Merged: ADSB
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetski
What is missing in the picture, if not in real life, is the blinkers on the horse
Those without blinkers may care to examine a current thread Collision Avoidance in Cloud
Perhaps ask the pilot of the TCAS equipped a/c on that thread how he would have fared in a non-radar environment and the other a/c with txpdr off (remember the Bo at Dubbo quoted recently).
ADS-B IN means both a/c would have seen each other independent of third-party advice.
If the risk is so small, why TCAS anyway - back to reading the paper, buy a lot of newspapers for a TCAS cost?
Might be a few posting on here who don't appreciate being labeled SSOS for supporting what they see as a better approach to safety 
The absence of it actually happening makes me suspicious also. Suspicious that one who advised he intended to stop the program has found a way to do so - to the detriment of aviation safety in Australia. The radar replacement deadline has passed and we need an answer sooner rather than later. Perhaps one of those SSOS can get an answer from "the pocket"?
What is missing in the picture, if not in real life, is the blinkers on the horse
Those without blinkers may care to examine a current thread Collision Avoidance in Cloud
The only mob who can gain measureable benefits are Airservices.
ADS-B IN means both a/c would have seen each other independent of third-party advice.
If the risk is so small, why TCAS anyway - back to reading the paper, buy a lot of newspapers for a TCAS cost?
What I want is proof of this actually happening. The absence of which makes me very suspicious of scaremongering snake oil salesmen that live in Airservices pocket.
The absence of it actually happening makes me suspicious also. Suspicious that one who advised he intended to stop the program has found a way to do so - to the detriment of aviation safety in Australia. The radar replacement deadline has passed and we need an answer sooner rather than later. Perhaps one of those SSOS can get an answer from "the pocket"?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in the bush
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buzzard Scrotum.- See and avoid obviously doesn't work in the clouds because you can't see. Near miss is a relative term. he missed him by a mile.
I wonder do birds fly in the clouds. Never seen one, have you? How many COULD we have nearly missed with near fatal consequences? Perhaps until this is cleared up we should all stay on the ground.
When discussing VFR cowboys remember history is full of IFR pilots busting minimums. The ones we read about are usually fatal and account for more deaths than mid air collisions. The ones we don't read about just get away with it. Can we assume all IFR pilots are cowboys or is it just VFR pilots.
Why do you continue with reference to ADSB IN? Do you now want this mandated. It's not part of any subsidy I have read about. How much will this cost?
I wonder do birds fly in the clouds. Never seen one, have you? How many COULD we have nearly missed with near fatal consequences? Perhaps until this is cleared up we should all stay on the ground.
When discussing VFR cowboys remember history is full of IFR pilots busting minimums. The ones we read about are usually fatal and account for more deaths than mid air collisions. The ones we don't read about just get away with it. Can we assume all IFR pilots are cowboys or is it just VFR pilots.
Why do you continue with reference to ADSB IN? Do you now want this mandated. It's not part of any subsidy I have read about. How much will this cost?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UPDATE
Occurrence Number: 200800771
On 13 February 2008, a Piper Aircraft Corporation Super Cub aeroplane and a Robinson Helicopter Company R44 Raven helicopter collided in midair during feral goat culling operations. The aeroplane impacted the ground at a steep angle, fatally injuring the two occupants. The helicopter, though damaged, was safely landed.
The investigation is continuing.
ADS-B IN aural would not have helped?
Lucky we know
The answer is so small a probability as to be unmeasureable in statistical form and the claimed enhanced safety does not justify the expense.
The only mob who can gain measureable benefits are Airservices.
The only mob who can gain measureable benefits are Airservices.
On 13 February 2008, a Piper Aircraft Corporation Super Cub aeroplane and a Robinson Helicopter Company R44 Raven helicopter collided in midair during feral goat culling operations. The aeroplane impacted the ground at a steep angle, fatally injuring the two occupants. The helicopter, though damaged, was safely landed.
