Business Issues ADSB (Now: Completely Off Topic Thread!)
Thank You, Tidbinbilla.
Have been doing some more research on the net to see if anything may have come up within Government.
In April this year Minister Albanese had put out his issue paper-Towards a National Aviation Policy Statement
If the reader goes to Section 2 Aviation Infrastructure around page 12 you will find-
Further to that on page 13 you will find-
my bolds.
There is a whole lot more within the paper. The Green Paper is expected late this year with the final policy statement in mid09.
I suspect the Minister WILL be making a decision on the matter no later than the end of next month.
EDIT- I would like to add a link to
Submissions in Reply
Have been doing some more research on the net to see if anything may have come up within Government.
In April this year Minister Albanese had put out his issue paper-Towards a National Aviation Policy Statement
If the reader goes to Section 2 Aviation Infrastructure around page 12 you will find-
Future communication, navigation and surveillance systems will be driven both by better air traffic control management on the ground and by better equipment on board aircraft. This will allow more flexible and efficient routes to be flown and providing greater awareness of other air traffic and other potential airspace conflicts in-flight.
Systems under consideration include technology and options such as Automatic Dependence Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B), Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems (ACAS), and Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV).
Systems under consideration include technology and options such as Automatic Dependence Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B), Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems (ACAS), and Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV).
Changes in the way in which future air traffic management is delivered and the associated infrastructure requirements will impact on the aviation industry. Effective consultation with industry is essential to ensure that changes are practical, that the investment required is reasonable and that funding mechanisms are put in place where appropriate to assist the transition.
There is a whole lot more within the paper. The Green Paper is expected late this year with the final policy statement in mid09.
I suspect the Minister WILL be making a decision on the matter no later than the end of next month.
EDIT- I would like to add a link to
Submissions in Reply
This is what Virgin blue had to say to the Minister about ADS-B
There is a whole lot more in the DJ submission.
Does this sound like a company that is reluctant to participate in ADS-B roll-out. Take note here please Mr Murphy. Your recollection of what your source related to you may be skewed. The ONLY point in their submission about passing costs back to the government is over security measures in relation to the costs of guest screening at smaller regional airports.
New satellite navigation technologies such as GPS and ADS-B, have provided the aviation industry with a capability to significantly enhance navigational accuracy and surveillance. When combined with appropriate ATC procedures, the new technologies will deliver very significant cost and capacity benefits to the Australian aviation industry.
Technological innovation is often industry led. It is important that key stakeholders such as ASTRA and IATA, together with the Australian airlines and Government, form a collaborative working relationship to ensure that appropriate and timely changes are introduced to air traffic management systems in the national interest. This will enable industry to avoid cost penalties incurred through under-utilisation of expensive aircraft technology and inefficient air traffic management constraints imposed by use of legacy systems. Virgin Blue supports the concepts and strategies articulated in both the ICAO Asia/Pacific Regional Plan for the New CNS/ATM Systems and Air Traffic Management Strategic Plan Version 3.
Formalising the relationship between industry and Government agencies and fostering collaborative decision making will better ensure a successful transition from old to new technologies; the introduction of more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly approach and traffic management procedures, and support industry capital investment in innovative technology.
Government’s role should be to ensure that there are no obstacles inhibiting a rapid transition to new technology and that investment in new technology is supported and rewarded and encouraged in the national interest.
The introduction of new surveillance and navigation technology is essential to the long term efficiency of aviation services in Australia. The efficient and timely introduction of new technology is being frustrated by regulatory and resource constraints
ADS-B surveillance provides the Air Traffic Controller and, in the case of “ADS-B In” equipped aircraft, the pilot, with visibility of conflicting traffic. The safety benefits of this technology are obvious and its commissioning must be accelerated.
Initiatives such as GNSS based navigation, ADS-B and Flexible Use Airspace are recent examples where concepts were developed and endorsed by industry only to have progress towards implementation severely constrained at critical times by regulatory resource challenges.
