ADS-B and Terrorism – Not a Red Herring
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A substantial amount of tax-payers money is spent every year training ADF pilots to operate "in the dark". If the threat to ADF aircraft is so significant as to warrant their non-participation in ADS-B, then perhaps they should be operating over continental Australia in a complete electronic black-out.
As for the broader threat... as I've said before, spend a day with our beloved Plane-Spotters and it'll dawn on one how ridiculous Mr Smith's argument is that ADS-B should not be implemented in Australia because of a perceived terrorist threat... you don't need an ADS-B receiver to achieve the aim... you just need the missile.
As for the broader threat... as I've said before, spend a day with our beloved Plane-Spotters and it'll dawn on one how ridiculous Mr Smith's argument is that ADS-B should not be implemented in Australia because of a perceived terrorist threat... you don't need an ADS-B receiver to achieve the aim... you just need the missile.
Until the terrorists get an ability to make and launch very sophisticated missles that have never even been invented
Personaly I think the crims useing ADS-B to target aircraft is a furphy aurgument. There are other easier non aviation targets about.
Knowing where customs/coastwatch aircraft are would be very usefull to the drug runners, people smuglers, etc - hence my previous mention of customs, etc, not wanting to be seen.
The biggest threat to ADS-B that I see is with the GPS system its self, remember ADS-B is a GPS based system - no GPS = no ADS-B
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 21st Mar 2008 at 01:15. Reason: Remove 'uncomforetable' parts
Thread Starter
I have never claimed that ADS-B would be used by terrorists – I have simply stated that it could be used by terrorists and that Airservices should consider all the pros and cons before making a decision. The Airservices paper simply looked at the pros – because of the claimed financial savings for Airservices – and therefore increased profits – without looking at the disadvantages.
The quote in my first post makes it clear that the US Department of Defence has concerns in relation to ADS-B, especially in relation to “spoofing”. Of course spoofing can be largely prevented by using multi lateration and having more stations than originally planned. If this is to be done, the cost should be put into the cost benefit equation so we know all the facts.
I am strong supporter of the principle of ADS-B. I simply believe that it is unwise for Australia to lead the world – we have done that before at great cost – and I believe we should canvas all the issues before making a definite decision.
The proposal in the USA for a dual “system” is I believe needlessly expensive and complicated and will be the wrong way to go. I am hoping that some of the publicity that has been created by myself and others around the world, will result in the FAA re-looking at the whole issue and perhaps coming up with a simplified system.
As stated previously on this thread I have not been able to see any measurable safety benefit for the plan for low level ADS-B in Australia.
The quote in my first post makes it clear that the US Department of Defence has concerns in relation to ADS-B, especially in relation to “spoofing”. Of course spoofing can be largely prevented by using multi lateration and having more stations than originally planned. If this is to be done, the cost should be put into the cost benefit equation so we know all the facts.
I am strong supporter of the principle of ADS-B. I simply believe that it is unwise for Australia to lead the world – we have done that before at great cost – and I believe we should canvas all the issues before making a definite decision.
The proposal in the USA for a dual “system” is I believe needlessly expensive and complicated and will be the wrong way to go. I am hoping that some of the publicity that has been created by myself and others around the world, will result in the FAA re-looking at the whole issue and perhaps coming up with a simplified system.
As stated previously on this thread I have not been able to see any measurable safety benefit for the plan for low level ADS-B in Australia.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADS-B and the Smith Agenda
Of course spoofing can be largely prevented by using multi lateration and having more stations than originally planned.
I am strong supporter of the principle of ADS-B. I simply believe that it is unwise for Australia to lead the world
As for Australia not leading the world... why not? Australia has a long history of innovation and leadership that is under threat by attitudes and actions such as yours... stifling the very thing that has historically been the cause of our prosperity as a nation... in mining, agriculture, medicine and aerospace... innovation and leadership.
