CASA premature ADS-B mandate will result in even more pilots losing jobs

[le Pingouin]

There is a current directive to Airservices Australia, that wherever they have Class C over Class D, they must provide an approach radar facility. All you had to do – as a controller – is to publicly support the directive which came from the Minister.

As if that's going to happen any time soon. I wonder how many hundred million it would run to?

Maybe we're a little more concerned about things like providing enough controllers to meet our existing requirements.

[Jabawocky]

Here we go again......

Oh, I get it now. Poor comprehension on my part and an "opinion" about having "mandatory" transponders for anyone who wants to operate in a CTAF (R).

So it is already "mandated" that a radio be used in CTAF (R) and one suspects it is also "mandated" that one uses it as "prescribed". Now some expert private VFR pilot/ soon to be, owner bulider, reckons that we should prescribe to the "double condom" theory and be twice as safe. (To be sure to be sure in Ireland). This assumes of course that everyone flying in and out is blind or can't look out the window.

Jabawocky; can you post another photo of your new toy showing us all the TCAS.

Gee thats a big call from someone who seems to know very little about me....and whose yearly average flying experience is about my monthly average. So lets play the ball shall we just this once!

TCAS hey...... well Binghi has it does he not? Ask him?

Just might be that my opinion is formed not on my needs for private flying but all my RPT driving mates who do actually fly into these places telling me what they see and don't or can not see.

Ohh and operating IFR out of Brisbane on Friday in class G, it was very nice of the Radar chap to alert us of a TRANSPONDER fitted a/c that was too damned close for comfort . So maybe you are right, TCAS should go in! Of course a nice ADSB Out/In system would integrate nicely with the GNS530W.

Anyway, I suggest you ignore my posts, just listen to the PROFESSIONAL (as in occupation not conduct) pilots and ATC's on here instead.

And now that you finally get something, go back to Dick's post here http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post4973153 and then follow the thread a few more posts. I think you will find my post in response to solving the RPT in Class G like Proserpine etc issue.

[Frank Arouet]

So lets play the ball shall we just this once!

I'll rephrase that last of mine. It was your expression, not my comprehension that was at fault.

was very nice of the Radar chap to alert us

Is that the "Royal" us or you with a mate with an instrument rating?

all my RPT driving mates

So join AFAP, not AOPA.

telling me what they see and don't

Anectdotal ramblings from a few blind people who want "sterile airspace" wherever they fly. See suggestion re AFAP.

I think you will find my post in response to solving the RPT in Class G

I believe Dick was talking about premature introduction of ADSB above FL290, not premature ejactulating about class G airspace around Proserpine.

Of course a nice ADSB Out/In system would integrate nicely with the GNS530W

Which would work just fine as long as everyone else had one which probably needs a mandate below FL290.

Now we know what your agenda is, explain that to all those who just want to fly respoinsibly without unnecessary restrictions and costs.

Oh! and don't come back with that old line about "if you can't afford it get out of GA". We aren't all rich pissants like you, and I'm fkuced if I'm going to spend a wad of cash to make your wet dreams come true.

Opinions are like arseholes and suckholes, depends who you listen to that averts an embarrasing moment. Oh! and most everyone has one or the other telling him something.

[Jabawocky]

Now we are seeing your true colours!

I believe Dick was talking about premature introduction of ADSB above FL290, not premature ejactulating about class G airspace around Proserpine.

No I do believe I gave you the link to Dicks post directly. You really are just a troll and I am afraid I have not the interest nor passion for feeding a troll like you any longer. Go and troll another website would you and stop ruining this one!

And I am not the rich kid like your mates who can afford way more equipment than I can carry...... but I am not too much of a tight ar$e to install a simple transponder and encoder.

[Frank Arouet]

OK, this thread is getting off track anyway. But before anyone takes the high moral ground here and starts calling others trolls, it's you who post on multiple websites not me. I gave up supplying oxygen to trolls a long ago.

Dick has identified what he believes is a premature introduction of ADSB in the thread title.

The only mandate for ADSB at this point in time is for flight above FL290.

I can understand ATCO's input into this subject as can I understand those owners or operators and pilots who regularly fly at those levels.

I can't understand how this effects you or I.

I have said previously that I, and most people I talk to, support ADSB as an evolutionary change for the better where we need radar now. Everyone recognises it as an Air traffic control tool. Few see benefits for it to be mandated this early in the game in the vast areas of class G airspace. Statistics simply don't support it as an anti collision tool in the GAFA. (yes, yes, I know a collision is possible, but I keep asking what is the probability and nobody can supply the answer to justify it).

The arguement about money saved from radar head replacement is bewildering when one reads Flight Safety Australaia May-June 2009 Issue 68, page 41 in part.

