I know what organisations I belong to and those I have left, but which one are you rabbitting on about "leaving under a cloud" and hoiw would you know.

Bob Murphie

1. I told you all earlier I research across a wide number of venues. The matter has been far too well canvassed on another forum I read - for what it is worth. If you wish to debate it, you could head back over there and leave others on here in peace to debate ADS-B, etc.

2. Alternatively, I am certain you would be given the liberty of posting a link here to any document from the organisation concerned that you did NOT leave under a cloud. It's that simple, no? Post a link to your Certificate of Appreciation when you departed, and prove me wrong :)

2. This thread has been twice pulled for clean-up and I consider you the catalyst.

3. It is about ADS-B and related matters. If we can stay within those confines - more than happy to so do - I am certain there will be no angst whatever on the thread as even Fizzing Bungers UAV flights of fancy have not created problems, rather some light humour.

A decision at last
 

I understand yesterday the Aviation Policy Group (which consisted of the CEO of CASA, Bruce Byron, the head of the Department, Mike Taylor, the head of the Air Force, Air Marshal Mark Binskin, and the head of Airservices, Greg Russell) were given all the information to make a decision on the ADS-B project.

What was the decision? Does anyone know? Or have they yet again delayed any decision so they can’t be held accountable in any way?

Don’t hold your breath for an answer on this.

... no wonder you changed the thread title today!
... so you say "a decision at last" ... confess to have knowledge that the APG ... then laughably ask..clearly you think you know the outcome ... how about putting it on the PPRuNe table .. here and now :hmm:

Dick Smith

I apologise for continually being at odds with you, so perhaps we can make this one a humour item.

So, yesterday the APG were given "were given all the information to make a decision."

And they should make a "$100M plus" decision on the spot?

I'd suggest doing such in haste would make them very, very accountable given the variables, number of players, precedent, and long-term consequences.

I agree, Dick, they have no right to keep us waiting - do they - fancy 'delaying' such a simple decision :rolleyes::rolleyes::ugh::ugh::D:D

Yes,they must make a decision because it is already many months overdue. They have all the facts-now they need some balls!

Scurvy. Mr Smith has no more capacity to change anything in this thread (other than editing his own posts), than you have. Don't make misleading statements! :mad:

You seriously damage your PPRuNe credibility by continually and repetitiously attacking others who post. We know who you dislike - we don't need to be reminded in every post! :ugh:

This thread, which should be important to all involved in professional and recreational aviation, has become nothing more than a p!ssing contest by the usual suspects!!!

Tidbinbilla gave a warning a page or so back, which many of you obviously failed to heed.

No more warnings to anyone, here or by PM.

If you find you can no longer access this thread in the future assume you have been permanently thread banned!

:mad: :mad:

Tail Wheel

Dick

On the BLA thread, continuing the humour, you stated about me I give you, sir, the same compliment.

Months and months of posts on this thread by those studying fine detail - and open-minded goes without saying - have not reached consensus yet you suggest information provided yesterday to the APG should result in a decision now by heads of branch who are not deeply immersed in ADS-B matters?

The decision is NOT many months overdue - that was JCP Mark 1, this is "Son of JCP" and not the same proposal. Decision by end-August is still in the safe timeframe.

I would go as far as to suggest if they do, as you say,
they would be 'nuts' and more likely to lose their proverbials by a hasty decision.

Give them some breathing space. Their decision is fundamental to massive change to aviation in Australia and I'm happy to wait for a well considered result.

No misleading statements Tail Wheel .... go and read the edit time on his opening post (page 1, post #1) on this thread .. an opening post I might add that can be edited including thread title !
.
If he did not edit the title - who did? ... and if he did ... retract your statement!
.
I only attack arguments, my posts stand to that ... the only time I focus on individuals is following in-kind attacks!
.
or are you suggesting 'the other bloke' is not the initiator of such slur's and attacks?

Folks,
I have been away for a while, interesting to catch up.

Creamie, old mate,(posts #628/642) I must be getting soft in my old age. I find myself in almost entire agreement with the questions you raise/points you make.

My dear and long departed father was a lawyer of some note, as he always drummed into me: "Get your facts straight, son!". Facts, as oppose to passionately held opinions, are in scarce supply amongst the uncritical advocates of mandatory ADS-B, and to hell with the cost. Old Blackjack McKeown , long time head of the Agrarian Socialist (sorry, Country) Party, would be proud of them.

Airspace management resources determined by “random happenstance and political pressure/scaremongering”, I wonder how your guest speaker last Wednesday justified what he is doing.

You asked why "UAT" in the US, a two part answer:


Firstly, UAT and VDL-4 were the outcomes of a more than usually long range view (then proposal/competition) from ICAO, that narrow bandwidth data links (such as Mode S transponder – 60’s technology) would need to be superseded by a much more modern data link, high bandwidth, for ATC and any other data (maintenance monitoring thro' to a pax ordering flowers for a girlfriend).

The very retrograde emergence of 1090ES ADS-B as a very limited data package tacked on to an available slot(s) in the current Mode S is really a measure of seriously short term thinking by cash strapped airlines, beguiled by the promise of a "cheap" solutions.