The proposal in the USA for a dual “system” is I believe needlessly expensive and complicated and will be the wrong way to go. I am hoping that some of the publicity that has been created by myself and others around the world, will result in the FAA re-looking at the whole issue and perhaps coming up with a simplified system.
Last edited by Quokka; 12th Mar 2008 at 14:06. Reason: Typo.
Dick,
Once more you have me confused:
Once more you have me confused:
- You don't want us to lead the world, but you don't want us to use the US system ... who do we follow?
- You are a long term supporter of ADS-B ... but you can't see any safety benefit in low level ADS-B???
- Do you not see the safety benefit in having ATC aware of the position of all (most) aircraft in Australia????
Thread Starter
peuce,
The answer is simple. I think we should wait a while before deciding on which ADS-B system we should go to.
I cannot see any reason to speed into this other than Airservices profits. Hopefully the US will go to the single system ADS-B mode S squitter and then if we harmonise our industry will be able to purchase units at very low prices in a competitive environment.
peuce, most importantly I do not see a safety benefit in ATC, being aware of the position of all or most aircraft in Australia. I see this is a huge misallocation of resources because a typical controller in a typical sector might have a dozen airports which have low level ADS-B transceivers and this controller would then have a responsibility for traffic advice or separation at each of these airports. This would either mean a staggering increase in the number of controllers or a situation where a single controller will not be able to provide any meaningful service. At local airports I would rather see a UNICOM or Class D with a tower, as accidents are most likely to happen on the runway, or in the circuit area where ADS-B from a controller servicing lots of airports may not be effective.
The answer is simple. I think we should wait a while before deciding on which ADS-B system we should go to.
I cannot see any reason to speed into this other than Airservices profits. Hopefully the US will go to the single system ADS-B mode S squitter and then if we harmonise our industry will be able to purchase units at very low prices in a competitive environment.
peuce, most importantly I do not see a safety benefit in ATC, being aware of the position of all or most aircraft in Australia. I see this is a huge misallocation of resources because a typical controller in a typical sector might have a dozen airports which have low level ADS-B transceivers and this controller would then have a responsibility for traffic advice or separation at each of these airports. This would either mean a staggering increase in the number of controllers or a situation where a single controller will not be able to provide any meaningful service. At local airports I would rather see a UNICOM or Class D with a tower, as accidents are most likely to happen on the runway, or in the circuit area where ADS-B from a controller servicing lots of airports may not be effective.
Thread Starter
Quokka,
Let me explain again. There is a risk of spoofing in relation to ADS-B because once you remove the expensive rotating antenna as used for primary and secondary surveillance radar, the only confirmation of the position in a simple ADS-B system, is what is transmitted by the sender. This position can be false. One way around the spoofing, is to have a system where there are a number of ADS-B receivers and they compare the position transmitted with the time intervals to each receiver.
The key to this is cost. What I have made very clear is that if you are going to leap into ADS-B, you need to have all of the relevant costs shown.
I understand that Airservices Australia did not consider spoofing at all, whereas the FAA is looking into it. Remember the FAA plans to keep all the secondary surveillance radars in place to provide a radar service above flight level 180 across the mainland USA and Alaska after the ADS-B mandate of 2020. The Airservices Australia plan was to remove the en route secondary surveillance radars so everything would rely on ADS-B in the simplest form – as shown by their proposal.
I don’t understand what you mean by “when you have taken action to prevent the implementation of ADS-B in Australia?” I certainly communicated that the project has not been properly thought out and that the relevant cost benefit study has not been completed. If it’s what you mean by me taking action to prevent the implementation, well I accept your statement.
The problem with Australia leading the world is clearly shown in the situation with the Seasprite Helicopters. Rather than purchase one of the latest Sikorsky proven products we decided that we needed “better or different software”, this meant in effect we had to issue a contract to design it ourselves. That has now cost $1 billion which must come off – among other things – the future salaries for people within the Defence Force.