Does this sound like a company that is reluctant to participate in ADS-B roll-out. Take note here please Mr Murphy. Your recollection of what your source related to you may be skewed. The ONLY point in their submission about passing costs back to the government is over security measures in relation to the costs of guest screening at smaller regional airports.
What QANTAS had to say-
Sounds like QANTAS approval to me. Note this Mr Smith!
QANTAS makes a huge submission. A lot of reading here. Airspace and the military. Airspace around Sydney. noise mitigation and user defined tracks plus a heap more.
The ASTRA plan provides, in Qantas’ view, an appropriate vision for the future of ATM in Australia. The current ASTRA plan has now been signed off by all industry and regulatory stakeholders, with the exception of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
In doing so, these stakeholders have made a commitment to implement the new system. However, the plan remains ineffective until its status is properly formalised by full acceptance by all participants. Qantas advocates that this be progressed with some urgency.
To be successful, ASTRA must continue as an independent technical group suitably empowered to make policy recommendations, which are given due weight, assisting in timely implementation by government regulators.
To achieve this, we see a need for formal links to be established between ASTRA and the government’s peak aviation groups, the Aviation Policy Group (APG) and the Aviation Implementation Group (AIG). Desirably, ASTRA should be formally sanctioned with a Head of Power, and report to and be tasked by an APG type body – provided that body is also formally set up and endorsed by the relevant Ministers. Qantas believes that actual representation by industry experts on both the APG and AIG would assist considerably the outcomes that ASTRA is able to achieve.
QANTAS makes a huge submission. A lot of reading here. Airspace and the military. Airspace around Sydney. noise mitigation and user defined tracks plus a heap more.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
You can really see they are worried about the GPS system being turned off
It must be just you me and Scurvy and a couple of others, along with QF and VB who think its a good thing
Good Work there Ozbus!
J
It must be just you me and Scurvy and a couple of others, along with QF and VB who think its a good thing
Good Work there Ozbus!
J
hamble701. Thanks for starting this thread. Normally, I have looked at ADS-B as a technical issue. Because of information supplied prior to the JCP for this technolgy, I have believed that the Airlines had always supported the issue. Your post has provoked me to dig deeper to actualy find proof of their support. Thanks for that
A robust debate is a mark of a healthy society. For or against must be prosecuted to the best of our abilities to arrive at an outcome that is representative of the general opinion. Indeed, this debate must sway that opinion by weight of argument and presentation of fact.
I do hope the regulators do read these pages. I hope they do take note of the pressing matter of radar replacment that must be decided upon come next month. Noting this replacement process is intended to keep the issue of low level roll-out still alive for the near term. It will still represent a considerable cost that could be easily averted.
Tidbinbilla, thank you for "tidying up" this thread and removing the backscatter from the argument. To the ATC guys who have taken part. I can say with feeling that there is at least one person here who appreciates the trials and tribulations you guys have had to put up with over the last twenty years. I have found the process confusing and poorly thought out. If the changes moved in lock step with emerging technology and a more thorough training regime, a huge amount of angst would have been avoided. In fact, I would believe that a huge amount of these changes would not have been necessary.
I thank all contributors and commend this debate to the house
A robust debate is a mark of a healthy society. For or against must be prosecuted to the best of our abilities to arrive at an outcome that is representative of the general opinion. Indeed, this debate must sway that opinion by weight of argument and presentation of fact.
I do hope the regulators do read these pages. I hope they do take note of the pressing matter of radar replacment that must be decided upon come next month. Noting this replacement process is intended to keep the issue of low level roll-out still alive for the near term. It will still represent a considerable cost that could be easily averted.
