Sooo... looks like some posters here urgently want the $15,000 'Beta' system, Jaba wants the $7,000 'VHS' system, and Dick Smith would prefere to wait 5 odd years and get the $300 'DVD' system :hmm:


GaryGnu, to relate it to Oz, what was the original Oz government policy re airport sales - Did it help Oz aviation and has the policy changed at all ?

GaryGnu, Is that suggesting we will need to retain all our current nav aids and radars when we have GPS failure and/or permanent loss ?
Will the U.S. keep LORAN as a back-up ? thats the 'other' ADS-B system.

james michael, sounds like you have no way of challenging the couple of scenarios I offered :hmm:

...and you've spoken to Microair and its all doozie eh :hmm: :E

FB

I comprehend the scenarios you offer but I restate what I believe.

GPS is here except in the event of major war. Turning it off is improbable otherwise, too much dependency. Although, to be fair, in the WAAS/GBAS debate I understand some sovereignty issues with MSAT. Different argument.

GPS already has failures, thus the removal of TSO129a from the ADS-B platform. I was uncertain re this, the data are persuasive.

Yes, GPS can be used by terrorists. I use a knife with my steak, the same knife can be used to terminate me. Tools have various uses, do we allow the 1% factor to overcome the good.

ADS-B is a surveillance mode resulting from technological advance that allows ATC efficiencies and aircraft-aircraft efficiencies. I don't believe the arguments against overrule those for.

What is needed is rational debate on the inevitable and how to best manage it.

Don't get too carried away there......ADSB in is a possibility....BUT and I stress..... ADSB IN is really not for GA....its not needed and could be a distraction.

Maybe its useful to IFR GA but that is the limit IMHO. And that should not be subsidised.

Subsidy is for OUT only, thats to have the targets in the ATC system and to ensure RPT get TCAS from the combined ADSB/Mode C fitted lighties.

J

Exactly, Jaba! Anything more than that should be at owner's expense. For VFR GA ADS-B "IN" is eye candy. Personally, I would fit it in a heartbeat considering my turf is fairly busy around the ML basin.

Creampuff, the gear IS available, it just doesn't come from the US. Check out SELEX and Funkwerk for TSO gear for GA aircraft.

1090ES is the world-wide standard! Not UAT or WAMLAT or VDL4 or....

Why would you guys say that having traffic on your moving map is only "eyecandy" and "not needed for GA"?

Surely anything that improves situational awareness and traffic separation would be welcomed? In Alaska there has been a 40% reduction in aviation accidents since ADS-B was introduced. Certainly no coincidence!

I will definitely get myself an ADS-B IN box once the system is up and running. Any mid-air collision is one too many, especially when my own a** is on the line..

40% reduction in 'midairs' or 'accidents'?

No coincidence...none...no possible unrelated contributors?

Rubbish!

Justify that statement.

Thanks Oz.

Serious questions: How much would that gear cost to buy and fit to an average VH-registered bugsmasha? Does that gear satisfy current Australian regulatory requirements for ASDB-out?

Jabby and Oz

You are being altruistic. Why should the normal VFR owner want his aircraft downtimed and stuffed around with to provide a surveillance system that offers him no benefits beyond the present? Answer, Airservices needs to provide some BENEFIT.

The benefit is NOT that of being able to operate in airspace as usual. If Airservices want to shift goal posts then forget the deal and let them keep the radar going. GA and particularly VFR stand to be more airspace restricted by ADS-B. Read the Airservices written NAS DP V1.4 about the Class E veils, and note the ADS-B Phase 2 mandatory ADS-B at CTAF R.

Therefore, Airservices needs to offer a sweetener. If Microair can include IN in the package, and that's a possibility, what a sweetener that would be. For VFR, if there can be a dashboard display display of the GPS data (admittedly the 145 display would not be to 146 standard) then that's a sweetener even if VFR pays for the display.

Creampuff

Ah so, that was a bit of fun, back to business. I doubt anyone in GA would accept the proposals without Airservices taking exactly the step you suggest and trotting out a list of TSO approved units and their cost. This is real caveat emptor stuff.

But it's also a circular argument until agreement in principle is reached as no manufacturer is going to gear up for an Australian mandate until there is some substance. We have seen the Airservices RFP withdrawn, Defence is perhaps an unwilling bride, and now Dick Smith is going to stop the deal - would you be investing money on that basis?

