CASA premature ADS-B mandate will result in even more pilots losing jobs
Eh..???..
According to reports coming from the US government, the planned EU satellite navigation system could be in big demand if its own GPS network falls into disrepair
US says GPS satellite coverage may fail soon | News | TechRadar UK
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...fail-soon.html
According to reports coming from the US government, the planned EU satellite navigation system could be in big demand if its own GPS network falls into disrepair
US says GPS satellite coverage may fail soon | News | TechRadar UK
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...fail-soon.html
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been thinking about this, and don't really see why they have opted for an exclusive model when that option has been resoundingly rejected in the past for other implementations of new gear.
NAV/AUSEP, RNP & RVSM were all introduced and those that didn't have it were (are) massive roadblocks in the sky, that reduced to insignificance in time. I think the approach made with RVSM makes the most sense, all can enter, but the RVSM equipped aircraft have priority, and ATC decides. If a non-RVSM will be in conflict with a RVSM aircraft the non-RVSM gets shifted. Every so often a non-RVSM aircraft that gets royally shafted bleats that he has to divert somewhere for fuel. Tough. Can't recall anybody being made unemployed or dying because of it.
The US, however, opted for an exclusive model for RVSM. Maybe somebody's agitation to standardise with US whims has resulted in the stated policy for ADS/B. The US has surveillance coverage across their country in Class A airspace. The proposed policy will deliver the same result here. Brilliant.
Maybe it is just the magnitude of the difference, which I'm sure some pilots wouldn't appreciate. Consider yourself departing YAYE in your RNP and ADS/B equipped jet, and there is another jet coming the other way under your intended cruise level. If you are both identified with ADS/B (and implementation has finished and we can use the radar standard) then the ATC has only to establish vertical separation above the other guy's level before you get within 5 NM of him, restrict you below until you have passed him, or vector you at least 5 NM left or right of him for an unrestricted climb.
If the other guy hasn't got the gear then you either get 1000' above him 10 minutes before the ATC thinks you will pass - could be more than 80 miles separation - or wait til you've passed (plus variegated procedural standards).
NAV/AUSEP, RNP & RVSM were all introduced and those that didn't have it were (are) massive roadblocks in the sky, that reduced to insignificance in time. I think the approach made with RVSM makes the most sense, all can enter, but the RVSM equipped aircraft have priority, and ATC decides. If a non-RVSM will be in conflict with a RVSM aircraft the non-RVSM gets shifted. Every so often a non-RVSM aircraft that gets royally shafted bleats that he has to divert somewhere for fuel. Tough. Can't recall anybody being made unemployed or dying because of it.
The US, however, opted for an exclusive model for RVSM. Maybe somebody's agitation to standardise with US whims has resulted in the stated policy for ADS/B. The US has surveillance coverage across their country in Class A airspace. The proposed policy will deliver the same result here. Brilliant.
Maybe it is just the magnitude of the difference, which I'm sure some pilots wouldn't appreciate. Consider yourself departing YAYE in your RNP and ADS/B equipped jet, and there is another jet coming the other way under your intended cruise level. If you are both identified with ADS/B (and implementation has finished and we can use the radar standard) then the ATC has only to establish vertical separation above the other guy's level before you get within 5 NM of him, restrict you below until you have passed him, or vector you at least 5 NM left or right of him for an unrestricted climb.
If the other guy hasn't got the gear then you either get 1000' above him 10 minutes before the ATC thinks you will pass - could be more than 80 miles separation - or wait til you've passed (plus variegated procedural standards).
Thread Starter
Spodman, the scenario you give an example of is the situation at the present time. Why can’t each aircraft quote a GPS distance from a location (as they can do with DME) and then let ATC use a more enlightened form of separation, rather than 10 minutes?
In fact, I understand we were supposed to introduce some type of GPS distance standard. Remember we are a sovereign country. We can introduce standards that suit our present needs.
Before everyone starts shouting, remember I have always said “copy the best from around the world and keep the best of what we have here.” That is what I have always done.
