Merged: ADSB

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Dick,

There is no way GA will support TCAS in all aircraft.

All going to ADSB plus high performance aircraft equiped with TCAS plus ATC providing separation and known traffic plus MSAW/RAM plus appropriate proceedures OCTA is a considerably good compromise to all of Australia being under RADAR coverage in Class E and all aerodromes being Class C with services.

[Dick Smith]

Lefty, You do not appear to understand risk management.

We do not have radar over places like Birdsville or the Simpson Desert because the cost would mis-allocate our scarce safety dollars.

It is the same with ADSB.

If the $100m can potentially save more lives if spent elsewhere thats what should happen.

There has never been a plan to put all of Australia under Radar coverage so no compromise is necessary.

[james michael]

Dick

As a child I loved fairytales, as an adult I have grown out of them.

There is no ADSB "in" unit anywhere in the world that gives a Resolution Advisory

And see and be seen DOES give a RA based on your logic?

A unit that provides an audio alert - e.g. traffic 3 o'clock high - does not fit into your version of safety? Did we not have a fatal at MB only recently?

ADS-B allows pilots to control their risk. I knows this goes against your philosophy that your hand must be held by ATC, but there are lots of places outside and inside ATC cover that ALERTED (by ADS-B IN) see and be seen would have averted crashes. Not to include ADS-B on the ground.

And this is a gem

Qantas will not be mentioned but many will know who vetoed the proposal

From the ABIT site that Bing so astutely pointed out to us - some extracts of the June 2008 Minutes:

Nick King clarified that committing to Phase 1 is agreeing by September to go ahead with the ADS-B mandate equivalent to the current transponder requirement, subsidies and back up network.

John Crane said that there are statements in the Issues Paper suggesting Australia does not have a strategic plan for aviation. This is untrue. The ASTRA ATM Strategic Plan has been followed for a number of years and ICAO/IATA have even used this plan as a template for their own strategic planning. Further, the meeting has just accepted the proposal to split the work of the ATLAS Project into 2 phases and commence work on Phase 1 as soon as possible. This, of course, will be predicated on the Minister’s approval. If the Minister does not approve the implementation of the project prior to the window of opportunity closing resulting the in the replacement of radars becoming necessary, will industry still be required to pay for it and if so, why, when we have agreed to proceeding with ATLAS?

David Oliver endorsed John Crane’s comments. For the last 2 years, industry has been fully behind the proposals presented today. If this opportunity is missed, it will be 20 years before the technology can be embraced and implemented. To do nothing is to crucify the aviation industry in this country. David Oliver requested that these comments and sentiments be taken back to the Minister. Jim Wolfe agreed to do so.

Attendees list extract:
John Crane, VB
David Oliver, Qantas Airways

Sole Action Item:
Jim Wolfe : Take back Qantas & Virgin comments and sentiments to the Minister.

Dick, that reads to ME that QF and VB are supporting the cross industry funding. What book is your fairytale coming from?

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Lefty, You do not appear to understand risk management.

Uh huh.....

[james michael]

LHR

Tamworth undoubtedly. If you think it through, Airservices would be well advised toi equip Unicom with a non-compliant (i.e. cheap but OK) ADS-B IN receiver to provide "enhanced situational awareness".

There was an incident at Dubbo last week with an o/g (de-identified) and an i/b RPT where radio was lacking, see and be seen lacking, and when the o/g turned on his txpdr after Unicom alert to the RPT and a call from the RPT to the o/g - lo and behold the o/g turned up on the TCAS.

Totally disproves Dick's theory.

The other gap in Dick's theory is the probability versus the consequence. The probability is low but the consequence is high. But, we can ignore that can we not because "it has not happened". I guess most people who die in an accident have not been killed in one previously either

[Dick Smith]

I have spoken to a number of people who went to that meeting who claim they were opposed to the decision but did not speak up and say so.

Why? Probably the same reason you do not post under your real name on PPRUNE.

You may have noticed the "group think" of the meeting- that is not one person stood up and spoke against the proposal even though you would see on this site alone there are some opposed.

I have spoken to senior people at Qantas and it is clear that Qantas is not supporting the subsidy as proposed.

I am sure you can understand that the Qantas man at the meeting would have been lynched if he had been the lone dissenter.

And don't believe for a second that the Radars can't be maintained for decades- the whole basis for the AsA claim that a decision must be made by September.

