Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Thread Starter
Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
In a paper issued in June 2008 for the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group ADS-B Implementation Team, an interesting summary is made. See here.
Readers of PPRuNe will probably understand that the Airservices low level ADS-B project, and the planned removal of low level radars, is heading down the same route as the Super Seasprite helicopter purchase.
It is obvious that the decisions are made by those who never ask advice. For example, how can the “proposed 2012 mandate” ever come in now, as no decision has been made regarding the low level ADS-B project?
As I have pointed out numerous times, the FAA is keeping all of its secondary surveillance radar for airspace above FL180 for safety and other reasons. Why is it that Australia is to go it alone on a cheaper ADS-B only system?
More importantly, this life extension program is completely unsatisfactory. New Zealand has actually issued a contract to completely refurbish their secondary surveillance radar to give a life of at least 20 years. That is what we need here.
It is obvious that Airservices has not considered the situation where the low level ADS-B mandate does not come in, and we therefore will need to keep the secondary surveillance radars for a much longer period. Alternatively, as stated above, we should keep the secondary surveillance radars for high level operations for safety purposes as per the USA.
If you read the document (and the other documents on the site) it is obvious that there is no leadership here.
We have all seen the problems of selling off the secondary airports without any policy. I can assure you what is happening at Airservices in relation to the lack of decision making and leadership in relation to ADS-B and radar will be a greater catastrophe. It will put the lack of air traffic controllers and lack of pilots into the shadows.
Can anyone on this site post the names of people who are making these decisions so they can be held accountable?
Airservices has signed a contract to ensure that RASPP sensors can remain operational for a contingency-transition period after the proposed 2012 mandate comes into effect. Enroute radar replacement timing has critical implications for an ATLAS decision.
It is obvious that the decisions are made by those who never ask advice. For example, how can the “proposed 2012 mandate” ever come in now, as no decision has been made regarding the low level ADS-B project?
As I have pointed out numerous times, the FAA is keeping all of its secondary surveillance radar for airspace above FL180 for safety and other reasons. Why is it that Australia is to go it alone on a cheaper ADS-B only system?
More importantly, this life extension program is completely unsatisfactory. New Zealand has actually issued a contract to completely refurbish their secondary surveillance radar to give a life of at least 20 years. That is what we need here.
It is obvious that Airservices has not considered the situation where the low level ADS-B mandate does not come in, and we therefore will need to keep the secondary surveillance radars for a much longer period. Alternatively, as stated above, we should keep the secondary surveillance radars for high level operations for safety purposes as per the USA.
If you read the document (and the other documents on the site) it is obvious that there is no leadership here.
We have all seen the problems of selling off the secondary airports without any policy. I can assure you what is happening at Airservices in relation to the lack of decision making and leadership in relation to ADS-B and radar will be a greater catastrophe. It will put the lack of air traffic controllers and lack of pilots into the shadows.
Can anyone on this site post the names of people who are making these decisions so they can be held accountable?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Aug 2008 at 22:31.
Yawn
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Name the ABIT team and you may be getting somewhere Dick.
Greg Dunstone acknowledges authorship of the document. The ABIT team appear all enthusiastic supporters of the concept.
But then it is an "implementation team", not an investigative team.
Greg Dunstone acknowledges authorship of the document. The ABIT team appear all enthusiastic supporters of the concept.
But then it is an "implementation team", not an investigative team.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Titles Not Names
Dick,
I won't give you names but how about these titles.
CEO CASA
CEO Airservices Australia
Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (nee DOTARS).
Chief of Defence Force (CDF)
Together they form the Aviation Policy Group set up by the previous Minister to tin plate his backside from the likes of you and your medelsome counterproductive interference on issues like this.
They are the heads of the agencies that issued the Joint Consultation Paper on project ATLAS and where the ultimate decisions on low-level ADS-B will be made.
I'm sure their email adressess are publicly available. Why campaign here? Have you lost the ear of the minister.....or have you lost your minister
I won't give you names but how about these titles.
CEO CASA
CEO Airservices Australia
Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (nee DOTARS).
Chief of Defence Force (CDF)
Together they form the Aviation Policy Group set up by the previous Minister to tin plate his backside from the likes of you and your medelsome counterproductive interference on issues like this.
They are the heads of the agencies that issued the Joint Consultation Paper on project ATLAS and where the ultimate decisions on low-level ADS-B will be made.
I'm sure their email adressess are publicly available. Why campaign here? Have you lost the ear of the minister.....or have you lost your minister
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[hmmm! logged in to self-moderate my last post which in retrospect may have been a bit frooty and it has gorn. I'll try again...]