But, if we were to approach this as an unemotive business deal with Airservices the seller and everyone below FL180 a buyer, what would be the buyers specification and purchase motivation, that's the question.

Alaska
 

Chimbu, here's the justification:

From here: Avionics Magazine :: ADS-B’s Global Advance

There are plenty of other references to that and other trials out there.

It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. See and avoid. We know how bad humans are at looking out the window and spotting other aircraft in the big blue yonder, especially when we add student pilots and super busy GAAP airspaces into the mix. See on the display to improve situational awareness, of course not to replace looking out, I don't know how we can't be for it!

Let's be constructive and help each other in the aviation industry to move from WWI technology to 21st century, there's no way we won't benefit from it!!!

Gents / Ladies too,

The issue in Aalaska is not about a massive reduction in midair collissions, it was accidents all round. The reason for this as I understand it is with the ADSB they now have the surveillence of RADAR.....without the expense and infrastructure of RADAR.

I may be wrong, I just do not have the time to spend rereading it all again.

As for a sweetener JM, you do not need one. Better ATC coverage and some safety improvements for you and RPT and if YOU want ADSB IN, you can have it for a small extra fee. What more can you expect. Thats enough as it is.

J

It all comes flooding back to me now. I've been so busy I'd forgotten that this was all debated to death a while ago.

It was about Australia 'going it alone' rather than waiting to see what the rest of the world, or at least a substantial part of it, is going to do.

I see no point in Australia spearheading a technology that may turn out to be a unique and therefore unnecessarily expensive orphan. The imperatives that resulted in an Australia-unique DME system do not exist in respect of the functionality that ADSB is intended to deliver.

I remain with Dick on this one.

Jabba and Creampuff

It's not about Australia going alone. 1090ES is already there for RPT. A visit to a TAAATS centre demonstrates the marriage of ADS-B and MSSR information.

Safety improvements and for RPT? Jabba, if you closely read the relevant studies the issues are behavioural (and include RPT, increasingly so with fuel prices) and are not fixed by ADS-B IN. Although, it is of interest that the airlines always call for safety - as long as they are not paying. Have a read of the Avalon Study - what TCAS on one local short haul carrier?

Jabba, don't confuse surveillance with safety - first you need 'active' surveillance. What ATC surveillance of code 1200 in Class G? And what at CTAF where is the highest risk? Lots of paints on the screen - forget it - if you look at the Armidale study you will find the paints were masked to ATC because of the clutter.

I'm partly with Dick - on facts, not emotion - and Creampuff re this. If you study the purported benefits of the JCP, smoke and mirrors emerge. Take SAR as one example. Track the last ADS-B data to save us. Perhaps handy where ADS-B exists but whether or not it does one would far better initiate their 406 PLB for an instant SAR alert with one's details updated 3 times per hour and accurate to about 40 metres.

Having said that, if Airservices want to save $100M on radar etc - what's really in it for GA?

This is not a case of Australia going it alone with ADSB. Europe is roaring ahead with its implementation because it is a nobrainer to install a widespread ADSB network to in the long term replace an expensive radar network. We in the Middle East have just started using a new system that has a seamless ADSB display so that when we switch off our radar inputs (which we have done in the test environment) all ADSB equipped aircraft continue to blip along as usual updating every 3.2 seconds. Currently we have between 20 and 30 % of all aircraft equipped but that will quickly increase considering the rate of new aircraft deliveries here in the UAE.

I have spent a lot of time at one of the main manufacturers in Europe of the ADSB ground units and it is amazing to see the little 20 cm long fibreglass stick with the mobile phone size battery running it, and when they explain that a small solar panel could run the unit in a remote location with little maintenance you realise the potential for full radar like coverage not only across all of Australia but also across much of the world oceans and remote areas.

This technology is the future and Australia is highly respected internationally for being one of the countries leading the way. Every day in the majority of Australia, aircraft are subject to procedural separation, and people are worried about what happens if GPS is lost????

Embrace the technology, realise what it will do for pilots, controllers and the travelling public alike, and stop a bunch of panic merchants who are resistant to change when we finally get a change that deserves to be supported (unlike the debacle called NAS, hmmm 500 mile an hour jets in the same bit of non-radar airspace with non-communicating lighties, yeh that sounds like a great idea, and who cares what the USA does, if an idea is stupid it is stupid regardless of who else is stupid enough to do it).