"Nothing lasts forever- The Australian mode S terminal radar (AMSTAR) project is replacing ageing terminal radars with solid state primary surveillance radar and mode A/C and S capable secondary surveillance radar (SSR) at eight locations: Coolangatta, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Sydney, Cairns, Canberra and Brisbane. (the J curve?), The new radars can provide substantial system safety improvements operating with both traditional mode A/C only transponders, as well as with newer mode S transponders. These benefits do not rely on introducing any new standards for transponders".

I also understand vast sums of money are allocated for further primary radar for defence purposes. Someone has obviously seen that hostile air threats possibly won't have an operating transponder.

So it would seem that existing radar is being renewed and upgraded. Not removed and replaced with ADSB as an evolutionary thing. Well this is at May- June 2009 anyway.

With due respect, Jabawocky, your opinions about mandating transponders in CTAF (R) seems purely to benefit RPT or aircraft with TCAS. Neither of which would (I am guessing) pertain to you or I.

but I am not too much of a tight ar$e to install a simple transponder and encoder.

All my aircraft had transponders except for current rebuilds and I agree it is a sensible addition to the avionics suite. For some however it is not feasible because of lack of electrics, or weight and space considerations.

So lets agree to disagree without the unpleasant personal attacks. You may get a surprise about my actual character if you spent time to research my side of any story instead of listening to stuff you appear to be fed.

PM me if you care to.

[Spodman]

The arguement about money saved from radar head replacement is bewildering when one reads Flight Safety Australaia May-June 2009 Issue 68, page 41 in part.

"Nothing lasts forever- The Australian mode S terminal radar (AMSTAR) project is replacing ageing terminal radars with solid state primary surveillance radar and mode A/C and S capable secondary surveillance radar (SSR) at eight locations: Coolangatta, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Sydney, Cairns, Canberra and Brisbane.

We have 21 radar sites. The listed 8 are Terminal Area Radar heads, incorporating primary and secondary (transponder based) radar, and were already scheduled for replacement when the debate you are hinting at commenced. The remaining 13 sites are secondary radar for En-route surveillance and will be due for replacement in a couple of years. They could have been replaced with ADS/B sites with a huge reduction of installation costs, and an order of magnitude less cost in maintenance, but requiring ADS/B out to be fitted as universally as SSR transponders are now throughout the coverage area to achieve the same surveillance protection for the users of the system. The debate was had, everybody had their say, the radars will be replaced with radars.

I also understand vast sums of money are allocated for further primary radar for defence purposes.

First I've heard. Your source? Hope it is integrated into the TAAARTS system better than it was in Brazil...

With due respect, Jabawocky, your opinions about mandating transponders in CTAF (R) seems purely to benefit RPT or aircraft with TCAS. blah blah wank blah...

Try and concentrate the gland you call a brain on this. If your aim is to protect yourself from being rogered by a high performance aircraft, one way is to have a transponder. That way, if see-and-avoid does not protect you, the TCAS advisory the other aircraft will get will. It will be of cold comfort to you, when skewered on the pitot tube of an overtaking Lear Jet, that the other guy SHOULD have seen you!

As dick has whimpered once or twice, I cannot understand why the carriage of transponders & TCAS cannot be considered a mitigator for an arrangement of airspace.

[ferris]

Sometimes, Frank, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[Jabawocky]

With due respect, Jabawocky, your opinions about mandating transponders in CTAF (R) seems purely to benefit RPT or aircraft with TCAS. Neither of which would (I am guessing) pertain to you or I.

Well unless its your family on a Jet that whacks a bugsmasher at a CTAF R one day..... then you will change your opinion I bet!

I am quite glad you are wise and generous enough to the rest of society to always fit Transponders. I am pleased to hear that. As for those a/c who can not power them, they probably can not power a radio either, unless a handheld, and the chances of them being in a CTAF R are pretty remote, and if they were a battery can be installed.

Just to finish off this banter now you are over the attacking, and my defence of attacks, it was Dick Smith who brought up the issue of RPT in Class G at places like Proserpine, but I see you have again neglected to acknowlege that. So in response to his concern, combined with his and your desire to kill off low level ADSB and the whole JCP offer, the only feasible solution to the threats in Class G to RPT would be to make transponders a requiremnt for CTAF R just like radios are.

Now given you are happy to fit them and see their benefit, and Dick wants (as we all do) more protection for fare paying RPT passengers in CTAF R's would it not be a good idea to just extend the radio requirement to include another radio. they use bugger all current. From memory my ELA shows 1.1amps and most likely uses less!