Erm, really? Was ADS/B created for a patrol boat which was never built? Was ADS/B put into a paddock in the desert 30 years ago then painted up purty with added shiny bits and then flogged to the gullible? Was ADS/B bought off the shelf to an international standard like that nice dick smith bloke is always bleating about? No, no, no and yes.
You have your head in the sand there I believe, but regardless, it seems a good idea to get as much life as is reasonably available from the existing equipment to facilitate a delay in the final decision.
Weren't you saying last week the FAA wanted to turn them off? I referred your comments to a US ATC of my acquaintance and this is her comment: "Okay, I want to bite your pinhead on the neck too. I see he's an authority on the FAA too, and talks as though he knows Pat Forrey personally."
NO!
No half-baked Frankenstein creation melding obsolete and unsupported gear with untried & internationally unique bits welded on thanks. That would be another Seasprite project if there ever was one. New radar or new ADS/B. Don't care which. If existing equipment can be maintained longer in the meantime that is good.
Well obviously they have, or they would have just ordered the new ADS/B.
Readers of PPRuNe will probably understand that the Airservices low level ADS-B project, and the planned removal of low level radars, is heading down the same route as the Super Seasprite helicopter purchase.
It is obvious that the decisions are made by those who never ask advice. For example, how can the “proposed 2012 mandate” ever come in now, as no decision has been made regarding the low level ADS-B project?
As I have pointed out numerous times, the FAA is keeping all of its secondary surveillance radar for airspace above FL180 for safety and other reasons. Why is it that Australia is to go it alone on a cheaper ADS-B only system?
More importantly, this life extension program is completely unsatisfactory. New Zealand has actually issued a contract to completely refurbish their secondary surveillance radar to give a life of at least 20 years. That is what we need here.
No half-baked Frankenstein creation melding obsolete and unsupported gear with untried & internationally unique bits welded on thanks. That would be another Seasprite project if there ever was one. New radar or new ADS/B. Don't care which. If existing equipment can be maintained longer in the meantime that is good.
It is obvious that Airservices has not considered the situation where the low level ADS-B mandate does not come in, and we therefore will need to keep the secondary surveillance radars for a much longer period.
Moderator
Yes, it was "a bit frooty"!! 
You know better than that!
And removed for very good reason, as you well know!
When you fail to post your argument objectively and impersonally, you destroy your own credibility.
Tail Wheel
You know better than that! And removed for very good reason, as you well know!
When you fail to post your argument objectively and impersonally, you destroy your own credibility.
Tail Wheel
Whatever your arguments Dick, best not hold up the FAA as an example of how things should be done.
They make Airservices Australia and CASA look like the best around.
The hearings on Capitol Hill over the past two weeks have shown just how dysfuntional their National Airspace System has become - a wreck looking for somewhere to happen and very soon.
I am sure you will agree that is not something we should be trying to emulate.
They make Airservices Australia and CASA look like the best around.
The hearings on Capitol Hill over the past two weeks have shown just how dysfuntional their National Airspace System has become - a wreck looking for somewhere to happen and very soon.
I am sure you will agree that is not something we should be trying to emulate.
Thread Starter
Spodman, why doesn’t anyone from Airservices come on this site and put their name to the decision for the low level ADS-B and sell its advantages? You only post anonymously – presumably so when problems occur you can’t be held accountable in any way. In the meantime, millions of dollars will be spent that could be wasted.
In relation to your American air traffic controller friend, why doesn’t she answer the point rather than attack me personally? The FAA has stated that it will be keeping the secondary surveillance radars to provide a service above FL180 when ADS-B is installed. Surely she can come back and say if this is true or not. The reason she doesn’t is that she knows that it is!
I stated clearly on this site a number of weeks ago that the FAA has become as dysfunctional as Airservices, very much for the same reason. That is, in the past in both organisations had people in charge who had a good aviation background. About a decade ago the FAA Administrators were “de-skilled”, and no longer were people with professional aviation experience given the position – it was handed to bureaucrats from the transport department in Washington.
Look at what happened here in Australia. John Anderson put a farmer with absolutely no aviation background or knowledge in charge of Airservices.
BN APP 125.6, I’m not holding up the FAA “as an example of how things should be done”, I’m simply stating a basic fact. That is, when they plan to go to ADS-B, they are going to keep secondary surveillance radars to cover the airspace above FL180. This is obviously so they have a back up if the GPS system goes out.
In Australia, the whole basis for our low level GPS system is the money saving that can allegedly be obtained by turning off these enroute secondary surveillance radars.