Creampuff, I don't have time to write a proper response (especially to Dick) now, however, Given that the money for this technology is going to be pissed away anyway (maintaining/replacing old radars), why not accept the 'experiment'? If the world goes another way (ala DME) then change in the future- but the world will be learning from us and the benfits flow immediately to oz aviation in having ADS-B NOW. If the problem is that; if, in future, a system change is required, owners fear that AsA wont pay for it, then just have that rider put in now. With the pace of technological change, trying to go with "what's best" appears to be a futile exercise in naval gazing and procrastination.

Courtesy of a friends daughter who included this in a school project:eek:

procrastination = mastubation, in the end you are only screwing yourself!

Teenagers............what next!:uhoh:

J

Jaba, thats a well thought out contribution :rolleyes:

...perhaps an appropriate analogy though - Dont protect your self and go with the wrong 'system' and we could be paying for it for the next 20 odd years ;) ... and the cost of the inevitable 'divorce' when Osama getts his end in :(



.

Quick question - Why have the Europeans put up their own GPS satellites when the US GPS system already covers Europe ? :hmm:

Mr Smith has made a lot of noise about the cost-blow out and eventual scrapping of the Sea Sprite helicopter program (interestingly he has never made any mention of the $1 billion required to get the Collins Class submarine into shape...a new Government, means old sins are forgiven apparently), but has anyone ever heard him explain the over-run of the TAAATs system?

TAAATs was Mr Smith's CAA baby and it ran at least $77 million over budget. And that's before the cost of the legal wrangling over contracts in included.

Applyiong Mr Smith's `Sea Sprite' logic you owe the taxpayer more than $77 million. I'm sure the tax commissioner will be happy to accept a cheque or money order.

On ya!
 

Binghi

The thread needed a little comic relief:rolleyes:

J

Jabby

Now I have undone the wing nuts and come out of the asiatic closet, you may take over the humour baton from Creamie and me :D

Back on ADS-B there's really only three I believe. VDL 4, 1090ES, and UAT. Australia is unlikely to sustain UAT and why run two systems anyway. Don't know anything of VDL 4 but do know 1090ES is going well according to the two recent ATC contributions.

So what's our options. And, if we don't go with the subsidy is the risk we do go later - with user pays?

Imagine this in another time-

ELV Dubbo, ELV IFR C402 for Narromine time 10, NPA rwy29, request traffic
DUBBO FSU ELV standby one FSO flicks his ADS-B screen to Narromine area waits five seconds for the screen to refresh.
DUBBO FSU ELV, I show two aircraft doing circuits rwy 36 and an IFR from Broken Hill arriving time 12, currently at 65nm and passing FL180 on descent. No other traffic.

ELV ELV copies traffic and many thanks
DUBBO FSU ELV and flicks screen back to area and continues to make his cuppa

Better than a CAGRO, better than UNICOM, it would have been the best system in the world. And for bugger all extra cost. Dick, if you wanted to change the world you should have started by making FSOs more versatile by giving them the gear and the coverage to look after OCTA properly. ATC looking after all CONTROLLED AIRSPACE where all the big guys fly and FS looking after everything else. ADS-B the common system looking out for everyone.

OH, I like to dream a lot:zzz:

Gee 'OZ',

THAT certainly brought a tear to these 'old eyes'....Just the thought of it.

Think I'll have to go and get a 'cold cuppa' to compensate.....

Thanks for the thought.:ok::ok:

FSO's cost too much anyway. I've heard THAT so much I'm [SIZE="1"]almost[SIZE="3"]ready to actually believe it.

We did 'trial' a thing called 'FISADS' for a while...must have cost $MMM's...and it didn't do much at all either....:}

Cheers:ok::ok:

...it did and thank you for that.

ANSA is correct. Further more, it could be argued that Australia has already fallen behind the leaders of ADS-B and that Europe now is technologically and operationally in front of the pack. We both work in Aviation in the Northern Hemisphere and can assure you that 1090ES is in use globally. It is not DME-A as Mr Smith would have you believe... it is in fact the equivalent of DME-I, because it is now, by default, the International Standard for ADS-B.

Mr Smith et al should be proud of their achievement in delaying/stalling ADS-B in Australia. The danger now is not falling behind, but being left behind... and that, my Antipodean friends, is your choice.

Quokka, how true!

Dick thinks that as Australians we are incapable of invention, innovation modification and adaptation of anything more complex than a lawnmower without bringing in foreign "Experts" from America.

History says otherwise, thank heavens.