Tidbinbilla, thank you for "tidying up" this thread and removing the backscatter from the argument. To the ATC guys who have taken part. I can say with feeling that there is at least one person here who appreciates the trials and tribulations you guys have had to put up with over the last twenty years. I have found the process confusing and poorly thought out. If the changes moved in lock step with emerging technology and a more thorough training regime, a huge amount of angst would have been avoided. In fact, I would believe that a huge amount of these changes would not have been necessary.
I thank all contributors and commend this debate to the house
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have they really approved the spending of the money?
ADSB, like GPS and the internet will go ahead and come into general use in the next few years. It will be unstoppable, like the internet was.
It is without doubt a very suitable system for Australia. But the idea has been accompanied by lots of vivid imagination; speculation and "pie in the sky"
As I understand it it will not give nation wide coverage, but will operate where the ground stations are installed, and this will no doubt be where the RPT services (in aircraft above 5700kg) go.
IFR aircraft wiil have a position readout, vfr aircraft will not.
Both will be visible to ASA on the screen. These things will have to have regular checks, like our transponders do.
ADSB will no doubt be required for entry into towered airspace, and probably ctaf(r)
ADSB will not give weather or terrain information, or approaches. In fact it will not give vfr pilots anything except the knowledge that ASA can see them on their screen (if they have got one, and somebody looking at it., and if the aircraft is within range of the ground station).
It is important that whatever is fitted to Australian aircraft is compatable with new equipment that will be supplied by the major electronics manufacturers. We do not want a "unique australian system" that results in new aircraft flying around in australia with unusable new equipment like we had with DME(A) For decades we had aircraft flying around with two DME systems fitted, one of which was unusable as there were no ground stations for it. The ground stations and the airbourne equipment we did use were supplied by just one company. This system went out of date, and we eventually went to the other one, like the rest of the world. We had to install new ground stations,
Our esteemed govt aviation bodies have sugested a subsidy to fit new ADSB to GA aircraft. This will cost someone about 130 million dollars, and no-one has yet come up with a concrete, definite offer, backed by money. I see nothing in the information quoted on prune, that even mentions GA aircraft, or where the money is coming from. I don't know of a definite committment from anyone to supply the money. If there is one, I believe it should be given favourable consideration, after reading the fine print.
Alice Springs has no radar. Will they have ADSB equipment in the tower? Or will they close the tower and control it from Brisbane?
There are lots of interesting possibilities,and there will no doubt be further developements too.
I believe we should look for systems that give pilots information they need, like terrain avoidance, weather etc that will work in remote areas where there are no ground aids. Also we need electronics that are either replaceable cheaply,or can be sent to a major centre for service, and then refitted by a pilot or LAME. Like portable units. Radio lame's may be 1000 km away from where the work is done.
The transponders have been a bloody nuisance, and no help to outback pilots. I hope tha airlines appreciate the effort that has been made.
It is without doubt a very suitable system for Australia. But the idea has been accompanied by lots of vivid imagination; speculation and "pie in the sky"
As I understand it it will not give nation wide coverage, but will operate where the ground stations are installed, and this will no doubt be where the RPT services (in aircraft above 5700kg) go.
IFR aircraft wiil have a position readout, vfr aircraft will not.
Both will be visible to ASA on the screen. These things will have to have regular checks, like our transponders do.
ADSB will no doubt be required for entry into towered airspace, and probably ctaf(r)
ADSB will not give weather or terrain information, or approaches. In fact it will not give vfr pilots anything except the knowledge that ASA can see them on their screen (if they have got one, and somebody looking at it., and if the aircraft is within range of the ground station).
It is important that whatever is fitted to Australian aircraft is compatable with new equipment that will be supplied by the major electronics manufacturers. We do not want a "unique australian system" that results in new aircraft flying around in australia with unusable new equipment like we had with DME(A) For decades we had aircraft flying around with two DME systems fitted, one of which was unusable as there were no ground stations for it. The ground stations and the airbourne equipment we did use were supplied by just one company. This system went out of date, and we eventually went to the other one, like the rest of the world. We had to install new ground stations,
Our esteemed govt aviation bodies have sugested a subsidy to fit new ADSB to GA aircraft. This will cost someone about 130 million dollars, and no-one has yet come up with a concrete, definite offer, backed by money. I see nothing in the information quoted on prune, that even mentions GA aircraft, or where the money is coming from. I don't know of a definite committment from anyone to supply the money. If there is one, I believe it should be given favourable consideration, after reading the fine print.
