Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
 

In a paper issued in June 2008 for the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group ADS-B Implementation Team, an interesting summary is made. See here.

Readers of PPRuNe will probably understand that the Airservices low level ADS-B project, and the planned removal of low level radars, is heading down the same route as the Super Seasprite helicopter purchase.

It is obvious that the decisions are made by those who never ask advice. For example, how can the “proposed 2012 mandate” ever come in now, as no decision has been made regarding the low level ADS-B project?

As I have pointed out numerous times, the FAA is keeping all of its secondary surveillance radar for airspace above FL180 for safety and other reasons. Why is it that Australia is to go it alone on a cheaper ADS-B only system?

More importantly, this life extension program is completely unsatisfactory. New Zealand has actually issued a contract to completely refurbish their secondary surveillance radar to give a life of at least 20 years. That is what we need here.

It is obvious that Airservices has not considered the situation where the low level ADS-B mandate does not come in, and we therefore will need to keep the secondary surveillance radars for a much longer period. Alternatively, as stated above, we should keep the secondary surveillance radars for high level operations for safety purposes as per the USA.

If you read the document (and the other documents on the site) it is obvious that there is no leadership here.

We have all seen the problems of selling off the secondary airports without any policy. I can assure you what is happening at Airservices in relation to the lack of decision making and leadership in relation to ADS-B and radar will be a greater catastrophe. It will put the lack of air traffic controllers and lack of pilots into the shadows.

Can anyone on this site post the names of people who are making these decisions so they can be held accountable?

Dicks bored again
 

Yawn :bored: Yawn

You really are a bit thick, aren't you?.

Name the ABIT team and you may be getting somewhere Dick.

Greg Dunstone acknowledges authorship of the document. The ABIT team appear all enthusiastic supporters of the concept.

But then it is an "implementation team", not an investigative team.

Titles Not Names
 

Dick,

I won't give you names but how about these titles.

CEO CASA
CEO Airservices Australia
Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (nee DOTARS).
Chief of Defence Force (CDF)

Together they form the Aviation Policy Group set up by the previous Minister to tin plate his backside from the likes of you and your medelsome counterproductive interference on issues like this.

They are the heads of the agencies that issued the Joint Consultation Paper on project ATLAS and where the ultimate decisions on low-level ADS-B will be made.

I'm sure their email adressess are publicly available. Why campaign here? Have you lost the ear of the minister.....or have you lost your minister:)

What happens to ADS-B when the civy GPS gets turned off ?

It doesn't work! Now could that just be the reason the FAA is keeping all terminal radars and most en-route SSR,s when they put in ADSB?

[hmmm! logged in to self-moderate my last post which in retrospect may have been a bit frooty and it has gorn. I'll try again...]Erm, really? Was ADS/B created for a patrol boat which was never built? Was ADS/B put into a paddock in the desert 30 years ago then painted up purty with added shiny bits and then flogged to the gullible? Was ADS/B bought off the shelf to an international standard like that nice dick smith bloke is always bleating about? No, no, no and yes.You have your head in the sand there I believe, but regardless, it seems a good idea to get as much life as is reasonably available from the existing equipment to facilitate a delay in the final decision.Weren't you saying last week the FAA wanted to turn them off? I referred your comments to a US ATC of my acquaintance and this is her comment: "Okay, I want to bite your pinhead on the neck too. I see he's an authority on the FAA too, and talks as though he knows Pat Forrey personally." NO!:= No half-baked Frankenstein creation melding obsolete and unsupported gear with untried & internationally unique bits welded on thanks. That would be another Seasprite project if there ever was one. New radar or new ADS/B. Don't care which. If existing equipment can be maintained longer in the meantime that is good.Well obviously they have, or they would have just ordered the new ADS/B.

Whatever your arguments Dick, best not hold up the FAA as an example of how things should be done.

They make Airservices Australia and CASA look like the best around.

The hearings on Capitol Hill over the past two weeks have shown just how dysfuntional their National Airspace System has become - a wreck looking for somewhere to happen and very soon.

I am sure you will agree that is not something we should be trying to emulate.

Spodman, why doesn’t anyone from Airservices come on this site and put their name to the decision for the low level ADS-B and sell its advantages? You only post anonymously – presumably so when problems occur you can’t be held accountable in any way. In the meantime, millions of dollars will be spent that could be wasted.