...and yet, still no idea just what will happen to GPS when the first GPS guided Buzz Bombs fly over the Australian coast line - Have Airservices planned for such an eventuality ???
(and this is only one scenario)

Australia currently has a very robust air traffic control system run by a bunch of very dedicated, albeit understaffed and overworked, airtraffic controllers. Any terrorist threats to the current radar based ATC system would have minimal to nil impact.

Apart from any terrorist threat, we also have no real guarantees that civy GPS will be available in the future. There appears to be a 'cargo culture' mentality amongst some posters that the GPS signals will forever continue to rain down FREE and unimpeded upon their glorious ADS-B recievers. :hmm: ... where is the contract guaranteeing ongoing supply ???

If we get ADS-B fully implemented, Airservices will be able to sack many of the airtraffic controllers and close nav-aids and radars.
When ADS-B fails, there will most likely be no real backup what-so-ever :(

I continue to research:


Statistics for all flights in Australia the month of

Binghi

More research:

Ah, finally, an admission that ADS-B NEEDS a back-up for the entire system.

Our existing very robust airnav system does not need a back-up for the entire system. There are parts that can fail, though no failure of one component will stop the entire air-nav system.

And I will repeat this - Apart from any terrorist threat, we also have no real guarantees that civy GPS will be available in the future. There appears to be a 'cargo culture' mentality amongst some posters that the GPS signals will forever continue to rain down FREE and unimpeded upon their glorious ADS-B recievers ... where is the contract guaranteeing ongoing supply ???

james michael, is that an admission that all of the of aircraft flying in Oz will be receiving an account for their 'air' time ??? ... plus the on going maintenance costs of the ADS-B unit.

The US may turn off the GPS system / make it unusable. On the same token they may also ban flight by non military aircraft and enforce it in another country (eg parts of Australia as opposed to parts of Iraq). Given the dependency of the US's economy on GPS the second option would be far more palatable to the US public.

If the GPS signal is not available procedural separation could be used. It is no where near as efficient (or dare I say it as safe) as a radar / ADSB environment. A fire, a bomb, a failure of both primary and secondary power supplies, a SSR failure at either ML centre or BN centre would be far more disruptive than the loss of the GPS signal. If the GPS signal is jammed locally for war like or terrorist reasons I don't think any civilian aircraft would be allowed to take off (at least initially, and then ADIZ procedures would apply with extremely limited aircraft movements) so it becomes a task of getting the flying aircraft down safely. The ATC's out there should be able to give us an indication of whether the controllers on a shift would be able to cope with the additional workload by effectively halving the number of aircraft to be dealt with (hang on a sec most of them seem to be in on the conspiracy).

FB - Are you suggesting that I should throw away my 406 GPS equipped PLB on the remote chance the US disrupts the GPS signal in case I ever need to use it?

SSR is not spoof proof either. I've been in command of two different aircraft (about 15 years apart) where the indicated altitude to ATC is nothing like the actual altitude. A clever electronics engineer could easily alter the returned distance and / or altitude (multilateration would be able to be programmed to detect distance spoofing). Jamming primary radar would be quite straightforward as well.

It doesn't take much technology to upset ground aids either - I would be extremely surprised if even our military doesn't have the necessary equipment to do so - most electronic engineers could design and build gear to upset individual navigation aids in their sleep mainly using gear that can be brought off the shelf - and if they wanted to build from scratch even DSE would sell all the necessary components.

The necessary information to spoof these systems is publically available - probably not all on the internet but it could be found. No I am NOT going to say how on PPRUNE - that would make it too easy for a terrorist.

Have to go - more to add.

Quokka, what a load of codswallop!

Tell me one country in Europe that has 1090ES ADS-B fitted in GA aircraft. You won’t be able to name one, because there isn’t one.

I’m concerned about the $100 million subsidy here to fit ADS-B in small GA aircraft. I want to know which safety issue is being addressed for the $100 million. It could be that more and more airline aircraft are gradually being fitted with 1090ES ADS-B, however it will be over a decade before the entire airline fleet is so fitted.

The only European country that I know of which is experimenting with ADS-B is Sweden, and I understand they are going with VDL 4.

I’ll say it again. I totally support ADS-B, however I believe we should be conservative, watch the fallout as other countries make huge errors costing billions of dollars, and then follow the best.

There is simply no reason that we should lead the world – especially when we do not have competent people here doing the “leading.”

Sierraoscar595, that is the first I’ve heard that TAAATS ran over budget. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, because as you know the final order was placed after I completed my term as Chairman of CAA. The last I heard was that Airservices won special awards for TAAATS because it was based on proven equipment – rather than designing a system and being first, which was the Hughes proposal.