In fact, I understand we were supposed to introduce some type of GPS distance standard. Remember we are a sovereign country. We can introduce standards that suit our present needs.
Before everyone starts shouting, remember I have always said “copy the best from around the world and keep the best of what we have here.” That is what I have always done.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman, the scenario you give an example of is the situation at the present time. Why can’t each aircraft quote a GPS distance from a location (as they can do with DME) and then let ATC use a more enlightened form of separation, rather than 10 minutes?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before everyone starts shouting, remember I have always said “copy the best from around the world and keep the best of what we have here.” That is what I have always done.
and quite right too, but now we're doing it and it's still a problem?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can’t each aircraft quote a GPS distance from a location... blah blah
They are used all the time, with greatly reduced separation, for aircraft tracking in the same direction, (tracks different by <45 degrees), or aircraft that have passed, as I indicated...
...or wait til you've passed (plus variegated procedural standards).
On the other hand, the same direction RNAV standard is 30NM, with work-intensive voice distance checks to monitor two aircraft. If the same pair of aircraft had the gear to facilitate surveillance by ATC they could fit another 9 aircraft between them (theoretically
), and separate just by looking at them while eating a sandwich, (sandwich not compulsory...)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spod this guy is not going to see the massive benefits to be had by having full surveillance accross the country would deliver.
I'm in a country with 5 times radar redundancy (that is 5 radar heads all fully covering the entire FIR (albeit in a small FIR)), and we have installed 4 ADS-B outlets, and soon to be 6. One reason is we get 10 times faster update rate than with radar heads, so when vectoring into Dubai we get a more accurate picture and a quicker indication of turns etc.
Secondly, while it is unlikely that all 5 radars will fail simultaneously the chance of our telecommunications provider dropping the ball (who controls all the links from the radar heads to our centre) is a lot higher. If this happens right now between 35% and 40% of our traffic stays on radar, and even if we lose our FDP we still have a callsign as our system displays the callsign sent as part of the ADS-B message from the FMS of the aircraft.
Finally as some of our radars come up for life extending services, with a full and reliable ADS-B network, we can start decommissioning a few of them. The savings in doing this are massive as an ADS-B fibreglass stick costs practically nothing whereas a major life extending radar head service and calibration are big bikkies.
Dick, you need to see the writing on the wall, ADS-B gives so much, and saves so much cash all around, it is the future, and I wouldn't be buying shares in companies who manufacture and service radars.
I'm in a country with 5 times radar redundancy (that is 5 radar heads all fully covering the entire FIR (albeit in a small FIR)), and we have installed 4 ADS-B outlets, and soon to be 6. One reason is we get 10 times faster update rate than with radar heads, so when vectoring into Dubai we get a more accurate picture and a quicker indication of turns etc.
Secondly, while it is unlikely that all 5 radars will fail simultaneously the chance of our telecommunications provider dropping the ball (who controls all the links from the radar heads to our centre) is a lot higher. If this happens right now between 35% and 40% of our traffic stays on radar, and even if we lose our FDP we still have a callsign as our system displays the callsign sent as part of the ADS-B message from the FMS of the aircraft.
Finally as some of our radars come up for life extending services, with a full and reliable ADS-B network, we can start decommissioning a few of them. The savings in doing this are massive as an ADS-B fibreglass stick costs practically nothing whereas a major life extending radar head service and calibration are big bikkies.
Dick, you need to see the writing on the wall, ADS-B gives so much, and saves so much cash all around, it is the future, and I wouldn't be buying shares in companies who manufacture and service radars.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mandate Shmandate....
In Europe effectively if you aren't RVSM approved you do not operate above FL280; what shouldn't Australia adapt the same process to aircraft without ADS-B.
ADS-B Introduction will solve two massive problems:-
1) ATC Staffing - Procedural sectors will be able to release many staff from rosters because of the reduced complexity (position reporting monitoring/establishing procedural standards (paperwork working out the times and distances for lateral/crossing/opposite direction standards). I'd guess ADS-B surveillance as well as equipment would release 20-50% of staff from procedural sectors. Workload would be greatly reduced.