Alice Springs has no radar. Will they have ADSB equipment in the tower? Or will they close the tower and control it from Brisbane?
There are lots of interesting possibilities,and there will no doubt be further developements too.
I believe we should look for systems that give pilots information they need, like terrain avoidance, weather etc that will work in remote areas where there are no ground aids. Also we need electronics that are either replaceable cheaply,or can be sent to a major centre for service, and then refitted by a pilot or LAME. Like portable units. Radio lame's may be 1000 km away from where the work is done.
The transponders have been a bloody nuisance, and no help to outback pilots. I hope tha airlines appreciate the effort that has been made.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OzBus
Well done.
But, VB must surely be smoking something or not know much about aviation and technology? They stated ADS-B offered safety benefits.
Perhaps we could hire them a couple of posters from this thread as consultants to let them understand that the whole ADS-B thing is just smoke and mirrors being driven by simple minds who do not comprehend the reality?
(Edited to add - not aimed at you Bushy, our posts crossed and I think yours is an excellent analysis - AS is an ADS-B site)
Well done.
But, VB must surely be smoking something or not know much about aviation and technology? They stated ADS-B offered safety benefits.
Perhaps we could hire them a couple of posters from this thread as consultants to let them understand that the whole ADS-B thing is just smoke and mirrors being driven by simple minds who do not comprehend the reality?
(Edited to add - not aimed at you Bushy, our posts crossed and I think yours is an excellent analysis - AS is an ADS-B site)
Last edited by james michael; 22nd Aug 2008 at 03:56. Reason: Posts crossed
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BK
Agreed. Just my opinion but some of those outside the J curve may also be very reliant on entering CTAF R as their major community centre or aviation maintenance centre.
Following that concept, one suspects the CTAF T may overtake the CTAF R and in time the CTAF A may thus eventuate if ADS-B goes ahead. No ADS-B, no entry.
Only hypothesis
Agreed. Just my opinion but some of those outside the J curve may also be very reliant on entering CTAF R as their major community centre or aviation maintenance centre.
Following that concept, one suspects the CTAF T may overtake the CTAF R and in time the CTAF A may thus eventuate if ADS-B goes ahead. No ADS-B, no entry.
Only hypothesis
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
James Michael, what you say is very true, however I think that you will find that a majority of aircraft owners (and maybe pilots) who live outside the "J" curve frequent controlled airspace far more than you think. Certainly most do in our neck of the woods. Indeed many fly IFR
If ADSB is mandated, I will be fitting it with ADSB-in.. subsidy or not, because I believe there are some very important safety benefits.
However if no subsidy is forthcoming, many will not fit ADSB (unless the mandate prescribes all aircraft) and the real benfits of ADSB will be lost.
If ADSB is mandated, I will be fitting it with ADSB-in.. subsidy or not, because I believe there are some very important safety benefits.
However if no subsidy is forthcoming, many will not fit ADSB (unless the mandate prescribes all aircraft) and the real benfits of ADSB will be lost.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all your research. If ADS-B is to be successfully implemented some of the original questions must still be answered. I do wonder who signed off the VB and QF submissions, was it from the operational areas which were involved in ASTRA etc or by the corporate level ? Likewise, I understand the implication of the extract from the policy paper, the Minister can indeed make determinations for subsidies. However prior to doing so, most Ministers like to have appropriate sign offs from their Cabinet colleagues. I understood that decisions needed to be made by September and if this is so, there is a body of work to be completed urgently. Perhaps September is not the final deadline after all ?
