Scurvy.D.Dog, I think you are telling us that even after the millions of dollars have been spent on the Wide Area Multilateration system in Tasmania, that the controllers operating the airspace where most of the conflict pairs exist will not actually see the data on a screen. If this is so, it is yet another reflection of the total incompetence of your people in Canberra.

Why would you spend millions of dollars on a state of the art system and then not have the surveillance data available?

I can assure you that this situation does not happen in other leading aviation countries. Wherever there is radar coverage (or something equivalent like multilateration) the controller who is responsible for the airspace which is covered by the system is the same controller responsible for the aircraft, and is the person the pilot talks to.

Scurvy, you should get some competent people in Canberra.

Dick
.
For the first time, in a very long time, you and I agree (on your last post)!!
.
James
.
You are not muddled (entirely), the issue you raise is one that needs addressing for VFR.
.
145 (as I understand it) 'could' be used to drive raw data into a moving map type display whether the display is certified or not. It will NOT provide all the 'additional' nav data that the 146 unit provides!

avionics
 

From the Joint Consultation Paper:

The only assumption I am making here is that the "acceptable avionics" (page 21 JCP) would include Garmin GNS-430W/550W, the GTX330 transponder, and similar industry standard machines.

If you then hook up the mode-S transponder to your GPS, even as a VFR owner, you'd have a colour moving map GPS for enroute navigation with traffic on the screen.. or am I missing something?

PlankBender, a most important post – thanks. You have said:

You also state:

The problem is that this isn’t what is proposed. As the post below by Bushy clearly states, what is proposed is simply:

PlankBender, the reason I am no longer attempting to work positively with these people is that they are unethical.

I will give you some examples. You believe you will get a $15,000 voucher to allow you to buy some pretty fantastic equipment. The truth is quite different. The cost benefit case which was prepared for the low level ADS-B proposal was flawed. For example, on the benefit side of the equation it showed ADS-B ‘in’ – i.e. the displays you are talking about which show traffic etc. However it only put in the cost of ADS-B ‘out’ – i.e. the box under the dash as described by Bushy – and that is all that was going to be subsidised.

The paper also showed a cost saving from removing the navigational aids, and used that as a benefit for ADS-B, when the two are quite separate.

When these flaws were pointed out to Airservices, rather than re-doing the cost benefit study, they did nothing. This is where the lack of ethics comes in. Many people thought that it was a simple mistake by those who prepared the cost benefit study. However the study has never been rectified, and Airservices allows people such as yourself (and others who gave “overwhelmingly” positive support for the low level ADS-B proposal) to believe the flawed study and that they will be provided with ADS-B ‘in’ and other flashy gizmos.

I believe you are in a similar position to the Naval aviators who were told a decade ago that they were going to get the best and most modern helicopters in the world. They were probably told they were going to have the best. In fact, after $1 billion of waste they got nothing. I believe the same will happen with the low level ADS-B project.

When an organisation goes down a dishonest path, nothing will save them – look at the Wheat Board.

Let me give you another example. Airservices prepared a safety case for the airspace changes which resulted in us having “upside down” airspace – i.e. high classifications where the risk is small, and low airspace classifications where the risk is high.

The Minister at the time was so disturbed he ordered CASA to obtain an independent consultant’s advice on the safety study. This study (called Report on analysis of NAS 2b conducted by Airservices Australia) was prepared by Professor Terry O’Neill, the Head of the School of Applied Statistics at ANU – possibly the most qualified person in Australia to advise on this issue. The report clearly showed that the Airservices study was so flawed that the real results could be the opposite of what the Airservices Board was told.

CASA was so concerned that they advised the Airservices Board to be briefed by Professor O’Neill. If you were an Airservices Board member, I feel sure you would jump at the chance of having a briefing – you would want to be properly informed. What happened in the intervening 4 years? Professor O’Neill has never been allowed near the Board, let alone to give a briefing.

There is an explanation for this. The advisers to the Airservices Board are unethical and would have made it clear that once the Board members became aware of the flaws in the safety study, they could be held accountable. In effect, “If you don’t get a briefing by Professor O’Neill you will be able to say when an accident occurs, “We never knew that the safety study was flawed.””

It should be pointed out that the safety study still remains, and now CASA’s Office of Airspace Regulation is using the same flawed basis for their safety studies.

A similar situation is occurring with the low level ADS-B system.

Fortunately there are some Board members who realise that although most of the industry believes (as you do, PlankBender) that a $15,000 voucher will cover some fancy equipment in the dashboard, this is not true.

Within the Airservices organisation, there is a cancerous code of dishonesty as part of the culture. It must lower the morale of everyone.