I can assure everyone who reads this that our proposed ADS-B system, which is allegedly subsidised to the tune of $100 million to GA, has not been attempted anywhere else in the world. There is not even an inexpensive certified ADS-B ‘out’ or ‘in’ unit suitable for GA.
As I have said before, I’m a strong supporter of ADS-B – but not leading the world, and not going ahead without examining all the pros and cons, and communicating them to everyone involved.
In relation to your American air traffic controller friend, why doesn’t she answer the point rather than attack me personally? The FAA has stated that it will be keeping the secondary surveillance radars to provide a service above FL180 when ADS-B is installed. Surely she can come back and say if this is true or not. The reason she doesn’t is that she knows that it is!
I stated clearly on this site a number of weeks ago that the FAA has become as dysfunctional as Airservices, very much for the same reason. That is, in the past in both organisations had people in charge who had a good aviation background. About a decade ago the FAA Administrators were “de-skilled”, and no longer were people with professional aviation experience given the position – it was handed to bureaucrats from the transport department in Washington.
Look at what happened here in Australia. John Anderson put a farmer with absolutely no aviation background or knowledge in charge of Airservices.
BN APP 125.6, I’m not holding up the FAA “as an example of how things should be done”, I’m simply stating a basic fact. That is, when they plan to go to ADS-B, they are going to keep secondary surveillance radars to cover the airspace above FL180. This is obviously so they have a back up if the GPS system goes out.
In Australia, the whole basis for our low level GPS system is the money saving that can allegedly be obtained by turning off these enroute secondary surveillance radars.
I can assure everyone who reads this that our proposed ADS-B system, which is allegedly subsidised to the tune of $100 million to GA, has not been attempted anywhere else in the world. There is not even an inexpensive certified ADS-B ‘out’ or ‘in’ unit suitable for GA.
As I have said before, I’m a strong supporter of ADS-B – but not leading the world, and not going ahead without examining all the pros and cons, and communicating them to everyone involved.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You'll never get any official response from AsA on this "rumour" site. Same as you won't get a high ranking military official response or someone in management from CASA or the ATSB. It's not the appropriate place.
Having said that, you're asking for someone from AsA to be accountable.
I can also assure you that although you don't know who SPODMAN is, he is well known by ATC's, and is regarded highly by us and management. His knowledge and opinions are well respected by those of us that know him(most of the time
) and he is well aware of his accountability for the things he posts on this site.
I, on the other hand, probably have a lot less respect for my management these days so continue to loosely use an alias.
You'll never get any official response from AsA on this "rumour" site. Same as you won't get a high ranking military official response or someone in management from CASA or the ATSB. It's not the appropriate place.
Having said that, you're asking for someone from AsA to be accountable.
I can also assure you that although you don't know who SPODMAN is, he is well known by ATC's, and is regarded highly by us and management. His knowledge and opinions are well respected by those of us that know him(most of the time
) and he is well aware of his accountability for the things he posts on this site. I, on the other hand, probably have a lot less respect for my management these days so continue to loosely use an alias.
Thread Starter
Kaptain Kaos, well may you say “yawn yawn.” No doubt some people were saying that when others were querying the Super Seasprite order 10 years ago. Now $1 billion later, it is no longer a yawning matter, it is a serious waste of resources.
I have recently been told that the decision in relation to the ADS-B project and the $100 million subsidy is going to be made by the Department. Now remember the Department is now called the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – and everything else! In my experience, they have no one left who has any expertise in this field. How would they ever be able to make such an important decision?
More to the point, why is the Department making this decision? Surely it should be Airservices proposing it to the industry and CASA, then making the decision in conjunction with all three – i.e. Airservices, CASA and the industry.
If it is the Department, don’t hold your breath.
I have recently been told that the decision in relation to the ADS-B project and the $100 million subsidy is going to be made by the Department. Now remember the Department is now called the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – and everything else! In my experience, they have no one left who has any expertise in this field. How would they ever be able to make such an important decision?
More to the point, why is the Department making this decision? Surely it should be Airservices proposing it to the industry and CASA, then making the decision in conjunction with all three – i.e. Airservices, CASA and the industry.
If it is the Department, don’t hold your breath.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman, why doesn’t anyone from Airservices come on this site and put their name to the decision for the low level ADS-B and sell its advantages?