Once AsA went down the track of excluding anyone from the consultation process who had a differing view they were on a path to failure. Just look at the way they treat there own staff- particularly their ATC's who earn most of the income

[Flying Binghi]

the probability versus the consequence. The probability is low but the consequence is high. But, we can ignore that can we not because "it has not happened".

.........Soooooo, james michael, you now agree that the terrorist miss-use of GPS will have a big impact on an ADS-B/GPS reliant Oz airspace system

[Dick Smith]

The meeting you quote from states that it is a reqirement to be "committed to phase 1 by September"

Have you not noticed it is now November and no decision has been announced?

Why havn't AsA at least said something about the delay?

I know why but I will look forward to your explanation.

[Bob Murphie]

VP AOPA;

Your statement is that it is not board policy to post AOPA business on Pprune, I reasonably assume your earlier post is on behalf of AOPA under the terms of your own constitution, and has the full support of all board members.

That same concession is not allowed to individual directors making expressions in the public domain.

Your policies and actions at ABIT meetings impact upon others within the sector that does not concern itself with fare paying GA operations, including many, many, non AOPA members.

I note from james michael in his “research” that it is current AOPA policy to support the introduction of ADSB but is dependant upon the subsidy to GA.

Would you please put on record the Policy AOPA will adopt if no ADSB subsidy eventuates.

[james michael]

Rupert

Based on your post (il)logic and (in)accuracy recently, fly without me aboard.

You are running a scare mongering campaign of rhetoric - "I've spoken to", "I don't get told" and so on - but by golly, I know it all.

So you argue that

I am sure you can understand that the Qantas man at the meeting would have been lynched if he had been the lone dissenter.

You know, Rupert, when I'm the "Lone Dissenter" (Hi ho, Silver) I tend to go quiet and dissent by not supporting. Seems to work. But here is the QF Rep showing his "dissent" by demanding QF sentiment be taken back to the Minister - to proceed.

Wow, Imagine if he had supported the JCP. He's have gone quiet on your logic.

Earlier today more scaremongering - and worse than baseless

Everyone, including the owners of piper cubs and microlights should be able to afford the $10k plus installation

Can you explain to us the requirement to be IN the mandate - something about transponder was it not?

Bing

Well played. But I still don't agree. The USA cannot turn off Galileo remember. And Galileo may well play a larger part in Oz GPS matters than we thought

[Dick Smith]

It's Dick, not Rupert- I know how you like to be accurate!

The second stage of the mandate was for all aircraft that now require radio to have ADSB.

Are you now suggesting that only the first stage is being considered?

And if Qantas support the subsidy why is it that they do not put anything in writing nor make any public statement about this?

Surely, if they really believed in this proposal they would say something in relation to claims (not just from myself)-that they do not.

And it looks like Qantas do not support the proposal as the "drop dead" date claimed by AsA for the decision is now well passed.

When there is no real leadership the result is SILENCE.

[werbil]

Thread drift - mandatory TCAS fitment to GA - that would cause some frequency congestion on the 1090 band - even at the Birdsville Races!

If I understand correctly, TCAS sends an interrogation pulse every second, to which every aircraft in range responds to. Thus the number of responses is proportional to the square of the number of aircraft within range of each other - ie 50 aircraft in an area equals 2,500 transmissions per second.

ADSB ES as I understand sends a location transmission every second. The number of responses is equal to the number of aircraft - ie 50 aircraft equals 50 transmissions per second. Admittedly, the transmissions are longer (the ES bit), but they are only transmitted once per second.

A new specification for TCAS could design it to work with ADS-B ES to dramatically reduce the number of responses to TCAS, and as a bonus allow lateral resolution advisories to be offered in conjunction with the existing vertical ones.

If every country waited on other countries to introduce new designs aviation would not exist and we would be still adding up on our fingers. ADSB ES enables a number of solutions to improve ATC, TCAS, CFIT prevention, traffic awareness and SAR efforts, however some international standardisation is required otherwise the wheel will be reinvented numberous times with slight variations. If opportunities are always passed up we will continue to be tied to 1940s technology such as AM VHF for aircraft radio telephony, SSR for aircraft monitoring and US units of measurement.

[peuce]

Dear Moderators ...


I'll tell you what ... I'm really getting tired of Dick & Co trying to "out" everyone who posts anonomously on this Board.

I challenge the Moderators to bar these posters ... OR CHANGE THE RULES !

Is it an anonomous forum or not ?