I have said before that I support ADS-B, but not a system of an “incompetent, never ask advice, go down a Seasprite route” catastrophe. That is what they are doing.

Plank

I feel we are both on the same track; a matter of definition being the issue.

For $10,000 you do not get a ES transponder and a GPS fitted, and most VFR aircraft don't have the luxury of a Garmin 430 or similar. At least a quarter get by with a handheld GPS.

If you look closely at what you have quoted notice it states:
IFR = TSO-C146 GNSS navigation equipment, and,
VFR = TSO-C145 GNSS engine

That means to me that the VFR 'engine' is only exactly that - to only provide positional data to the ES transponder BUT nothing to the pilot.

I have read through both the JCP and JCP CBA and I find them very mixed up. Indeed much of the 'benefits' are with ADS-B IN but that's not provided. And, hooking up an ES transponder will not get you traffic - I read it that you need additional ADS-B IN equipment.

Which brings me back to my question - what's in it for VFR owners and pilots if they don't get a GPS? (Not trying to create an argument, but if you and I are confused about the owner 'benefits?' how many others are likewise)

PlankBender, what you are missing is that it would not be possible to get a Garmin GNS-430, plus the GTX330 transponder, plus installation, plus the relevant drawings etc, for $15,000 – and the whole combination will not give traffic on the screen.

To get traffic on the screen you would have to purchase a TCAS unit, which would cost another $15,000 to $20,000 or so - say, $40,000 in total.

Dick
.
Part of what you have been 'fed' ;) and regurgitated :rolleyes: above is correct. How about regurgitating the rest of what is being fed to you on the subject. :p
.
Cancerous codes of dishonesty :D oh Dick .... there is a line there ... but I sharn't :oh:

James Michael, You are certainly not muddled, there is nothing in ADSB out for the VFR operator in G airspace.

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?

An Auster at Parkes will become visible to the "system" the real question is why will that help anyone.

Scurvy, I havn't been "fed" anything. My training and background is electronics-now for over 40 years - and I have been involved in hi tech ATC purchasing since 1990 when I was chairman of the CAA and we made the TAAATS decision to purchase proven equipment.

In my business career I have puchased hundreds of millions of dollars worth of high tech equipment without making an error that has incurred even $1 of loss.

:D Geez that was a quick flush out :E
.. unless they want GPS data (which they might NOT currently have), and wish to drive a low cost display ;OR
.
Maybe VFR who want it, might prefer a 146 GNSS kit? :ooh:
... it won't if YPKS is not within ADS coverage := .... and even if it is, there is no service to VFR in G ;)
.
Your turn for a tune :E .... will it be in E, C, D of G(R) :}

Dick,

I think you will find it hard not to get replies to your ranting that cannot be categorised as personal attacks.

Since you were removed as head of CASA you have become adept at throwing hand grenades at the establishment and generally going against anything they do, even if their initiative was originally yours when you were in charge!!!

Your absolute and total lack of understanding of certain areas of aviation, ATC specially, are downright embarassing....I quote you:

"the problem is that especially the professional air traffic controllers, they are
specifically trained to follow rules and not to ever change rules. And so they just
constantly run a campaign, they want to talk about this, very important, to stop any
change to the future, any move forward. "

Or this absolute pearl:

"the problem is that the professional air traffic controllers naturally have a
self interest in making sure there's as many air traffic controllers employed as possible.
So what's happened, for thirteen years, when the government's tried to move forward to
a modern air space system... And by the way, this one is not just the US system, it's the
system used in Canada, used in Europe, it's simply the most efficient in the world.
What's happened over the years, the air traffic controllers have run a very effective
industrial campaign to stop any move forward to a more efficient system."

A concept of a modern air space system appears to be one in which Dick Smith and his mates do not have to file a flight plan nor talk to anyone and they can do what they like while QF 747s turn to avoid them and have to do a friendly wave as they zoom past, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Australia has been leading the way in ATC for some years now, with the introduction of TAAATS which yes, it had its problems, as no other country in the world had integrated a system like this, with MSSR, TAR, Sat, GNSS and ADS feeds all integrated into one. I know a person with so much experience in this that he is constantly travelling to Europe to provide expertise in our system, the US? They constantly ask about it, but they can't afford to have anything similar, they still have sites running on vacuum tubes!!!

Early in the 1990s we run a strong petition to have an MSSR installed in Alice Springs as heavy traffic goes over it....it eventually got approved, only to be donated to PNG for installation outside Moresby...do we need to state who the chairman of the CAA was who authorised this??? We were left with procedural control which in your view should not enter calculations because nothing is better than an MSSR.