2)Efficiency - Whether it be better introduction of preferred routes, or the likelihood of the availability of preferred levels etc. Let alone the ability to introduce 'race track' patterns in what now is a very regimented (for the main) two way route structure. Vectoring to get aircraft through each other, monitoring nose to nose climb throughs like we do on radar etc.
My only concerns are that the mandate will beat the equipment roll out and/or the ability to use radar like standards and that would be embarrassing; then there is the issue with establishing sector sizes with an ability to actually use the new standards; ie not making people sit on 500NM screens and trying to separate to 10NM or less... Of course that may destroy point one above...
There are huge complexity issues regarding a very small % allowed to operate without the gear; we tried it with RVSM, originally there was 70%+ able; there were huge issues because of that 30%; RVSM only applied in one spectrum and was relatively easy to deal with (it still is for the occasional non-RVSM that we see) but to apply the same to the lateral/longitudinal/opposite spectrums and you'll find it very difficult indeed especially with the equipment available to highlight the issues (or not highlight them)...
As for using GPS... We already do... Lateral track spacing WA routes recently introduced is all GPS based.
We get passing and longitudinal distance standards using GPS instead of RNAV, establishing Laterally clear using GPS distances, but the opposite direction and crossing tracks are still problems that are very real and will effectively will be solved by increased surveillance; the amount of time an aircraft is in lateral conflict by one minute and has to be moved is massive; under ADS-B very few will need to be moved vertically.
If I were a betting man ADS-B will be a huge financial benefit to industry, despite the individual costs involved in the initial outlays; one wonders if the money will actually flow back if there are any ATC cost reductions, but the track mile / better routes / better profiles will save huge $$$ annually.
The lack of 'funding' would be about who gets it ie would we provide it to non-nationals or only VH- aircraft? So we still need a mandate to cover non VH-? Hence we have a mandate?
ADS-B Introduction will solve two massive problems:-
1) ATC Staffing - Procedural sectors will be able to release many staff from rosters because of the reduced complexity (position reporting monitoring/establishing procedural standards (paperwork working out the times and distances for lateral/crossing/opposite direction standards). I'd guess ADS-B surveillance as well as equipment would release 20-50% of staff from procedural sectors. Workload would be greatly reduced.
2)Efficiency - Whether it be better introduction of preferred routes, or the likelihood of the availability of preferred levels etc. Let alone the ability to introduce 'race track' patterns in what now is a very regimented (for the main) two way route structure. Vectoring to get aircraft through each other, monitoring nose to nose climb throughs like we do on radar etc.
My only concerns are that the mandate will beat the equipment roll out and/or the ability to use radar like standards and that would be embarrassing; then there is the issue with establishing sector sizes with an ability to actually use the new standards; ie not making people sit on 500NM screens and trying to separate to 10NM or less... Of course that may destroy point one above...
There are huge complexity issues regarding a very small % allowed to operate without the gear; we tried it with RVSM, originally there was 70%+ able; there were huge issues because of that 30%; RVSM only applied in one spectrum and was relatively easy to deal with (it still is for the occasional non-RVSM that we see) but to apply the same to the lateral/longitudinal/opposite spectrums and you'll find it very difficult indeed especially with the equipment available to highlight the issues (or not highlight them)...
As for using GPS... We already do... Lateral track spacing WA routes recently introduced is all GPS based.
We get passing and longitudinal distance standards using GPS instead of RNAV, establishing Laterally clear using GPS distances, but the opposite direction and crossing tracks are still problems that are very real and will effectively will be solved by increased surveillance; the amount of time an aircraft is in lateral conflict by one minute and has to be moved is massive; under ADS-B very few will need to be moved vertically.
If I were a betting man ADS-B will be a huge financial benefit to industry, despite the individual costs involved in the initial outlays; one wonders if the money will actually flow back if there are any ATC cost reductions, but the track mile / better routes / better profiles will save huge $$$ annually.
The lack of 'funding' would be about who gets it ie would we provide it to non-nationals or only VH- aircraft? So we still need a mandate to cover non VH-? Hence we have a mandate?
