it's going to be bulldozed in and it's no skin off my nose to get it for free plus some extra GPS capability instead of my handheld.
What can you offer if I hang out?
To answer your question, why does ADS-B need a backup network? Because any system may fail (eg a massive sunspot interference).
We DO backup the current navaid network actually - have a look at your IFR alternates.
Account for GA air time? - my understanding from the association I contacted is that they have a submission to Airservices about LESS accounts for GA airtime.
Bob Murphie
Not two transponders. You throw away your tired old existing one and start afresh with a new one with probable minimal maintenance.
There are probably many VFR and IFR owners who will take the subsidy and either include extra upgrade in the deal or pocket the surplus $. The subsidy was based on a $10,000 or $15,000 one off payment not related to actual expenditure but merely to the aircraft being VFR/working txpdr or IFR on the maintenance release.
Dick Smith
You state
I’m concerned about the $100 million subsidy here to fit ADS-B in small GA aircraft. I want to know which safety issue is being addressed for the $100 million.
I comprehend your concerns - mine are that it's going to be bulldozed in and it's no skin off my nose to get it for free plus some extra GPS capability instead of my handheld.
What can you offer if I hang out?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Melbourne
Age: 59
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure Dick, happy to oblige (see story below). I'm sure the tax office will be happy with a deferred payment program if you can't get your hands on $77 million straight away.
AAP General News (Australia)
08-16-1999
FED: Air radar system $77m and four years over target: Dems
CANBERRA, Aug 16 AAP - Australia's new air traffic control system's budget had blown out by $77 million and was four years behind schedule, the Australian Democrats said today.
The Advanced Australian Air Traffic System (TAAATS), which uses software and satellite-based technologies, was expected to be completed by December 1995 for $300 million.
It will now be finished at the end of this year for $377 million.
AAP General News (Australia)
08-16-1999
FED: Air radar system $77m and four years over target: Dems
CANBERRA, Aug 16 AAP - Australia's new air traffic control system's budget had blown out by $77 million and was four years behind schedule, the Australian Democrats said today.
The Advanced Australian Air Traffic System (TAAATS), which uses software and satellite-based technologies, was expected to be completed by December 1995 for $300 million.
It will now be finished at the end of this year for $377 million.
Dick,
-"Considering the only airline midair collision that we have had in Australia was at Sydney Airport in what is now known as Class C airspace...."-
Gee Dick, I thought that one was on the runway, because the two aircraft were both on the active rwy at the same time, and one started his T/O run before the other had vacated.
Didn't the fin of the (Canadian?) aircraft taxying, cut the underbelly of the departing 727 as it 'lifted off' in an endeavour to avoid the (DC8?) ?
Rainy night - poor vis - lotsa lights / reflections - hard to see the just landed acft still on the rwy in the distance...
Forgive the question marks, but the memory is a little hazy - and it was a fair while back...
Hardly 'midair' though - one was firmly on the deck - and the class of 'airspace' hardly the issue....or do I have the wrong incident?
Cheers
-"Considering the only airline midair collision that we have had in Australia was at Sydney Airport in what is now known as Class C airspace...."-
Gee Dick, I thought that one was on the runway, because the two aircraft were both on the active rwy at the same time, and one started his T/O run before the other had vacated.
Didn't the fin of the (Canadian?) aircraft taxying, cut the underbelly of the departing 727 as it 'lifted off' in an endeavour to avoid the (DC8?) ?
Rainy night - poor vis - lotsa lights / reflections - hard to see the just landed acft still on the rwy in the distance...
Forgive the question marks, but the memory is a little hazy - and it was a fair while back...
Hardly 'midair' though - one was firmly on the deck - and the class of 'airspace' hardly the issue....or do I have the wrong incident?
Cheers
Thread Starter
Ex FSO GRIFFO, one aircraft was certainly in the air. The point I am clearly making is that the highest risk is closest to the runway.
Further to this important scientific fact is the issue that the most likely airline accident we will have in the near future will be a runway (or close to runway) collision at an airport like Avalon – not a midair that ADS-B could have prevented in the high level airspace over Bourke or Birdsville.
The reason everyone seems to be obsessed with mandatory radio and ADS-B above 5,000 feet is because that is where (in the old days) Flight Service Officers could provide a service to both IFR and VFR with their existing staffing levels. Of course, where the risk increased at lower levels at airline airports such as Taree, there was no requirement for the VFR aircraft to be in the system – therefore traffic was not given by Flight Service.
This led to some people believing that the higher risk is above 5,000 feet, not below. Why else would the second stage of the ADS-B mandate for GA aircraft be talking about requirements above 5,000 feet, but not at lots of higher traffic density areas close to the ground?