As is almost always the case, ill thought out short term "cheap" solutions turn out to be very expensive in the long run.

This is best illustrated by the recent directives from Eurocontrol and FAA re. fitting of broadband datalinks for routine ATC communications, due to the saturation of available voice channels, despite 8.33kc spacing in Europe, and FAA announcing sticking to 25 kc spacing.

So, a large number of airlines are now faced with some very expensive modifications to produce a 1090ES ADS-B (the FAA NPRM has cost estimates far more realistic than the JCP , Qantaslink actual costs have been in line with the FAA estimates, and far, far more than $25,000 Regional subsidy, indeed probably beyond the financial capability of may regional carriers) and airline operation in EU/US/CA airspace will still have to have a broadband datalink, as I recall VDL-2 (VDL-4 is VDL-2 plus the ADS-B information). ARINC/SITA are moving to VDL-2, as ACARS is honourably interred.

ICAO intended the winner of its competition to do all of the above.

There is another reason for UAT in the US, the potential number of returns would (according to Mitre Corp) too easily swamp the available 1090 channels.

Re. the "cost" of the FAA "dual" system, Thales is the contractor for the ground stations for ASA and FAA. The difference in a single mode ground station and a 1090ES/UAT (or VDL-4) dual mode ground station is an extra card in a slot on the base (mother) board. From a ground station to and from an ATC Center, the signal is common, there is not a 1090ES and separate UAT data stream to the Centre.

This has all been written about before, and entirely ignored by the "faith based" approach of the disciples of 1090ES ADS-B. As has the complete lack of manpower to install equipment to meet the timetable, see the local avionics associations submission to the JCP.

Don't feel too hard done by --- no avionics LAME in Canberra, last time I noticed there was just one in WA, over age 70, with a "fly-in, fly-out” program from the eastern states, and a desperate search for potential 457 Visa imports.

And now to the "subsidy", Max 1, would you be so kind as to detail the announcements by the CEO and/or Chairman of any major Australian carrier, or the BAR, as to their agreement to the proposed subsidy, in lieu of their existing contracts re. price of service from ASA.

Perhaps also the details of the decision of ASA Board re. a subsidy. Given the present expenditure reviews being conducted by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, I can really see them readily agreeing to the elimination or greatly reduced dividends from ASA.

Scurvey, thanks for you dissection, I am pleased that you agree with me that there will be little if any "low level" ADS-B coverage over much of the area where the Regional pilots think they will have coverage "in the circuit, any time in our lifetimes. I await ,with considerable interest, the ASA announcement of a big recruiting drive to hire enough controllers to handle, say, just a 30% increase in workload due Class E/G new services, over and above the present airway system

You are quite right, with sparse traffic, who needs it, therefore why should it be mandatory over such a wide area and for all aircraft, including gliders and ultralights. Particularly given that "ADS-B IN" for TCAS 11 equipped aircraft is some time away (see JCP papers, Boeing/Airbus comments), and when it appears, it will have the same functionality as transponder based TCAS 11. Sorry, I forgot, AWA have to have a “critical mass” of equipped aircraft to provide no services to, ASA are not planning a big increase in services that will yield sod all revenue.

As Creamie says, where is the SAFETY data to support the wide spread fitment.

Owen Stanley, re post #841.

In the interests of air safety and the travelling public, it is imperative that you advise ICAO of the proven validity of your condemnation of risk management based airspace management, that is at the heart of the A through G airspace classification, all based on maintaining the same level of separation assurance in all classes of airspace, the same “safety” level, at various demonstrated traffic levels.

Believe me, you have a serious moral obligation to put ICAO right - if you are right, which you are not.


Tootle pip !!

I am not agreeing with you Leadhead .. what I said (in http://www.pprune.org/forums/4277170-post620.html ) was not as you suggest above!
.
I note also you obviously ignored http://www.pprune.org/forums/4291524-post738.html .. no surprise there!
.
Re: your second para (addressed to me) ... sorry, its drivel, I have no idea what you are asking or suggesting!
.
Nice to read you again though on what is becoming a regular and usual ‘quick – run him a diversion’ day!

Bit of ancient history. AOPA backs fitment of transponders during Airspace2000. As a means of avoiding any charges by not having to interact with ATC. Everything looking rosey until Dick threatens court action if this outcome is enacted. Airspace2000 is eventualy scutled. Link with transponders and AVOIDING nav charges.(Odd, wasn't Dick Pres of that group when this was negotiated?)

NAS 1 transponders above 5000ft. NAS modified but transponders stick, this time because of TCAS. Dick, why was your advice changed from Airspace2000 to NAS. And, are these guys the same ones feeding you information about ADS-B?

Leadsled, can you give a link to that ICAO page? like to add it to the list. Only thing I ever read about frequency saturation was ModeC. Eventually, 1090ES would need another system but a lot of years down the track. Removal of DME from the frequency helped matters a lot. I'll dig my link up.