The investigation is continuing.
ADS-B IN aural would not have helped?
Lucky we know
Statistically there is no measurable risk of mid air collision in class G airspace.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in the bush
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying a hazardous mission probably so low as to be in ground effect and thermal activity in close lateral proximity and with a focus outside the cockpit and manouvering to shoot goats nearly qualifies as a fatal taxi accident.
But new statistics deduced by james michael from this hive of activity justifies a mandatory fitment of ADSB for the entire Australian fleet and mandatory monitoring of IN COCKPIT devices while flying at these nose bleeding heights?
It would be safer and cheaper to poison the goats, probably safer and cheaper to poison a conservationalist who is more likely to be the real cause of the accident.
But new statistics deduced by james michael from this hive of activity justifies a mandatory fitment of ADSB for the entire Australian fleet and mandatory monitoring of IN COCKPIT devices while flying at these nose bleeding heights?
It would be safer and cheaper to poison the goats, probably safer and cheaper to poison a conservationalist who is more likely to be the real cause of the accident.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetski
You are correct of course. Your headphones are an "in cockpit" device.
ADS-B IN does not have to be mandated if integral in the box. Did you not read what Planky posted? (PS Integral in the box means gets any subsidy).
What news from your leader re attempts to shaft the subsidy? Or should one ask Qantas
You are correct of course. Your headphones are an "in cockpit" device.
ADS-B IN does not have to be mandated if integral in the box. Did you not read what Planky posted? (PS Integral in the box means gets any subsidy).
What news from your leader re attempts to shaft the subsidy? Or should one ask Qantas
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in the bush
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody I know of is trying to "shaft" any subsidy you bitter and twisted individual. This sounds like you accept that it could be a dud and you are looking for someone to blame.
More to the point, you are the one trying to sell me some aluminium cladding for my house on the promise that it will cost me nothing. (and you reckon you don't work for the Company).
I want an irrevokable promise in writing and signed by the Boss, not the silver tongue salesman.
Then they can start work and we can stop pestering each other can't we.
If you can't arrange this, I'll take it that you are lying and are only interested in the commission.
More to the point, you are the one trying to sell me some aluminium cladding for my house on the promise that it will cost me nothing. (and you reckon you don't work for the Company).
I want an irrevokable promise in writing and signed by the Boss, not the silver tongue salesman.
Then they can start work and we can stop pestering each other can't we.
If you can't arrange this, I'll take it that you are lying and are only interested in the commission.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating psychological study, involving numerous theories including conspiracy
The document was called the JCP.
I am certain I saw your leader say on here he was going to stop the low level rollout - am I in error?
No cross industry funding = no mandate for ADS-B below FLs. The two are inexorably linked.
The document was called the JCP.
I am certain I saw your leader say on here he was going to stop the low level rollout - am I in error?
No cross industry funding = no mandate for ADS-B below FLs. The two are inexorably linked.
Whiskey Oscar Golf
Whats the ADS-B unit got to do with it ??? - no idea methinks
Is it because you use the politics of fear of guided missile accuracy of 0.5m, which I can do pretty easily now without the need for an encrypted ADSB unit, using off the shelf items that I won't tell you how but believe me can be done?
Soooo....wheres a link to the manufacturer of this ADS-B unit that will not only give me .0005 seconds visual advice of impending doom in the GAAP - it will do it audibly ...I need never look out the window agin....
......one must not foreget to thank Scurvy.D.Dog for providing a breakdown of the mid-air figures for Oz............all about the circuit it is......
...I need never look out the window agin..........one must not foreget to thank Scurvy.D.Dog for providing a breakdown of the mid-air figures for Oz............all about the circuit it is......
Guest
Posts: n/a
Binghi, the business is well known and respected by many on this forum, and it's their expressed wish to keep details under wraps until the unit's commercial success can be assured, which I think is in the interest of most of us here.