Further to this important scientific fact is the issue that the most likely airline accident we will have in the near future will be a runway (or close to runway) collision at an airport like Avalon – not a midair that ADS-B could have prevented in the high level airspace over Bourke or Birdsville.
The reason everyone seems to be obsessed with mandatory radio and ADS-B above 5,000 feet is because that is where (in the old days) Flight Service Officers could provide a service to both IFR and VFR with their existing staffing levels. Of course, where the risk increased at lower levels at airline airports such as Taree, there was no requirement for the VFR aircraft to be in the system – therefore traffic was not given by Flight Service.
This led to some people believing that the higher risk is above 5,000 feet, not below. Why else would the second stage of the ADS-B mandate for GA aircraft be talking about requirements above 5,000 feet, but not at lots of higher traffic density areas close to the ground?
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
The reason everyone seems to be obsessed with mandatory radio and ADS-B above 5,000 feet is because that is where (in the old days) Flight Service Officers could provide a service to both IFR and VFR with their existing staffing levels.
Of course, where the risk increased at lower levels at airline airports such as Taree, there was no requirement for the VFR aircraft to be in the system – therefore traffic was not given by Flight Service.
It was a claim made by politicians – and we always believe them, don’t we?
.. this should be good viewing
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
TAAATS was years late and overbudget, its a fact. It was a worlds first and most projects like this do tend to go this way. It is a huge improvement on what we used to have, and was worth the extra time and expense.
It was cobbled together from proven systems, and it was the ATC and the Techs of Australia, together with the mostly French suppliers who did it.
Someone has to prove the systems in the first place though.
Australia , due to its large and diverse area, and lack of sovereignty issues, is probably the foremost area in the world to develop new ideas in ATC. We have the advantage of a busy Eastern seaboard, with some of the busiest city-pair air routes in the world. Combined with a huge expanse of basically nothing. We can be busy USA, or the backblocks of Siberia, and most places in between.
We have robust discussions here, so imagine what it must be like in Europe. The politics, potential suppliers, and sovereignty issues must make us look like a love-in.
ADS-B is up and working in areas of Australia, the trial has been going on for years and it is being implemented. It is evidence that we can do it, it will be a huge boost to those areas in the West, the discussion about GA costs will continue. Have you thought that there are probably "other countries Dick Smiths" pointing to Australia and saying they are using it, it is a proven system and what the hell are we doing wasting money.
As for the Hughes system in NZ, it had alot of teething problems, but having seen and played on both systems in the last couple of years, I believe that for outside of radar coverage that the Hughes system, at the moment, is a better piece of kit.We have some improvements, that are due to go on, that will bring us up to speed and allow User Preferred Routing, that are only being held up due to our staffing problems.
TAAATS was years late and overbudget, its a fact. It was a worlds first and most projects like this do tend to go this way. It is a huge improvement on what we used to have, and was worth the extra time and expense.
It was cobbled together from proven systems, and it was the ATC and the Techs of Australia, together with the mostly French suppliers who did it.
Someone has to prove the systems in the first place though.
Australia , due to its large and diverse area, and lack of sovereignty issues, is probably the foremost area in the world to develop new ideas in ATC. We have the advantage of a busy Eastern seaboard, with some of the busiest city-pair air routes in the world. Combined with a huge expanse of basically nothing. We can be busy USA, or the backblocks of Siberia, and most places in between.
We have robust discussions here, so imagine what it must be like in Europe. The politics, potential suppliers, and sovereignty issues must make us look like a love-in.
ADS-B is up and working in areas of Australia, the trial has been going on for years and it is being implemented. It is evidence that we can do it, it will be a huge boost to those areas in the West, the discussion about GA costs will continue. Have you thought that there are probably "other countries Dick Smiths" pointing to Australia and saying they are using it, it is a proven system and what the hell are we doing wasting money.
As for the Hughes system in NZ, it had alot of teething problems, but having seen and played on both systems in the last couple of years, I believe that for outside of radar coverage that the Hughes system, at the moment, is a better piece of kit.We have some improvements, that are due to go on, that will bring us up to speed and allow User Preferred Routing, that are only being held up due to our staffing problems.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the Hughes system in NZ, it had alot of teething problems, but having seen and played on both systems in the last couple of years, I believe that for outside of radar coverage that the Hughes system, at the moment, is a better piece of kit.
I hear that managers at ASA 'can't believe how unpatriotic Qantas is' for even suggesting such a thing.; like they care, under delivering and over promising; that's ASA style.
Having observed the NZ system in action; if that's what we could have had here, then we made a massive mistake taking that french crap 'off the shelf'. I know which is better; and it isn't on this side of the Tasman.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
Somehow I feel you have not answered my question of last night. Was it too hard?
But, turning to today, you state
Have I misread something here? By my reading: -
Stage 1 of the ADS-B mandate related to the transponder category.