I don't propose to spruik for ADS/B or SSR, just don't want to see stuff posted here I think is misleading or untrue. I'm happy to keep ATC'ing with the tools I'm given, and the procedures mandated. I can see a huge benefit in efficiency with stage 2 ADS/B, enabling the sort of airspace arrangements that seem to give you a stiffy, and really don't get why you are fighting it. The easier option for me is business as usual with the gear we have now, but I don't object to exerting myself a bit for the system to improve. Bring it on!
The FAA has stated that it will be keeping the secondary surveillance radars to provide a service above FL180 when ADS-B is installed.
“ADS-B, as a replacement of radar separation for all aircraft, is a core element in ATC modernization that NBAA supports and is working to enhance through the ARC.”
Thread Starter
Spodman, you resort to personal attack again - i.e. you state that I “really don’t have a clue” but don’t come up with any facts.
I have stated that the FAA plans to keep all secondary surveillance radars right across the USA to provide a secondary surveillance radar back up service above FL180 when ADS-B is fully installed.
In response to this you state:
However you provide no evidence. I can assure you I have spoken to people at the FAA and their document makes it quite clear that they are going to keep the secondary surveillance radars to provide a radar service above FL180 after ADS-B is installed.
You say my statement is misleading. Where is your evidence? Are you actually stating that the FAA proposes to close down all its secondary surveillance enroute radars in a similar way to the Australian proposal? It is as if you know that I am stating a fact, and because it works against your belief system, you will simply personally attack me rather than address this important issue.
I can assure you that at the present time, I wouldn’t like to see an enroute system that is totally based on GPS, and if the GPS system goes out we have no surveillance at all. At the present time if one SSR head goes out we have others, and there is a portable unit which can be brought in to replace it. Everything else is backed up (i.e. power supplies, links etc).
The multilateration system which is being installed in Tasmania has backed up power supplies and multiple outlets so if one goes down, the system will still fundamentally work. The multilateration system is not based on the GPS system working.
Why isn’t Airservices telling us how that system is going and advising why they have spent such a fortune on the system, if they are not planning to take notice of its performance and compare it with ADS-B, which requires operation of the GPS constellation?
I have stated that the FAA plans to keep all secondary surveillance radars right across the USA to provide a secondary surveillance radar back up service above FL180 when ADS-B is fully installed.
In response to this you state:
It is misleading statements like this that get me steamed about you
You say my statement is misleading. Where is your evidence? Are you actually stating that the FAA proposes to close down all its secondary surveillance enroute radars in a similar way to the Australian proposal? It is as if you know that I am stating a fact, and because it works against your belief system, you will simply personally attack me rather than address this important issue.
I can assure you that at the present time, I wouldn’t like to see an enroute system that is totally based on GPS, and if the GPS system goes out we have no surveillance at all. At the present time if one SSR head goes out we have others, and there is a portable unit which can be brought in to replace it. Everything else is backed up (i.e. power supplies, links etc).
The multilateration system which is being installed in Tasmania has backed up power supplies and multiple outlets so if one goes down, the system will still fundamentally work. The multilateration system is not based on the GPS system working.
Why isn’t Airservices telling us how that system is going and advising why they have spent such a fortune on the system, if they are not planning to take notice of its performance and compare it with ADS-B, which requires operation of the GPS constellation?
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
.. perhaps the FAA position on RADAR is 3 fold:-.
1. Redundancy
2. Primary coverage in TMA areas
3. To cover off the potential 'disconnect' holes in a Dual band ADS-B system
.
As for WAMLat ... who knows, more the point who cares, particularly if those operating the airspace (where GA conflict pairs mostly exist) will not see the surveillance data
.
Warren, you've really got a bee in yer bonnet eh
... TOOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let's just enter the 21st century in aviation, shall we?
Dick, the thing I don't get is why you don't work with Airservices to try to influence the solution in the direction you think will benefit the country's aviation industry, but instead resort to complaining about what seems like an honest attempt to bring aviation into the 21st century!?
With your money and influence I am sure you're well placed to nudge people and opinions in the best direction, and as a very successful businessman you will know that antagonism rarely advances any issue..
As per the initiative itself, I can't see why there's such a big fuss. In my view (and maybe I'm being naive here, but I am sure someone can enlighten me in that case), the positives of this drive are overwhelming.
First and foremost from Joe C172 owner's point of view, we get our avionics upgraded FOR FREE!
Every IFR and later VFR aircraft gets the gift of a HUGE improvement in situational awareness. Just peek into any given machine at a GA airport near you, and you'll see ancient, unreliable, twitching ADFs, VORs, and even older COMs. Now imagine how much safer and how much more attractive GA will be if every machine out there has a nice new colour moving map GPS like the Garmin 430 or something similar that displays traffic and possibly weather, combined with a crisp COM system..