I have seen a demo of the unit, as have other people here (including some well known names in the industry), and the review that is linked in one of these threads speaks volumes too..
Let's hope AsA get their act together rather quickly, and we can start reaping the benefits
I have seen a demo of the unit, as have other people here (including some well known names in the industry
), and the review that is linked in one of these threads speaks volumes too..Let's hope AsA get their act together rather quickly, and we can start reaping the benefits
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetski (Biggles, this next may partly answer your original thread starting question)
Have a browse of (among others) the thread "Australian Airspace Discussion"
At post 90 as one example you will find Dick (I have been holding off this comment pending his return) state (and I am certain I have seen something even stronger from him re holding off ADS-B)
Things seem to have gone very quiet on the news re the JCP and radar, apart from Dick fishing for news.
But, one thing is inescapable. If anyone has succeeded in "delaying" the decision on ADS-B, then:
1. The radar contract will have to be signed, and,
2. The cross industry funding (the 'subsidy') is therefore lost until 2028.
Any delay tactics re the JCP - be they pressure on the Minister over a repeat of unique Oz technology past attempts, right through to pressure re the Airservices alleged Delaware money losses and the effect on the dividend - have one final consequence.
They "shaft" the subsidy. Like I stated.
I hope that is not a likely possibility. Industry should decide the way forward with ADS-B, not individuals. I have my fingers crossed.
(Planky, you could say it is an enigma to me
)
Nobody I know of is trying to "shaft" any subsidy you bitter and twisted individual.
At post 90 as one example you will find Dick (I have been holding off this comment pending his return) state (and I am certain I have seen something even stronger from him re holding off ADS-B)
No Not stop ADSB, just delay the decision so we have all the facts
But, one thing is inescapable. If anyone has succeeded in "delaying" the decision on ADS-B, then:
1. The radar contract will have to be signed, and,
2. The cross industry funding (the 'subsidy') is therefore lost until 2028.
Any delay tactics re the JCP - be they pressure on the Minister over a repeat of unique Oz technology past attempts, right through to pressure re the Airservices alleged Delaware money losses and the effect on the dividend - have one final consequence.
They "shaft" the subsidy. Like I stated.
I hope that is not a likely possibility. Industry should decide the way forward with ADS-B, not individuals. I have my fingers crossed.
(Planky, you could say it is an enigma to me
)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in the bush
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's their expressed wish to keep details under wraps until the unit's commercial success can be assured, which I think is in the interest of most of us here.
Read this as let's wait until there is a guarantee of a subsidy and preferrably a mandate and, plus approval for this particular piece of equipment. Commercial interests are at play here, and you reackon it's in the best interests of most of us here.
The thing should sell on it's merits but they are doing what I have been asking for, and that my naive poster is show me the proof of the money. Not some wank tank of vested representatives interests who can't sign cheques giving verbal assurances.
McDonalds are opening a new joint near me, the place is under construction and they are advertising like mad. They won't know of any commercial success until they start business.
Do they qualify for a mandate and a subsidy?
EDIT to add for the cladding salesman.
Dick is not my Boss, but given your interpretation of his posts I must put my hand up and agree with him. As the Australian manufacturer is waiting on clarification and approval, so should we.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 55
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Binghi, Sorry if my post was ambiguous, what I was saying was if I was to use a corrected gps signal to guide anything, I can get better than 0.5m accuracy and I can do it without WAAS. But thank you for your inference that I had no idea. Much appreciated.
Regards
Regards
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we are in "no idea" mode, I'll add for Jetski's elucidation that a business with outstanding new equipment in a competitive market is unlikely to go open public until the market calls for it.
It's called 'business' and 'competition' and not offering the competition your market secrets. Usually results from R&D money spent- which is not funded by the competitors.
Perhaps check the Microair offering if a comparison is needed - they are also in business and likewise reticent. Or see what Garmin is offering - and be assured they aren't waiting for the subsidy to design and protype.