And It really annoys me when you scoff at anecdotal claims from RPT drining Captains who have flown in excess of 20,000 - 30,000 hours that tell me that their concerns are real. You know some of these folk are RAA members too, and are not anti the grass roots end of aviation, but they do express concerns about the perfectly legal and legitimate flying activity of flying in a CTAF R when a Jet breaks visual with one of the smaller folk dragging their tail in cloud. No see and bee seen is going to work there. and the chance is the jet will survive the hit, the bug smasher will not! You have read plenty of RPT folk here say the same thing. So call it anecdotal if you wish, but understand it is a REAL CONCERN.

Cheers!

PS:And if you don't want me to fire rockets back at you, don't post personal mistruths about me. Then we can just debate topics and agree to diagree with a level of civil behaviour. I really do not want to be tangled in your anti A##A style of mud slinging.

[werbil]

If a DH-82 without an electrical system can have a radio, transponder and a battery fitted to drive them, what technical reason precludes fitting one to any other aircraft? OK the battery has to be recharged regularly - but there is more than one way to acheive that.

[LeadSled]

The remaining 13 sites are secondary radar for En-route surveillance and will be due for replacement in a couple of years. ,

Spodman,
If you do your homework, I believe you will find it is some or all of the "remote" SSR heads replacement, that were the subject of the much disputed (in terms of claimed savings) trade-off for "mandating" ADS-B OUT. Also the little matter of indirectly mandating C145/146 transponders, thereby hoping to pull out most of the ground navaids.

All nothing to do with modernization of the terminal area primary radars and some more or less co-located SSR, which is a different program altogether.

It is fact (because they have already/are in the process of completing) those the same replacements to identical SSR equipment in NZ, NZ cost being a fraction of the claimed Australian capital cost of replacement of virtually identical equipment in NZ. The claimed capital cost savings in the CASA CBA/JCP, pro rata, are about ten times the cost in NZ, per radar head.

How come, per SSR radar head, in Australia, the same equipment from the same manufacturer was going to be something like ten (10) times, compared to the (known) cost in NZ.

Just to remind everybody, once again, the original CASA cost/benefit analysis found a big saving for airlines, therefor GA was going to have to lump it. When the errors were pointed out (the Mysterious Case of the Floating Decimal) and the airline savings evaporated, the second CASA cost/benefit suddenly discovered "benefits" for GA, in the absence of any benefits to airlines.

So, in the absence of any documented and costed savings to airlines, (just a whole bunch of assertions from enthusiastic proponents and their desciples) and given that the alleged benefits to GA were "indirect" (no savings or other measurable benefits accrued to those who were going to have to fit and maintain ADS-B OUT) and thus the recognition that GA would not fit equipment for which there was no benefit (it's all in the ASTRA papers and JCP)---- came the idea/policy/necessity of a "mandate" made palatable by the "promise" of a subsidy.

"SAFETY", with ADS-B as the answer, was never a significant issue the whole way through.

Folks, this is all documented, most of it is on the CASA web site, or the ASTRA web site.

There are remarkable parallels with the global warming debate, with the "true believers", and the climate change skeptics --- skeptics not that we are in a global warming cycle, but that CO2 is the culprit ----.

Or when we once all "knew" the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe, and anybody who disagreed was likely to get lopped or burned at the stake, being vilified on a web site not yet being an option.

All say after me:

Our Father, who art in Constitution Avenue Canberra or Furzer St. Woden,
haunted by thy name.
Thy clients come,
thy clients will be done,
on earth as hardly like anywhere else, really,
Give us this day our ADS-B
And give us our transponders,
as we forgive those who transpond not against us.
And lead us not into cost savings, the root of all evil
but deliver us from Dick Smith
For thine is the kinghit,
the power without glory,
taking for ever and ever, and ever
or until the next cockup.
Amen

With apologies to King James in about 1611.

Tootle pip

[ferris]

Gees, Leadsled, Spodman's post WAS POINTING OUT TO FRANK exactly what you are saying- that the replacement of en-route radar headswas where costs saving were going to be made. Read the sentence in spod's post immediately after your quote. So I don't think he needs any homework in that regard. Direct that part of your post to Frank, if you really feel the need to re-state what spod said.

Far out, you guys do your arguments no favours when you come across as so thick.

As to cost savings or otherwise- all academic now, really, isn't it? The government WERE GOING TO PAY, regardless if they got their numbers wrong (or deliberately did so in some big conspiracy to 'trick' people into going ahead with the fitout ). The doubters and naysayers focused their efforts on derailing the whole thing, rather than ensuring certainty of receiving the dough for fitout.

[LeadSled]

Ferris,

Maybe I didn't express it as clearly as I should have, but the claimed savings in capital expenditure, for not replacing (some of) the remote radar heads was based on a cost of about 10 times the NZ cost per head, don't you think that might just possibly make the quantum of claimed savings just a little suss.