UAT was around before ADS-B. AOPA US and Mitre got together to create a system CHEAPER than "Airline Only" ModeS. And voila UAT was created. A system without a cause. Enter Capstone and UAT is legitimised. Much like legitimising a "wildcat" round.

Leadsled, surely you are picking up in different news items that the data transmitting part of UAT is being fast overtaken by Satellite Weather services.

Now a couple of years ago, you guys had me on wood when the ONLY TSO145a card was pulled from production. Sorry to say, that isn't the case anymore as is ADS-B OUT compliant transponders. A lot happens in technology in a very short time.

You sayWhat happens in the air is different. UAT doesn't see 1090ES without the datalink. UAT needs a transmitter. Outside range of receivers UAT does NOT see 1090ES. ATC is no different but the system from that card back up is a lot different between the two systems. Still arguing about who is going to pay for it too. The FAA wants user pays AOPA says NO! Expensive system.

Now, as you have said, Airlines want the cheap way out(:rolleyes:) Here you have the FAA wanting to roll out UAT and 1090ES. Airlines do not need UAT to operate. Do you see where this heading?
If ever there is a change in funding regimes in the US, do you think someone will be just a little worried about pushing for their own system all those years ago? The premise of the argument for UAT was the expense of ModeS, funny that!

Scurvy.

I edited the title - in an attempt to return this thread to the topic as expressed in the thread title.

:mad:

I am locking this thread for a couple of hours whilst I determine what is wheat and what is chaff - or even if the thread has any future. It seems to me most intelligent debate ended a few pages ago!

Tail Wheel

There are rumours going around, which I’ve heard through several sources, that the whole ADS-B low level project has been scuttled. Does anyone have any information on this?

Is it because the airlines, including Virgin and Qantas, in a time of such economic gloom refused to pay tens of millions of dollars of money which they consider to be theirs to GA flyers?

I look forward to some information on this. Someone must know something.

Dick, what money? If you have your way, the airlines will have to keep paying at the current rate until 2027 when the radars come up for replacement.

If ADS-B low level goes ahead then after equiping of aircraft and after SSR approved for shutdown. The airlines then get a DISCOUNT in the current charges. If the airlines resist then SRR remains and maintained and NO DISCOUNT.

Ozbusdriver, the problem is that if what you are saying was factual, there would be officers from Airservices and other organisations putting their name to the message. I don’t know if you have noticed, but no one does.

All of the spruiking for the ADS-B subsidy comes from anonymous people on PPRuNe. If anyone actually believed that it was going to be a genuine subsidy at no cost (because of savings) they would obviously put their name to the belief.

I’m happy to accept that you believe what you are saying, however you probably don’t have the full information. Surely if you did you would post under your own name and welcome people contacting you to discuss the issue – so that something you felt so strongly about could go ahead.

How do we know that you are not the owner of a company which is going to benefit financially from this ADS-B subsidy? Surely there would be nothing wrong with someone who operates a company which will benefit from the ADS-B subsidy running a strong campaign on PPRuNe to try to ensure that the subsidy goes ahead.

After all, $100 million is a lot of gravy!

Talk to Greg Dunstone. I have listened to his lectures on this. The JCP says this. How many people is it going to take. The only benefit I get out of this is a safer surveillance environment when I take my family flying. Is that too much to ask?

I do not see your name as a regular or even a guest at the regular ASTRA meetings. The people who are stearing this for the government are all there.

Believe what you want, Mr Smith.

PM me, I'm not up for a phone conversation at the moment. This flu is killing me.

Shame, your in town for the Coroner too.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

OZBUSDRIVER.

It is time to put up or shut up! :ugh:

If you have conclusive proof the Australian Government, major airlines, AirServices Australia or anyone else is going to subsidise the cost of ADSB in Australia's private and GA aircraft fleet, kindly post the details here.

That appears to be the crux of this issue!! Otherwise, any further debate appears pointless?? This is not supporting Mr Smith's views - it is simply stating fact!

If there are no facts to support subsidies for ADSB, surely this debate is totally premature? :confused:

Government did not subsidised the mandatory fitment of "wireless" in aircraft in the early 1950; Van X DME in the 1960s; the transition from AM to SSB HF in the 1970s or mandatory installation of transponders.

It will be interesting to see if Government sets a precedent with ADSB by taking from the rich (airlines) and giving to the poor (aircraft owners). From my long personal experience I've only seen Governments taking from the poor (tax payers) and giving as little as possible back!

As my dearly departed Dad used to say: "Don't lie, cheat or steal Son - the Government hates competition!"

I don't imagine the Australian tax payers will be very excited and enthusiastic about subsidising navigation equipment in private aircraft.

I'm not entering the debate - merely trying to establish the facts as a basis for debate.

Tail Wheel

Perhaps I can assist.

From the JCP.

"The heads of the four aviation agencies are committed to working cooperatively with the aviation community to maintain and enhance aviation safety. Meeting together as the Aviation Policy Group (APG)1, they have considered the ASTRA proposal and directed their staff to develop the proposal for wider consultation. This JCP has been developed by the four government agencies as the prime consultation document.

9.7