[james michael]

Werbil



Dilbert

I felt if you were going to have an identity mix-up/crisis day I should join in

Are you now suggesting that only the first stage is being considered?

Obviously you have been too busy "talking" to the gurus to read the current position. Answer "YES".

second stage of the mandate was for all aircraft that now require radio to have ADSB.

Exactly. And that stage is stalled due to failure to reach agreement. But please note that FITTED WITH is not REQUIRED. Forget scare mongering about trikes.

Returning to your identity crisis, and with no intention of stealing the thunder of the moderators:
1. My name is James Michael. You will find it beside each post.
2. You have chosen to make certain inferences otherwise.
3. The bottom of each thread has a clear message in red.
4. The senior local moderator is quite specific in his guidelines, viz:
PPRuNe user's identities are sacrosanct, protected by PPRuNe and users are guaranteed anonymity.

We will not allow any speculation on the identity of users, whether ******* or any other user.

I take a very dim view of ******* post and the subsequent speculation - regardless of whether a name was posted or not.

Please respect other user's privacy.

5. I draw the above to your attention so you may decide whether to abide by the rules of this forum or act differently in the belief you are above them. You have persisted in denigrating anon users and trying to probe identities - you continue to do so now in the clear knowledge it is in breach of the rights of your fellow users and the rules.

Or perhaps you are a victim of your earlier quote today

One law for the powerful, another law for the weak.

Edited to add:
Peuce
(Watch the thread vanish)

[Capn Bloggs]

James for Mod!

I couldn't let this one from Dick pass:

excluding anyone from the consultation process who had a differing view they were on a path to failure.

[Bob Murphie]

Can we assume then, in the absence of contradictory statement, that AOPA support ADSB irrespective of whether it is mandated with a subsidy or not?

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Without trying to anger any individual, who cares what AOPA thinks ?, what ASA is doing is more relevant, i.e. actually installing ADSB stations all over Australia.

Industry consultation only works to a point, then the government department will ultimately do what it see's fit.

[Dick Smith]

James, I did not know that humour and a bit of fun was banned!

Why not get back to the important point that started this thread - what has happened the ADSB decision?

Why hasn't AsA or CASA or "THE DEPARTMENT" given a hint on why this important decision has been delayed. Or was the AsA September date a furphy?

Why is it that you appeared just a few months ago to run AsA "spin".

Why don't they (AsA) tell us the truth-ie the real reason for the lack of a decision. Why should this be a secret?

[james michael]

Dick

In order of your sentences

1. Humour and a bit of fun are not banned, and I don't make the rules. You were not the least into humour and a bit of fun and I believe your recurrent breach of the rules would have gained me a thread holiday if in your place.

2 & 3. Hooray. And see below.

4. Why I appeared is my business. What you do (within reasonableness) is yours. What you see as "ASA spin" might be seen by others as logical and sound for the future of GA in Oz. What I see as "Dick-spin" might be positive to you and to me detrimental - we each have our own beliefs.

5. (and picking up the promise from 2 & 3 above).

Please, please, please read the relevant material. Read what the Minister's representative said in June:

Bill Sims (Dept of Infrastructure) commented that the tide cannot be turned back now – ADS-B and GNSS already exist and are already in the market. He continued that the Department wants to take ADS-B and GNSS further. We are locked into a process and therefore we are committed to let the Government have a say as well as the industry. Nobody in the Department misunderstands the urgency of decision making.

Michael Kus stated that ABIT/GIT had been given the views of Airservices, CASA and Defence and asked if the Department would endorse the proposal to proceed with Phase 1 of the Project. Jim Wolfe responded that a document outlining the Department’s position would need to be endorsed by the APG at the CEO level. He stated “the Department has no difficulty with the wider application of ADS-B.”

Jim Wolfe responded that it was a legislative requirement to have the safety regulator, (CASA), sign off on a regulatory mandate and that Government involvement was required wherever a proposed change would have implications for Defence, and where it had other financial implications then the Finance Minister, Treasurer and ultimately the Prime Minister all would likely be involved. It is wrong for the industry to think otherwise.

Now, Dick, do you believe ASA staff are able to answer for the eminent underlined group above and keep their jobs afterward? Or answer for the timeline of getting the documentation through the various external underlined Departments involved?

And, could we suggest that further delay may have occurred by one who lobbied for the radars to be kept running in parallel with ADS-B for the first few years

[Much Ado]

Mr Smith is having a 3 day break from Pprune to reflect on the exact meaning of Anonymous.