As Dick Smith has also pointed out, the ADS-B RIS is now a complete and utter nonsense -- see a few pages back.

As I recall, the old SSR heads, here and NZ, were Cossor (Thomson) but somebody will correct me if otherwise, the point is that NZ have had the same replacement, because AU and NZ had the same gear.

"--- the Government was going to pay"?? ??? Mmmaaate!!, where have you been since about 1984?? Remember Hawke's mate Henry Bosch --- of user pays fame.

The ASTRA/JCP magic mantra was: "cross industry subsidy" ----- the airlines, in reality, Qantas and Virgin, were supposedly going to part with somewhere between $100-200M ---- and pigs might fly.

I have actually heard the former QF Director of Finance on the subject, at an informal meeting of AIPA members at a well known Macquarie St watering hole, I can assure you that his view was exactly the same as Dickson, but perhaps expressed in somewhat less colourful terms ---- and this was when the airlines were booming.

Folks, nobody killed any subsidy, it died of natural causes, a spontaneous abortion. The subsidy is, and was always a dead parrot, not just resting.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Still no information on the wonderful Australian ADS-B gear that is available, so we are told, and all within the mythical subsidy levels. Funny thing, that, such wonderful claims, but so little documented fact. The story of the JCP, really.

[peuce]

Just supposing all these conspiracy theories are correct ... what was the real motive for CASA/ASA pushing for low level ADS-B? What was in it for them? There has to be a motive in any action.

I can't see any money motive ... they weren't going to receive any big cash windfall.

So, why did they want to "pull the wool over the Industry's eyes"?

Unless anyone can provide a different answer, I can only assume they believed that it would truly be a "safer" system. If so, then how did they get it so wrong?

[Joker 10]

CASA were blinded by Advancing Technology following the successful introduction of GPS over the past 20 years any complementary technology looked GOOD and was thus supportable, the Improved data capability of Mode S transponders coupled with GPS positioning was a "COMPELLING" argument to pursue.

That is until the cost of wide scale implementation entered the picture, oops.

As for the so called subsidy, it was a dream, as with the way our indigenous people preserve history in the "Dreaming" so goes low level ADSB in today's investment environment.

Will some form of low level Satellite based reporting system ever come to pass, the ultimate answer must be yes ! as an evolutionery change just as EFIS has come down into smaller aircraft, but that cycle of expenidute is yet to start and it will be a decade or more in the evolution.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

LeadSled

Opinion on the subject of ADS-B funding was along the line of airlines forgoing SAVINGS over radar replacment costs. The government's bit was forgoing collecting the DIVIDEND of those savings if the airlines didn't take them.

AFAIK thats how the wheels on this bus went round. No money was going to be injected by any airline or government. The funding of the rollout was by the savings on fitment and maintenance of the radar heads.

GOD wanted the money from the savings as did the new government. So much procastination made AirServices sign a maintenance contract to keep the issue alive. The ADS-B issue that is.

There was never any subsidy!

EDIT- looks like re-iterating Spod and Ferris in another way.

[Frank Arouet]

There was never any subsidy!

So perhaps blaming those who had nothing to do with "scuttling" something that was never there, we should be attacking the snake oil salesmen who promised all and delivered nothing.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ahhhh, school must be out!

Francis, go back and read the JCP. It was there in black and white how the roll-out was going to be payed for. LeadSlead et al, regardless of what the estimates on the change over costs may have been....the end result would have been payed for by the ACTUAL savings.

More to follow.

[Joker 10]

Oz Bus Driver, School is definitely out,

would have been payed I suspect your teacher would really enjoyed your use of the word paid rather than payed which is simply not English
expression in this context.

Maybe if you had not payed out on Frank life would be better

[Frank Arouet]

The Sacred Coranical JCP- Praise Allah!

Was it written in stone something like the Commandments?

No, thought not, just a handful of dreamers who reckon we all should be microchipped at birth and have our wages garnished for the greater good which obviously us mere mortals can't comprehend.

Lets all say it, JCP, JCP, JCP. (The World according to MARP).

LeadSled's classic:

Give us this day our ADS-B
And give us our transponders, as we forgive those who transpond not against us.

School is out. It's Sunday school for the true believers and zealots. Don't forget to get Mum to tie sixpence in the corner of your hanky for the plate.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis. Compliments! That was one of your funnier ones.

Regardless! In the absence of any further plan or direction from AirServices, that paper is all anyone, including you, can comment about.

Smith profers the opinion that staying with an expensive antiquated post war technology is more beneficial to employment prospects than changing to another type of transponder. I prefer to believe he is wrong.