I believe ADS is the way forward, it will NOT be perfect now, nor in 5 years, but eventually it will be the way to go for safe and affordable aviation in the world, and again, we will be leading the world.

The one thing we lack in this country is managers/chairpersons with vision or leadership skills, people who are not afraid of change, to consider the opinions/ideas of people in the front line or afraid of serving people other than themselves or their egotistical self-interests.

..............DME(A) :hmm:

Willoz269, stick to the facts. I was not removed as head of CASA. I resigned because I was not prepared to accept accountability without authority. It is well known that I had lost confidence in Mick Toller, the CEO, and wanted him to go, whilst the Minister John Anderson wanted him to stay.

I wasn’t going to stick around for another 6 years under John Anderson doing absolutely nothing – now that would have been hell on Earth.

The quotes you have made in relation to my comments on air traffic controllers are generally correct, however they are from long ago and my views have changed slightly since then.

The following statement is completely wrong in relation to me wanting an airspace system:

I have always had a position that resources should be allocated dependent on risk. In some cases that means upgrading Class G airspace to controlled airspace. I was certainly against VFR aircraft having to file a full position IFR type flight plan for flights of over 50 miles. This was because it misallocated about $100 million per year which could have been spent (and has been) elsewhere on aviation safety. I’m glad I was involved in changing that one.

I’m sure you believe your claim that Australia and Europe are far ahead of the US (“They still have sites running on vacuum tubes!!!”), however it is generally a myth.

My view is to always copy the best. There are some things Australia does better, some things Europe does better, and some things that are done better in North America. Take the best ideas – that is the way to be successful.

Another myth is your claim that I was somehow involved in not approving a secondary surveillance radar for Alice Springs. That is complete codswallop. No wonder you post under a pseudonym and not under your own name.

Most importantly, why don’t you comment on the two issues I mentioned in my post above? That is, the flawed cost benefit study for ADS-B (that has not been corrected) and the flawed safety study and the report by Professor O’Neill? You attack me on other matters to try to diffuse the issue. Fortunately lots of intelligent people read this site so most won’t be fooled.

Scurvy, So if 95% of the Australian FIR is G airspace just why do VFR aircraft need ADSB out ??

Last I looked they need a compass and time piece for Navigation, no requirement for a GPS.

Don't even need a radio if they don't use CTAF (R)

So just what does ADSB out do for them ?????

It gives them things to fiddle with like Van5 DME.

BTW and risking going off topic, why was the quadrantal rule changed for the hemispherical. Happened about the same time as accepting International DME from memory? I could be wrong in a perverse roundabout way.

Mr Smith

Now I am muddled.

When I read through the very complex JCP I thought you could get traffic on an ADS-B IN screen and that was some of the claims being made about safety?

Has Airservices dropped out the technical ability to enable that facility? If so it is deplorable as only the airlines can afford TCAS and I think they need to review the options for the non-airline people. Is that a safety issue you can apply pressure?

In a previous post on this thread, I stated:

This was referring to the flawed Airservices report on the analysis of NAS 2b.

I have now had my legal advisers write directly to the CEO of CASA in relation to this important issue. See here.

Here's why I think it still works!
 

Hmm, I am not sure I want to get involved in the argument about ethics and so forth, my first hand experiences with aviation officials in this country have been good ones.

Here's the relevant blurb from the Garmin GTX330 transponder manual, I would say I'll get traffic on my 430/530 with that one:



Let me make up two relatively realistic cases for the subsidy here:

1. IFR: 15k will buy you an installed GNS430W/GTX330 combo methinks. Avionix.com quote 10k US for an installed 430, for example, and I would think a local avionics shop wanting your business will get you there with the GTX330 in close proximity of 15k. Let's not forget that for that kind of money you also get a NAV/COM, so you're really getting quite a bit more than a GPS and transponder.

2. VFR: 10K will most likely get you an installed GPS400W/GTX330 combo (the 400W being the GNS430W minus the NAV/COM - let's face it, how many VFR pilots ever use a VOR or NDB for navigation if they have a GPS??). Avionics-laf.com advertise the 400W for just under 6400 bucks..

Am I still dreaming? :8

James, it was their claim but it was a con to get genuine people like yourself and thousands of others to support their low level ADSB proposal.

Plank, Airservices radars in Australia do not provide a TIS service and there are no plans to spend the millions required to offer such a service here.

As stated before it's all and intentional misleading con' by these people in Canberra.

You may not want to get involved in the ethics of the issue but you will certainly be effected by it!