The same thing happened at the time when I was Chairman of CAA in 1990-1991 when people wanted us to bring in a radar system that would be essentially designed for Australia by Hughes – Hughes had never built a civilian airtraffic control system at the time. Others were convinced we should go for proven equipment and the Thompson TAAATS system ended up winning awards and operated well. In the meantime Hughes attempted to build a system in Canada and Switzerland. Both failed and they moved out of civilian ATC.
Let me explain again. There is a risk of spoofing in relation to ADS-B because once you remove the expensive rotating antenna as used for primary and secondary surveillance radar, the only confirmation of the position in a simple ADS-B system, is what is transmitted by the sender. This position can be false. One way around the spoofing, is to have a system where there are a number of ADS-B receivers and they compare the position transmitted with the time intervals to each receiver.
The key to this is cost. What I have made very clear is that if you are going to leap into ADS-B, you need to have all of the relevant costs shown.
I understand that Airservices Australia did not consider spoofing at all, whereas the FAA is looking into it. Remember the FAA plans to keep all the secondary surveillance radars in place to provide a radar service above flight level 180 across the mainland USA and Alaska after the ADS-B mandate of 2020. The Airservices Australia plan was to remove the en route secondary surveillance radars so everything would rely on ADS-B in the simplest form – as shown by their proposal.
I don’t understand what you mean by “when you have taken action to prevent the implementation of ADS-B in Australia?” I certainly communicated that the project has not been properly thought out and that the relevant cost benefit study has not been completed. If it’s what you mean by me taking action to prevent the implementation, well I accept your statement.
The problem with Australia leading the world is clearly shown in the situation with the Seasprite Helicopters. Rather than purchase one of the latest Sikorsky proven products we decided that we needed “better or different software”, this meant in effect we had to issue a contract to design it ourselves. That has now cost $1 billion which must come off – among other things – the future salaries for people within the Defence Force.
The same thing happened at the time when I was Chairman of CAA in 1990-1991 when people wanted us to bring in a radar system that would be essentially designed for Australia by Hughes – Hughes had never built a civilian airtraffic control system at the time. Others were convinced we should go for proven equipment and the Thompson TAAATS system ended up winning awards and operated well. In the meantime Hughes attempted to build a system in Canada and Switzerland. Both failed and they moved out of civilian ATC.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 14th Mar 2008 at 04:55.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me explain again. There is a risk of spoofing in relation to ADS-B because once you remove the expensive rotating antenna as used for primary and secondary surveillance radar, the only confirmation of the position in a simple ADS-B system, is what is transmitted by the sender. This position can be false. One way around the spoofing, is to have a system where there are a number of ADS-B receivers and they compare the position transmitted with the time intervals to each receiver.
As for unlawful transmission of ADS-B information... every working day using RADAR I have to sort out the legitimate RADAR symbols from the Angels, Ghosts, Reflections and Garbling (all terms that we use to describe common anomalies displayed on the RADAR).
As for the radio transmissions, I hear the same voices, see the same aircraft, process the same flights. You become very attuned to what is real and what is not. That is how both pilots and controllers ascertain that some idiot with a hand-held radio is attempting to play pilot or controller. It stands out like canine genitalia.
When an itinerant flight comes along, it attracts a different sort of attention... a search for, and full scan of the flight plan... identification of the aircraft by more than one means... an informal assessment of the pilot's English comprehension skills and apparent competency in receiving and complying with ATC instructions.
We know to expect the flight because of flight notifications and approvals received... otherwise a friendly chat with my military liaison officer ensues and the matter is then in his hands.
Thread Starter
In one of the Airservices proposals on ADS-B they claimed that they could provide a “Sydney like service at places like Ayers Rock.” This means they could provide a Class C service at Ayers Rock remotely from the Brisbane centre. In relation to charging – we all know what the terminal charges are in Class C – for both VFR and IFR – very expensive!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with Australia leading the world is clearly shown in the situation with the Seasprite Helicopters.