In relation to your American air traffic controller friend, why doesn’t she answer the point rather than attack me personally? The FAA has stated that it will be keeping the secondary surveillance radars to provide a service above FL180 when ADS-B is installed. Surely she can come back and say if this is true or not. The reason she doesn’t is that she knows that it is!

I stated clearly on this site a number of weeks ago that the FAA has become as dysfunctional as Airservices, very much for the same reason. That is, in the past in both organisations had people in charge who had a good aviation background. About a decade ago the FAA Administrators were “de-skilled”, and no longer were people with professional aviation experience given the position – it was handed to bureaucrats from the transport department in Washington.

Look at what happened here in Australia. John Anderson put a farmer with absolutely no aviation background or knowledge in charge of Airservices.

BN APP 125.6, I’m not holding up the FAA “as an example of how things should be done”, I’m simply stating a basic fact. That is, when they plan to go to ADS-B, they are going to keep secondary surveillance radars to cover the airspace above FL180. This is obviously so they have a back up if the GPS system goes out.

In Australia, the whole basis for our low level GPS system is the money saving that can allegedly be obtained by turning off these enroute secondary surveillance radars.

I can assure everyone who reads this that our proposed ADS-B system, which is allegedly subsidised to the tune of $100 million to GA, has not been attempted anywhere else in the world. There is not even an inexpensive certified ADS-B ‘out’ or ‘in’ unit suitable for GA.

As I have said before, I’m a strong supporter of ADS-B – but not leading the world, and not going ahead without examining all the pros and cons, and communicating them to everyone involved.

Dick,

You'll never get any official response from AsA on this "rumour" site. Same as you won't get a high ranking military official response or someone in management from CASA or the ATSB. It's not the appropriate place.

Having said that, you're asking for someone from AsA to be accountable.:rolleyes:

I can also assure you that although you don't know who SPODMAN is, he is well known by ATC's, and is regarded highly by us and management. His knowledge and opinions are well respected by those of us that know him(most of the time :}) and he is well aware of his accountability for the things he posts on this site.

I, on the other hand, probably have a lot less respect for my management these days so continue to loosely use an alias.:hmm:

Kaptain Kaos, well may you say “yawn yawn.” No doubt some people were saying that when others were querying the Super Seasprite order 10 years ago. Now $1 billion later, it is no longer a yawning matter, it is a serious waste of resources.

I have recently been told that the decision in relation to the ADS-B project and the $100 million subsidy is going to be made by the Department. Now remember the Department is now called the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – and everything else! In my experience, they have no one left who has any expertise in this field. How would they ever be able to make such an important decision?

More to the point, why is the Department making this decision? Surely it should be Airservices proposing it to the industry and CASA, then making the decision in conjunction with all three – i.e. Airservices, CASA and the industry.

If it is the Department, don’t hold your breath.

I am from Airservices, but I am not a spokesperson for them. My name is in my profile if anybody is interested, if that is tecknikally beyhond your it is Mark Spedding. We have met, and spoken at the odd airshow. Most ATC & professional pilots seem to prefer anonymity as they believe other peoples careers have been affected by what they have posted here, and also believe management are as diligent in cracking user names as you are. I'm sure this has been explained to about a bazillion times, but I'm sure you still don't get it. Because my identity is readily accessible I don't always speak my mind or get involved here in industrial issues.

I don't propose to spruik for ADS/B or SSR, just don't want to see stuff posted here I think is misleading or untrue. I'm happy to keep ATC'ing with the tools I'm given, and the procedures mandated. I can see a huge benefit in efficiency with stage 2 ADS/B, enabling the sort of airspace arrangements that seem to give you a stiffy, and really don't get why you are fighting it. The easier option for me is business as usual with the gear we have now, but I don't object to exerting myself a bit for the system to improve. Bring it on!It is misleading statements like this that get me steamed about you, and reassure me in my opinion that you really don't have a clue. The article you linked in your last rant on this subject has a quote from the boss of the group writing the new rules:

“ADS-B, as a replacement of radar separation for all aircraft, is a core element in ATC modernization that NBAA supports and is working to enhance through the ARC.”

Spodman, you resort to personal attack again - i.e. you state that I “really don’t have a clue” but don’t come up with any facts.

I have stated that the FAA plans to keep all secondary surveillance radars right across the USA to provide a secondary surveillance radar back up service above FL180 when ADS-B is fully installed.

In response to this you state:

However you provide no evidence. I can assure you I have spoken to people at the FAA and their document makes it quite clear that they are going to keep the secondary surveillance radars to provide a radar service above FL180 after ADS-B is installed.