And when it comes to the consulting process, compared to other countries around the world where I have seen similar things happen, I think AirServices are doing a pretty good job. Having read the submission document and the recently presented summary of responses (which was overwhelmingly positive, not surprisingly..), the biggest criticism I have of the process is that all the petty interest groups in this country are dragging out the day that I can present the $15,000 voucher to my avionics guru and tell him to upgrade my GPS and transponder.
Just briefly one quick response to all the "What If GPS Fails/The US Switch It Off" doomsdayers out there: Don't you think that by the time the world of aviation comes to rely exclusively on GPS, the techheads of this world wouldn't have figured out how to keep the system going by reference to the ground based WAAS stations alone in an emergency, for example?
Ducking for cover now
With your money and influence I am sure you're well placed to nudge people and opinions in the best direction, and as a very successful businessman you will know that antagonism rarely advances any issue..
As per the initiative itself, I can't see why there's such a big fuss. In my view (and maybe I'm being naive here, but I am sure someone can enlighten me in that case), the positives of this drive are overwhelming.
First and foremost from Joe C172 owner's point of view, we get our avionics upgraded FOR FREE!
Every IFR and later VFR aircraft gets the gift of a HUGE improvement in situational awareness. Just peek into any given machine at a GA airport near you, and you'll see ancient, unreliable, twitching ADFs, VORs, and even older COMs. Now imagine how much safer and how much more attractive GA will be if every machine out there has a nice new colour moving map GPS like the Garmin 430 or something similar that displays traffic and possibly weather, combined with a crisp COM system..And when it comes to the consulting process, compared to other countries around the world where I have seen similar things happen, I think AirServices are doing a pretty good job. Having read the submission document and the recently presented summary of responses (which was overwhelmingly positive, not surprisingly..), the biggest criticism I have of the process is that all the petty interest groups in this country are dragging out the day that I can present the $15,000 voucher to my avionics guru and tell him to upgrade my GPS and transponder.
Just briefly one quick response to all the "What If GPS Fails/The US Switch It Off" doomsdayers out there: Don't you think that by the time the world of aviation comes to rely exclusively on GPS, the techheads of this world wouldn't have figured out how to keep the system going by reference to the ground based WAAS stations alone in an emergency, for example?
Ducking for cover now
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salesman???
I agree we should try and work with the govt organisations as we are all part of a team.
But do you really believe what you are saying?
The indications so far are that you will get a box under the dash that tells everyone where you are like the transponder does, but which tells you NOTHING. It will be of great benefit to the airlines and Air services and a cost to GA.
But do you really believe what you are saying?
The indications so far are that you will get a box under the dash that tells everyone where you are like the transponder does, but which tells you NOTHING. It will be of great benefit to the airlines and Air services and a cost to GA.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS Off
Surely no one is proposing that the US Government would turn off the GPS constellation intentionally. It is not US Government Policy to turn the GPS off.
That leaves the possibility of loss of signal due to system(s) malfunction.
I will leave it to the experts on how many simultaneous failures are required for a complete loss of signal. However, what is important is what is done if the signal is lost.
Widespread installaion of ADS-B need not result in a reduction of system safety in the event of a loss of GNSS signal. There will still be useable radio navaids and procedural ATC/Directed Traffic Information backed up by TCAS just as there is now.
That leaves the possibility of loss of signal due to system(s) malfunction.
I will leave it to the experts on how many simultaneous failures are required for a complete loss of signal. However, what is important is what is done if the signal is lost.
Widespread installaion of ADS-B need not result in a reduction of system safety in the event of a loss of GNSS signal. There will still be useable radio navaids and procedural ATC/Directed Traffic Information backed up by TCAS just as there is now.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plank Bender
I might be incorrect but as I read the JCP and JCP CBA proposal the dashboard GPS only goes into IFR aircraft. VFR get a TSO 145 GPS engine that drives the ADS-B location data but does NOT give ANY NAV or COM information. Nothing on the dashboard at all.
If that's the case, what's in it for the average VFR owner? Most probably fly in G airspace and don't really desire ADS-B IN at their cost for normal CTAF operations.
Am I muddled?
Now imagine how much safer and how much more attractive GA will be if every machine out there has a nice new colour moving map GPS like the Garmin 430 or something similar that displays traffic and possibly weather, combined with a crisp COM system
If that's the case, what's in it for the average VFR owner? Most probably fly in G airspace and don't really desire ADS-B IN at their cost for normal CTAF operations.
Am I muddled?