It's called 'business' and 'competition' and not offering the competition your market secrets. Usually results from R&D money spent- which is not funded by the competitors.
Perhaps check the Microair offering if a comparison is needed - they are also in business and likewise reticent. Or see what Garmin is offering - and be assured they aren't waiting for the subsidy to design and protype.
Whiskey Oscar Golf
.....handy thing them ADS-B towers 
Mr. Binghi, Sorry if my post was ambiguous, what I was saying was if I was to use a corrected gps signal to guide anything, I can get better than 0.5m accuracy and I can do it without WAAS. But thank you for your inference that I had no idea. Much appreciated.
PlankBlender
Some extracts from the writings of a Mr N. E. Renton -
New Products......in the small Australian investment world such inovation is often a mixed blessing, because it leads to increased overheads and to confusion among investors (we pilots) and even among financial advisers.....Some new products will succed and some will not......but the community has to pay for the hidden costs. .........Furtermore, investors who buy products which they do not understand are very likely to get their fingers burnt.
Basic stuff there.
Unless we have a proven fully costed product for this debate, we are wasting our time even discusing it.
the business is well known and respected by many on this forum, and it's their expressed wish to keep details under wraps until the unit's commercial success can be assured
New Products......in the small Australian investment world such inovation is often a mixed blessing, because it leads to increased overheads and to confusion among investors (we pilots) and even among financial advisers.....Some new products will succed and some will not......but the community has to pay for the hidden costs. .........Furtermore, investors who buy products which they do not understand are very likely to get their fingers burnt.
Basic stuff there.
Unless we have a proven fully costed product for this debate, we are wasting our time even discusing it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Binghi, I'll bite to some degree Someone else has stated in this discussion that the price is planned to be within the VFR subsidy (including installation), knowing the basics of the setup I would assume this to be realistic.
Just come clarification, the pilots (more correct: owners) aren't the investors here, with the subsidy the customer (wouldn't call them investors either) is AsA. The actual investors in the product are the ones providing capital to bring the product to market, and I won't go into the rationale why I would be one of them (to protect said business interests), but I know I would if I could..
What do you think are the hidden costs here?
Even without this specific development, the discussion makes a lot of sense as it a) elicits the opinions from all different corners of the aviation spectrum and b) there are other products in the market or under development that would, albeit less ideally, fit the bill, and c) the market will be awash with products once the US makes its decision.
The challenge for the designer builders of the great box I've seen at work is indeed to find enterprising investors, but I would think that with a lot of the riskier investment opportunities having dried up recently, there'll be a few angels willing to fund this. It's not a Trump sized investment..
What I don't understand is why one very vocal aviation personality hasn't already snapped this one up
Someone else has stated in this discussion that the price is planned to be within the VFR subsidy (including installation), knowing the basics of the setup I would assume this to be realistic. Just come clarification, the pilots (more correct: owners) aren't the investors here, with the subsidy the customer (wouldn't call them investors either) is AsA. The actual investors in the product are the ones providing capital to bring the product to market, and I won't go into the rationale why I would be one of them (to protect said business interests), but I know I would if I could..
What do you think are the hidden costs here?
Even without this specific development, the discussion makes a lot of sense as it a) elicits the opinions from all different corners of the aviation spectrum and b) there are other products in the market or under development that would, albeit less ideally, fit the bill, and c) the market will be awash with products once the US makes its decision.
The challenge for the designer builders of the great box I've seen at work is indeed to find enterprising investors, but I would think that with a lot of the riskier investment opportunities having dried up recently, there'll be a few angels willing to fund this. It's not a Trump sized investment..
What I don't understand is why one very vocal aviation personality hasn't already snapped this one up
A questions for Bob & Bing (there's a movie in there somewhere !) ...
IF the subsidy becomes a reality and IF the new In/Out kit prices within the subsidy ... would all your concerns be allayed ?
IF the subsidy becomes a reality and IF the new In/Out kit prices within the subsidy ... would all your concerns be allayed ?