Stage 2 related to the radio category.
I felt matters below 5000' were extremely well covered and even to the extent where claims were made about safety benefits in CTAF.
Just to ensure we are talking apples and apples, this from the JCP:
VFR operations that currently require carriage and use of a VHF radio
I'm not sure where you are coming on with the 5000' matter - are we reading the same paper?
Somehow I feel you have not answered my question of last night. Was it too hard?
But, turning to today, you state
Why else would the second stage of the ADS-B mandate for GA aircraft be talking about requirements above 5,000 feet, but not at lots of higher traffic density areas close to the ground
Stage 1 of the ADS-B mandate related to the transponder category.
Stage 2 related to the radio category.
I felt matters below 5000' were extremely well covered and even to the extent where claims were made about safety benefits in CTAF.
Just to ensure we are talking apples and apples, this from the JCP:
(Stage 1)
From 28 June 2012, ADS-B avionics would be required for all civilian IFR operations, and for all civilian Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations that currently require carriage and use of a transponder.
(Stage 2)
From 26 June 2014, ADS-B avionics would also be required for all civilian
From 28 June 2012, ADS-B avionics would be required for all civilian IFR operations, and for all civilian Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations that currently require carriage and use of a transponder.
(Stage 2)
From 26 June 2014, ADS-B avionics would also be required for all civilian
VFR operations that currently require carriage and use of a VHF radio
I'm not sure where you are coming on with the 5000' matter - are we reading the same paper?
Thread Starter
Max1, a good post, but you (like others) seem to mix two completely separate issues. High level ADS-B (which is working now in Australia) is actually operating in parallel with the existing procedural system.
It is an incredibly conservative approach. An aircraft can fly in all of the so-called ADS-B airspace without ADS-B, and will be separated safely.
A quantum leap is the proposed low level ADS-B system and the $100 million subsidy to bring small aircraft into it. It is a quantum leap because the subsidy is based on closing down the SSR network at a date that relies on the low level ADS-B system being installed and operating correctly.
I will say it again. I totally support ADS-B – especially if it is operated in parallel with existing systems for 5 years to so.
In relation to the $100 million subsidy, no one has been able to explain what actual risk is being addressed, and whether that is an effective way of spending $100 million. Having small VFR aircraft flying low level at Birdsville appearing on an air traffic controller’s screen in Brisbane sounds really fantastic. However what is the air traffic controller going to do? Is he actually going to separate the traffic (as per Class C) or is the air traffic controller going to just give a traffic service? If so, how can an air traffic controller reliably give a traffic service when there may be a dozen or so airports in the sector?
Most importantly, won’t the traffic that is being given by the air traffic controller have already appeared on the airline aircraft’s TCAS as a Traffic Advisory, and won’t the pilots have already alerted each other by radio?
These issues have never been properly discussed. It is a classic example of boffins saying that they can “invent” something and it will lead the world, so we should go ahead with it.
In business I have always been conservative. That is why I have had some success.
It is an incredibly conservative approach. An aircraft can fly in all of the so-called ADS-B airspace without ADS-B, and will be separated safely.
A quantum leap is the proposed low level ADS-B system and the $100 million subsidy to bring small aircraft into it. It is a quantum leap because the subsidy is based on closing down the SSR network at a date that relies on the low level ADS-B system being installed and operating correctly.
I will say it again. I totally support ADS-B – especially if it is operated in parallel with existing systems for 5 years to so.
In relation to the $100 million subsidy, no one has been able to explain what actual risk is being addressed, and whether that is an effective way of spending $100 million. Having small VFR aircraft flying low level at Birdsville appearing on an air traffic controller’s screen in Brisbane sounds really fantastic. However what is the air traffic controller going to do? Is he actually going to separate the traffic (as per Class C) or is the air traffic controller going to just give a traffic service? If so, how can an air traffic controller reliably give a traffic service when there may be a dozen or so airports in the sector?
Most importantly, won’t the traffic that is being given by the air traffic controller have already appeared on the airline aircraft’s TCAS as a Traffic Advisory, and won’t the pilots have already alerted each other by radio?
These issues have never been properly discussed. It is a classic example of boffins saying that they can “invent” something and it will lead the world, so we should go ahead with it.
In business I have always been conservative. That is why I have had some success.
Hi Dick,
Your Quote;
...........(in the old days) Flight Service Officers could provide a service to both IFR and VFR with their existing staffing levels. ....................
A V E R Y S A F E system...............IMHO!!
A 'Not quite so safe system' was the post 'VFR' period.....was that
11/11/93?? .... its that 'memory thing' again.... when the service was confined to IFR only about other IFR.
Imagine now, if we still had the FSO situation, using ADSB to give a full traffic service to ALL acft OCTA.....at our 'then, minimum staffing levels'...