You say my statement is misleading. Where is your evidence? Are you actually stating that the FAA proposes to close down all its secondary surveillance enroute radars in a similar way to the Australian proposal? It is as if you know that I am stating a fact, and because it works against your belief system, you will simply personally attack me rather than address this important issue.

I can assure you that at the present time, I wouldn’t like to see an enroute system that is totally based on GPS, and if the GPS system goes out we have no surveillance at all. At the present time if one SSR head goes out we have others, and there is a portable unit which can be brought in to replace it. Everything else is backed up (i.e. power supplies, links etc).

The multilateration system which is being installed in Tasmania has backed up power supplies and multiple outlets so if one goes down, the system will still fundamentally work. The multilateration system is not based on the GPS system working.

Why isn’t Airservices telling us how that system is going and advising why they have spent such a fortune on the system, if they are not planning to take notice of its performance and compare it with ADS-B, which requires operation of the GPS constellation?

:hmm: .. perhaps the FAA position on RADAR is 3 fold:-
.
1. Redundancy
2. Primary coverage in TMA areas
3. To cover off the potential 'disconnect' holes in a Dual band ADS-B system ;)
.
As for WAMLat ... who knows, more the point who cares, particularly if those operating the airspace (where GA conflict pairs mostly exist) will not see the surveillance data :hmm: :ugh:
.
Warren, you've really got a bee in yer bonnet eh := ... TOOL! :mad:

Let's just enter the 21st century in aviation, shall we?
 

Dick, the thing I don't get is why you don't work with Airservices to try to influence the solution in the direction you think will benefit the country's aviation industry, but instead resort to complaining about what seems like an honest attempt to bring aviation into the 21st century!?

With your money and influence I am sure you're well placed to nudge people and opinions in the best direction, and as a very successful businessman you will know that antagonism rarely advances any issue.. :confused:

As per the initiative itself, I can't see why there's such a big fuss. In my view (and maybe I'm being naive here, but I am sure someone can enlighten me in that case), the positives of this drive are overwhelming.

First and foremost from Joe C172 owner's point of view, we get our avionics upgraded FOR FREE!:eek: Every IFR and later VFR aircraft gets the gift of a HUGE improvement in situational awareness. Just peek into any given machine at a GA airport near you, and you'll see ancient, unreliable, twitching ADFs, VORs, and even older COMs. Now imagine how much safer and how much more attractive GA will be if every machine out there has a nice new colour moving map GPS like the Garmin 430 or something similar that displays traffic and possibly weather, combined with a crisp COM system..

And when it comes to the consulting process, compared to other countries around the world where I have seen similar things happen, I think AirServices are doing a pretty good job. Having read the submission document and the recently presented summary of responses (which was overwhelmingly positive, not surprisingly..), the biggest criticism I have of the process is that all the petty interest groups in this country are dragging out the day that I can present the $15,000 voucher to my avionics guru and tell him to upgrade my GPS and transponder.

Just briefly one quick response to all the "What If GPS Fails/The US Switch It Off" doomsdayers out there: Don't you think that by the time the world of aviation comes to rely exclusively on GPS, the techheads of this world wouldn't have figured out how to keep the system going by reference to the ground based WAAS stations alone in an emergency, for example?

Ducking for cover now :}

Salesman???
 

I agree we should try and work with the govt organisations as we are all part of a team.
But do you really believe what you are saying?
The indications so far are that you will get a box under the dash that tells everyone where you are like the transponder does, but which tells you NOTHING. It will be of great benefit to the airlines and Air services and a cost to GA.

GPS Off
 

Surely no one is proposing that the US Government would turn off the GPS constellation intentionally. It is not US Government Policy to turn the GPS off.

That leaves the possibility of loss of signal due to system(s) malfunction.

I will leave it to the experts on how many simultaneous failures are required for a complete loss of signal. However, what is important is what is done if the signal is lost.

Widespread installaion of ADS-B need not result in a reduction of system safety in the event of a loss of GNSS signal. There will still be useable radio navaids and procedural ATC/Directed Traffic Information backed up by TCAS just as there is now.

Plank Bender

I might be incorrect but as I read the JCP and JCP CBA proposal the dashboard GPS only goes into IFR aircraft. VFR get a TSO 145 GPS engine that drives the ADS-B location data but does NOT give ANY NAV or COM information. Nothing on the dashboard at all.

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?

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!