All I ask is that Airservices Australia as the proponent, takes an open and transparent position and provides full information so that industry knows where it stands.
Hope this thread has helped people understand the wider issues of this sort of initiative. The worst possible outcome would be the mandating of ADS-B only to discover in a year or so that a subsidy is not possible.
All I ask is that Airservices Australia as the proponent, takes an open and transparent position and provides full information so that industry knows where it stands.
Hope this thread has helped people understand the wider issues of this sort of initiative. The worst possible outcome would be the mandating of ADS-B only to discover in a year or so that a subsidy is not possible.
Gee, the submissions weren't that cryptic. QANTAS says everyone has signed off on it except the DoTaRS mob. DJ supports industry capital investment in innovative technology. Ah, that includes the PVT raghat brigade. Whether they like it or not we all fly around in the same airspace.
Bushy, the ground station part of the system costs bugga all to set up. There is the thing about those ten regional aerodromes that so vexs Mr Smith.
All that money allocated for setting up those MSSR sites could pay for the entire fitout of the ground stations at those ten aerodromes and a lions share of GA fitment.
Hey Beach King. From your location, I take it you rumble around Chinchilla and Roma. IF Chinchilla ever gets that kick from the energy province that is so promised, that aerodrome could get a bit of use that would warrant surveillance. Just chuck in a ground station hook up the secure line and awwwwayyy you go. I do not think it would ever get as busy as the mineral province of WA for FIFO but you never know. Same as for MacArthur River.
Thats what you have to understand about the costs of ADS-B over MSSR. There is a reason why there is only the J curve. COST!
James Michael.......very droll Do we need a translation of that?
Bushy, I do agree about the detail. However, going by the gear I have found over in Europe that already meets all the TSOs, it is way cheaper than what the Yanks have at the moment. For IFR? a good 430W would look rather nice in the dash OR those new King units look rather tasty and they have already replied they will be tooling up to accommodate 1090ES
As much as I like all the tech candy that is available over in the US. Someone has to pay for the data transfer. I am pretty sure AirServices would be generous enough to launch a bird up into geosynchronos orbit just so I can download the weather in realtime. For me, I would be better suited having my new toy with my tabletPC hooked up to a USB modem connected to the broadband. Download radar overlays on my PocketPC GPSsoftware and Command with all of my ARFORS and NOTAMS updated. Sounds like a good idea. Now if we can just get Telstra to get with it with their NextG network I might be able to get a good coverage. Basic premis, Bushy, that stuff is already available if you want to pony up for it. What realy IS needed is WAAS for approaches and then we are all cooking But thats another argument
EDIT- Beech King posted at same time, I think a lot of us will fork out for the extra capability. For all the reasons you stated
Bushy, the ground station part of the system costs bugga all to set up. There is the thing about those ten regional aerodromes that so vexs Mr Smith.
All that money allocated for setting up those MSSR sites could pay for the entire fitout of the ground stations at those ten aerodromes and a lions share of GA fitment.
Hey Beach King. From your location, I take it you rumble around Chinchilla and Roma. IF Chinchilla ever gets that kick from the energy province that is so promised, that aerodrome could get a bit of use that would warrant surveillance. Just chuck in a ground station hook up the secure line and awwwwayyy you go. I do not think it would ever get as busy as the mineral province of WA for FIFO but you never know. Same as for MacArthur River.
Thats what you have to understand about the costs of ADS-B over MSSR. There is a reason why there is only the J curve. COST!