Was there any announcement about your claimed $77 million overrun? Could you dig out a copy?

There is a perceptions that this is the way it will work; the amount of controllers currently needed for the current non surveillance 'sectors' will reduce with full ADS-B coverage.

But then there are technical issues. Such as the size of the displays and the ability of one set of eyes to effectively scan it all. If you are able to use a 5NM ADS-B standard why would you monitor a display of 1000NM or more; it's not terribly practicable.

Other trials have proved that much more traffic is displayed, as such the 'duty of care' of the ATCs involved increases, so whilst the 'conflicts' require less workload because you can use radar like separation instead of procedural standards; the workload associated with 'extra traffic' is significantly increased particularly close to busy aerodromes.

ADS-B will have significant ability to increase safety, but will it reduce ATCs? My best guess is not likely; particularly given we are the best part of 100 short now, from full compliment, and there are significant retirement pressures coming.

I too like Dick Smith, would like to see the 'business cases' with all the options laid out openly so they can be publicly critiqued before the decisions are made. "ASA has form, none of it good".

SM4 Pirate, a good post, however you do say:

I am wondering what you actually mean. Considering the only airline midair collision that we have had in Australia was at Sydney Airport in what is now known as Class C airspace, I just wonder what safety increase we are looking for.

The ADS-B “safety case” linked ADS-B with Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems, which are quite separate.

The fact that – as you point out – an air traffic controller will not be able to offer a separation service to airline aircraft at, say, a dozen different airports within the sector, will mean that collision avoidance close to the airport (where the risk is greater) will still be by radio, visual alertness, and TCAS Resolution Advisories. None of these need ADS-B.

So many people have got carried away with this newfangled ADS-B, saying it will dramatically improve safety, but hardly anyone actually gives the scenario of what particular accidents we are going to reduce.

Dick,



Risk Management is all about ... reducing the likelihood and consequence of a bad thing.

Would you not agree that having the extended situational awareness that ADS-B surveillance provides ... would reduce the likelihood of a bad thing happening.

You appear to be saying that we haven't had a bad thing, so we don't need to be trying to prevent them.

Less ATC's??
 

I cannot help but wonder if the plan is to automate the ATC system, using ADSB, more aircraft and less (only a few) controllers.
We seem to have had quite a few instances of TIBA lately.
Funny that. Should get everyone used to the idea.

Followed by...

1090ES and European Air Traffic Control

1090ES Ground Station Procurement

03/08/2005

The call for tender for the procurement of 1090 Extender Squitter Ground Station (1090ES GS) for CASCADE trials has been completed. The contract was awarded to Thales ATM that will furnish five systems (one procured, four leased).

These systems will support:

ADS-B reception and TIS-B transmission over extended squitter,

Interoperability with both DO-260 and DO-260A,
ASTERIX cat 21 for ADS-B reports,
ASTERIX cat 62 for TIS-B reports,
ASTERIX cat 22 and 23 for management and monitoring,
Multiple transmission and reception channels (for operation with multiple sector antennas),
Squitter logging and replay facilities.


CASCADE will receive four systems immediately. These will be identical to the systems used in Australia. Upgrades to the above functionalities will occur in two steps with delivery in January (for ADS-B) and June 2006 (for TIS-B).

The planned locations for the five systems are: Brétigny (EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre), Italy, Athens, Cyprus and Portugal. CASCADE is also leasing another four ADS-B 1090ES GS from Raytheon Systems Ltd. These will go to London, Frankfurt, Schiphol and Shannon.

OZBUSDRIVER;

Do you own a GA aircraft or a bus?

Do you operate a GA aircraft or a bus? (in the sense that the operator is responsible for the maintenance)?

If you are a positive subject to the two questions, how will the mandatory impost of any ADSB impact upon your bottom line if the aircraft/ bus, is/are operated below mainly AO10?

Are you prepared for the cost possibility of having two transponders (mode C and Mode S), so that TCAS can work for those folk who have, or need the "IN" capability?

If you don't own an aircraft/ bus, do you hire one assuming the owner will supply the equipment you fancy?

Do you believe that Private GA and mostly including owners/ operators should be allowed to operate without unnecessary restrictions and costs in Class G airspace?

Do you work for Airservices or a bus company?

Quokka;

I think Dick was challenging you to find something different to what you have supplied.