Last edited by Blockla; 29th May 2009 at 14:21.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...they could fit another 9 aircraft between them...
Hello ANSA, thanks for your news. I was just wondering what display you get from an uncoupled radar track also in ADS/B coverage? Do you get both tracks superimposed or are they combined somehow? Or does somebody just fire a missile at it, like Ferris said once
Sorry to hijack the thread, but Dick seems to have lost interest anyway.
Thread Starter
Blockla, thanks for the really good post. What you are saying is that there is a really good cost benefit reason for introducing an ADS-B mandate above FL290 in Australia seven years ahead of the USA.
If this is so – and I’m happy to accept that it is so – why hasn’t there been a cost benefit study done to show this? The regulatory impact statement that was used to go to the mandate above FL290 actually showed the cost savings of not replacing radar units. This is completely false as Airservices has made the decision to replace the radars as required.
You are saying that by going to ADS-B, we will save on ATC staffing, we will gain efficiency etc. Well, put it in a simple study. Show the cost (i.e. it is estimated between $20 million and $40 million to upgrade the fleet) and show the benefits.
Don’t you think it is strange that no one has done this simple study? It is almost the same as the reluctance to use the establishment and disestablishment formula for Class D towers. This was used to close Mt Isa tower and Wagga tower. It is no longer used because I understand it would clearly show that places like Ayers Rock, Avalon, Broome and Karratha require a Class D tower.
The longer the Office of Airspace Regulation continues to manipulate figures to the profit benefit of Airservices and the airlines, the greater the risk will be of an unnecessary accident.
If this is so – and I’m happy to accept that it is so – why hasn’t there been a cost benefit study done to show this? The regulatory impact statement that was used to go to the mandate above FL290 actually showed the cost savings of not replacing radar units. This is completely false as Airservices has made the decision to replace the radars as required.
You are saying that by going to ADS-B, we will save on ATC staffing, we will gain efficiency etc. Well, put it in a simple study. Show the cost (i.e. it is estimated between $20 million and $40 million to upgrade the fleet) and show the benefits.
Don’t you think it is strange that no one has done this simple study? It is almost the same as the reluctance to use the establishment and disestablishment formula for Class D towers. This was used to close Mt Isa tower and Wagga tower. It is no longer used because I understand it would clearly show that places like Ayers Rock, Avalon, Broome and Karratha require a Class D tower.
The longer the Office of Airspace Regulation continues to manipulate figures to the profit benefit of Airservices and the airlines, the greater the risk will be of an unnecessary accident.
Thread Starter
AirNoServicesAustralia, you have said:
If the mandate will save more money than it costs, it has my total support. All we have to do is a cost benefit study that shows this. Not a cost benefit study that shows the cost saving of removing the radars when we are not going to remove them.
Just as I simply don’t believe the $42 billion it is going to cost Australia to wind out a higher speed internet service will be cost effective, I have great difficulty in believing that rushing into an ADS-B mandate 7 years ahead of the USA will be cost effective.
However I’m willing to be convinced. I’ll become the greatest supporter of Australia leading the world if it could be shown that there is a one cent greater benefit than the cost.
I love technology. I have the latest technology in all of my aircraft and at the present time I am negotiating to get the CJ3 upgraded to ADS-B out. What a nightmare! Every time I talk to Collins they have a different figure and a different explanation.
The reason I’m updating to ADS-B early is not because I believe it will save me money, it is just that I like the latest instrumentation and I can afford safety benefits, even if they are not cost effective.
The rest of the industry may not be the same way. There are some companies that are right on the edge, and putting in an extra $100,000 of expense will normally encourage the owner of the aircraft to ship it over to the USA where there is another 7 years of life.
Show us a genuine cost benefit study. If it is positive, you have my support.
Dick, you need to see the writing on the wall, ADS-B gives so much, and saves so much cash all around, it is the future …
Just as I simply don’t believe the $42 billion it is going to cost Australia to wind out a higher speed internet service will be cost effective, I have great difficulty in believing that rushing into an ADS-B mandate 7 years ahead of the USA will be cost effective.