Easier now - not so many PVT acft around - and the 10-15 seaters have now been replaced largely by the fewer-in-number 40 to 100 or so seaters.
Affordable and 'Safe'........Assuming that everybody had access to ADSB of course.
(No Dick, not trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted...
- thanks again for the redundo........
)
Your Quote;
...........(in the old days) Flight Service Officers could provide a service to both IFR and VFR with their existing staffing levels. ....................
A V E R Y S A F E system...............IMHO!!
A 'Not quite so safe system' was the post 'VFR' period.....was that
11/11/93?? .... its that 'memory thing' again.... when the service was confined to IFR only about other IFR.
Imagine now, if we still had the FSO situation, using ADSB to give a full traffic service to ALL acft OCTA.....at our 'then, minimum staffing levels'...
Easier now - not so many PVT acft around - and the 10-15 seaters have now been replaced largely by the fewer-in-number 40 to 100 or so seaters.
Affordable and 'Safe'........Assuming that everybody had access to ADSB of course.
(No Dick, not trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted...
- thanks again for the redundo........
)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine now, if we still had the FSO situation, using ADSB to give a full traffic service to ALL acft OCTA.....at our 'then, minimum staffing levels'...
No See-&-Avoid in that one... no avoiding action at all. It was another See-As-We-Miss-By-Sheer-Blind-Luck.
But then, Mr Smith is still not convinced that a single collision between two aircraft outside controlled airspace will be saved by ADS-B.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
Could you please assist me by prefacing your posts "transmitting blind".
Early in the piece I thought you were here to debate and share and gather information.
Now I realise you are here to spruik and not comment on any posts too hard to answer. Obviously mine are in that category. Not agro, not personal, just asking you for some answers.
Bob Murphie
Cross industry subsidy. But, why look a gift horse in the mouth. Does not matter how the money is derived, for you and I if you are an aircraft owner (?) why question fate. However, we have an option - if Dick answers my question of yesterday, HE may have alternative funding for the GPS I am going to get cheap out of this deal.
Could you please assist me by prefacing your posts "transmitting blind".
Early in the piece I thought you were here to debate and share and gather information.
Now I realise you are here to spruik and not comment on any posts too hard to answer. Obviously mine are in that category. Not agro, not personal, just asking you for some answers.
Bob Murphie
Cross industry subsidy. But, why look a gift horse in the mouth. Does not matter how the money is derived, for you and I if you are an aircraft owner (?) why question fate. However, we have an option - if Dick answers my question of yesterday, HE may have alternative funding for the GPS I am going to get cheap out of this deal.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
james michael;
I do own aircraft and I have been told of this "cross industry subsidy" before, but nobody has yet told me who actually signs the cheque. Is it Airservices, DOTARS, Qantas, Dept Finance or who?
Last time I listened to the Airservices presentation (and the two times before), "THEY" were paying for it from the savings made out of the "redundant" radar and navaid installations.
I do own aircraft and I have been told of this "cross industry subsidy" before, but nobody has yet told me who actually signs the cheque. Is it Airservices, DOTARS, Qantas, Dept Finance or who?
Last time I listened to the Airservices presentation (and the two times before), "THEY" were paying for it from the savings made out of the "redundant" radar and navaid installations.
This will prolong the life of all the en route radars to preserve the ADS-B contingency period to support the transition.
Dick, where IS the comparison between ADS-B and the SeaSprite "Fiasco"?
Bob, I care not what you think about subsidy or fitment or maintainence. I do care that history doesn't repeat itself with transponder fitment. Did you get one red cent to fit a modeA then fork out for a modeC and then have your mate get it mandated for use above 5000ft?
Just because GARMIN hasn't produced a 1090ES unit doesn't mean non-availabilty. Lets have a look at Garmin for a sec. The producer of THE most expensive extensive avionics suite ever installed in a GA lightie yet the GPS that drives it is only TSO129????? If you bought one of the first aircraft equipped with this unit, How ripped off would you feel?
Garmin G1000 systems installed before 1/2007 are not WAAS capable. Garmin has left it up to the individual airframe vendors to offer the WAAS upgrade to this system. As of this date, there is no program through Garmin to upgrade the existing G1000 systems to WAAS.
Quite shocked to learn that, all that money and still you will have to fork out more to upgrade to TSO146.($14,795US, Cessna. SB 07-34-07) The American way. Thank heavens for the Japanese.
1090ES is 1090ES! The message is standard, the format is standard. The receiver is standard. It is the same here, it is the same in US airspace...note that! It is the same in Europe. IT is the SAME!
I have sat in the same room as Murphie and Leadsled and I still cannot understand their patholgical hate of "Big Brother" This is what it is all about-
BIG BROTHER CAN WATCH YOU!
It's quite pathetic!