On the subject of concepts it's worth remembering that while the Thales Eurocat in use in Australia (TAAATS) was a proven product in respect of hardware, the software was a concept, written in response to Australian specifications. It is referred to outside of Australia as "Eurocat X" to differentiate it from the Eurocat systems in use in Europe.
Seems to me that Aus pilots and ASA could invest big time in a system that could be turned off overnight. I wonder if one of the reasons the US is not charging for the GPS signal is they do not have any obligation to continue to supply the service.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 21st Mar 2008 at 01:04. Reason: delet paragraph
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][ the FAA’s proposed next-generation communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) system is more elaborate than it needs to be and wastes the money aircraft owners have already spent on their current gear. /QUOTE]Erm, isn't this the version you wanted implemented here? If you have gone cold on that abuse the yanks, not us.
You are happy with the costs, greater by an order of magnitude of replacing all the enroute SSR, which are nearly knackered, with more SSR?
Aren't these the same yanks you were congratulating for a spoof-free system that are now whining about spoof on their screens???
Yes, but under your stupid plan the same controller would be responsible for the same traffic at the same dozen airports, but have to separate procedurally, with a HUGE cost to the industry in resulting delays. This technology would ENABLE your stupid plan to be implemented. Bring it on
Take a Bex and lie down man
You are happy with the costs, greater by an order of magnitude of replacing all the enroute SSR, which are nearly knackered, with more SSR?
Aren't these the same yanks you were congratulating for a spoof-free system that are now whining about spoof on their screens???
I see this is a huge misallocation of resources because a typical controller in a typical sector might have a dozen airports which have low level ADS-B transceivers and this controller would then have a responsibility for traffic advice or separation at each of these airports.
Take a Bex and lie down man
Victor B1a
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fremantle, Western Australia
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fashioned Stelth
Folks,
Long ago and far away we used to fly tankers with a couple of fighters in tow. We had two navigators who could navigate anywhere on the planet.
All active aids to navigation were switched off and only passive devices were used.
Anyone remember a bubble sextant or a chronagraph?
I assume that the RAAF are not going to advertise position etc. irrispective of any civilian requirements.
Per Ardua Ad Loungebar.
Victor B1a
Long ago and far away we used to fly tankers with a couple of fighters in tow. We had two navigators who could navigate anywhere on the planet.
All active aids to navigation were switched off and only passive devices were used.
Anyone remember a bubble sextant or a chronagraph?
I assume that the RAAF are not going to advertise position etc. irrispective of any civilian requirements.
Per Ardua Ad Loungebar.
Victor B1a
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Binghi
It's only recently that the Europeans and USA agreed to have some commonality and interoperability on some of the civilian signals, so we'll need to wait until new GPS receiver-frontends are built or old ones upgraded.
It'll still mean that they can both switchoff or degrade their signals when required and anyway, Galileo & Compass are still quite a few years away from being operational so in the interim we are reliant on GPS and GLONASS.
It's only recently that the Europeans and USA agreed to have some commonality and interoperability on some of the civilian signals, so we'll need to wait until new GPS receiver-frontends are built or old ones upgraded.
It'll still mean that they can both switchoff or degrade their signals when required and anyway, Galileo & Compass are still quite a few years away from being operational so in the interim we are reliant on GPS and GLONASS.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta watch out! Terrorists MIGHT track aircraft on ADS-B, so the answer is not to implement the Aussie version of ADS-B. But country airports want to put up boundary fences and terrorists do not have any interest in country airfields. It all depends on the motivation behind the statements as to which target is more attractive to the terrorists and which argument is more attractive to the politicians and media.
Thread Starter
Even after the FAA brings in ADSB in the year 2020 it is going to keep all terminal radar units in class B and C airspace and also all enroute SSR units to cover FL180 and above. I wonder why? Yes- it's because they know that the GPS signals can be turned off at any time.
Also, it's the US Defence Department who have claimed concerns about spoofing of GPS based ADSB-not the FAA.
Also, it's the US Defence Department who have claimed concerns about spoofing of GPS based ADSB-not the FAA.