However I’m willing to be convinced. I’ll become the greatest supporter of Australia leading the world if it could be shown that there is a one cent greater benefit than the cost.
I love technology. I have the latest technology in all of my aircraft and at the present time I am negotiating to get the CJ3 upgraded to ADS-B out. What a nightmare! Every time I talk to Collins they have a different figure and a different explanation.
The reason I’m updating to ADS-B early is not because I believe it will save me money, it is just that I like the latest instrumentation and I can afford safety benefits, even if they are not cost effective.
The rest of the industry may not be the same way. There are some companies that are right on the edge, and putting in an extra $100,000 of expense will normally encourage the owner of the aircraft to ship it over to the USA where there is another 7 years of life.
Show us a genuine cost benefit study. If it is positive, you have my support.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show us a genuine cost benefit study. If it is positive, you have my support.
You are pissing on the wrong tree.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The reason I’m updating to ADS-B early is not because I believe it will save me money, it is just that I like the latest instrumentation and I can afford safety benefits, even if they are not cost effective.
That would have improved safety not just for them but also fare paying pax at CTAF R's around the country!
J
...and the 'beat up' continues..
TCAS and transponders have been around for years. If some lighty pilots think there is a safety issue from not having ADS-B, then they should already have a TCAS, or similar, system in their aircraft - if they don't, then i would question their motives for wanting ADS-B...perhaps profiteering greed is a motive ?
...anyway, ADS-B needs GPS to work....sort of the remains of the day me-thinks...
TCAS and transponders have been around for years. If some lighty pilots think there is a safety issue from not having ADS-B, then they should already have a TCAS, or similar, system in their aircraft - if they don't, then i would question their motives for wanting ADS-B...perhaps profiteering greed is a motive ?
...anyway, ADS-B needs GPS to work....sort of the remains of the day me-thinks...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TCAS and transponders have been around for years you ding dong....but if you are stupid enough to think there is 100% fitment you are an idiot.
Yes ADSB requires GPS....and if you are 100% correct that one day for a few minutes the GPS system falls over......dead as a dodo.....who cares???? If as has been said a hundred or more times now.... if they all got the ADSB/MODE C......let me spell it out for all the THICK AS A BRICK FOLK...... the MODE C part would still work.............and the TCAS would also work......you know at CTAF R etc, ....
How dumb are you folk
Yes ADSB requires GPS....and if you are 100% correct that one day for a few minutes the GPS system falls over......dead as a dodo.....who cares???? If as has been said a hundred or more times now.... if they all got the ADSB/MODE C......let me spell it out for all the THICK AS A BRICK FOLK...... the MODE C part would still work.............and the TCAS would also work......you know at CTAF R etc, ....
How dumb are you folk
TCAS and transponders have been around for years you ding dong....but if you are stupid enough to think there is 100% fitment you are an idiot.
Yes ADSB requires GPS....and if you are 100% correct that one day for a few minutes the GPS system falls over......dead as a dodo.....who cares???? If as has been said a hundred or more times now.... if they all got the ADSB/MODE C......let me spell it out for all the THICK AS A BRICK FOLK...... the MODE C part would still work.............and the TCAS would also work......you know at CTAF R etc, ....
How dumb are you folk
Yes ADSB requires GPS....and if you are 100% correct that one day for a few minutes the GPS system falls over......dead as a dodo.....who cares???? If as has been said a hundred or more times now.... if they all got the ADSB/MODE C......let me spell it out for all the THICK AS A BRICK FOLK...... the MODE C part would still work.............and the TCAS would also work......you know at CTAF R etc, ....
How dumb are you folk
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
En-route radar could have been replaced at a cost saving and the safety benefits,
Dick,
I bet someone could produce a cost benefit analysis that showed it was better to keep the RAAF Caribous ....
However, common sense dictates that technology moves on and one has to evolve with that technology ... or suffer the consequences.
I bet someone could produce a cost benefit analysis that showed it was better to keep the RAAF Caribous ....
However, common sense dictates that technology moves on and one has to evolve with that technology ... or suffer the consequences.