James Michael.......very droll
Do we need a translation of that?Bushy, I do agree about the detail. However, going by the gear I have found over in Europe that already meets all the TSOs, it is way cheaper than what the Yanks have at the moment. For IFR? a good 430W would look rather nice in the dash
OR those new King units look rather tasty and they have already replied they will be tooling up to accommodate 1090ESAs much as I like all the tech candy that is available over in the US. Someone has to pay for the data transfer. I am pretty sure AirServices would be generous enough to launch a bird up into geosynchronos orbit just so I can download the weather in realtime. For me, I would be better suited having my new toy with my tabletPC hooked up to a USB modem connected to the broadband. Download radar overlays on my PocketPC GPSsoftware and Command with all of my ARFORS and NOTAMS updated. Sounds like a good idea. Now if we can just get Telstra to get with it with their NextG network I might be able to get a good coverage. Basic premis, Bushy, that stuff is already available if you want to pony up for it. What realy IS needed is WAAS for approaches and then we are all cooking
But thats another argumentEDIT- Beech King posted at same time, I think a lot of us will fork out for the extra capability. For all the reasons you stated
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 22nd Aug 2008 at 07:52.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZBUSDRIVER,
Like your style. A couple of issues you might like to comment on given other threads on pprune at present.
Given that Airservices have competent engineers and ATCs do they have sufficient excess resources available to undertake the project and are you confident in the capacity of their senior management team ?
Like your style. A couple of issues you might like to comment on given other threads on pprune at present.
Given that Airservices have competent engineers and ATCs do they have sufficient excess resources available to undertake the project and are you confident in the capacity of their senior management team ?
Hey hamble, funny you should say that. Would you believe CivilAir, the ATC union reckons that ADS-B roll-out would release at least twenty operators for other duties....thats what they said in their submission
Hope I haven't taken that out of context. Correct me if I am wrong, guys
EDIT Just to add the Civil Air quote-
Hope I haven't taken that out of context. Correct me if I am wrong, guys
EDIT Just to add the Civil Air quote-
Civil Air estimate approximately 20 controllers could be otherwise allocated to other control functions given 100% ADS-B coverage and aircraft installation of ADS-B Out units. We would hate to see the delay in this project because of the lack of “ADS-B In” equipment, as long as there is capacity to upgrade when the technology issues are resolved. We believe
that higher priority should be given to this project. It is imperative that the standards to be used are available, as well as the duplicated systems required to use the technology effectively.
that higher priority should be given to this project. It is imperative that the standards to be used are available, as well as the duplicated systems required to use the technology effectively.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, at the end point it probably will but in the interim, the project will require the best they have, and several of them ! That's the way with projects.
Also note Civilair's caveats.
Also note Civilair's caveats.
Oh sorry, hamble. I didn't answer your question correctly. Going by postings on other threads, if the reliance was on the managers that allocate resources for actual manning...we are all doomed
If it is reliant on the coal face like guys like MAX1 and Scurvy D Dog as representative of controllers I'd have to say If the implimentation and rollout is run by the same people who brought us ASIC...be very afraid
If the engineers are the calibre of Mr Dunstone and his team in ASTRA I think we are in very capable hands and I would believe why QANTAS gave them such support in their submission.
Civil Air also says
That quote is quite telling in pointing the blame at the profit generation. If this was heeded then I would believe that there would be no problems at all in resourcing a proper roll out of ADS-B...But, it doesn't match reality 
If it is reliant on the coal face like guys like MAX1 and Scurvy D Dog as representative of controllers I'd have to say
If the implimentation and rollout is run by the same people who brought us ASIC...be very afraidIf the engineers are the calibre of Mr Dunstone and his team in ASTRA I think we are in very capable hands and I would believe why QANTAS gave them such support in their submission.
Civil Air also says
Civil Air calls on the Government to remove the profit imperative (return to shareholder) from Airservices Australia’s charter. It is time that the Air Traffic control service of Australia is recognised as a vital piece of National infrastructure, and not relied upon as a cash cow
for consolidated revenue. If a profit still exists it should be wholly utilised to allow vital resources to be devoted to fixing years of neglect.
for consolidated revenue. If a profit still exists it should be wholly utilised to allow vital resources to be devoted to fixing years of neglect.