Business Issues ADSB (Now: Completely Off Topic Thread!)
Moderator
Thread now re-named to reflect current topic and content.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously if one has a differing opinion, that person has no "nous or debating ability". You can debate the merits and technobabble to your hearts content, however I am not convinced of any benefits above and beyond what I have now for private VFR operations below 10,000ft.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob, Yes technobabble won't change the fact, all you need for VFR flight is a compass clock and Altimeter.
And it is a really good idea to look out side the airplane not being distracted my multiple technological marvels that tell you what your eyes already know.
And it is a really good idea to look out side the airplane not being distracted my multiple technological marvels that tell you what your eyes already know.
Summary of the topic
As it stands, right here & now, agreed - there are no direct benefits to private GA (or to be more precise, VFR <10,000') having ADS-B out fitted.
BUT
CASA policy is now to look after "the safety of the fare paying passenger"
AND
The world is changing whether we like it or not.
Reading between the lines, this means that there will be more onerous requirements on any traffic in the vicinity of passenger transport operations, in compliance with ICAO requirements.
The net result will be that CTAF-R will be the minimum requirement wherever PTO go, have been, or want to go. CTAF-R will rapidly transform into CTAF-T, and then to CTAF-ADSB. Note that there will still be no direct benefit to GA, except that without ADS-B more & more airspace will not be available for use by private GA except under special circumstances.
Gazing into the crystal ball, for the T28 ferry of the future, without ADS-B there would be no Mildura drop-in, no Kalgoorlie, etc
So why not take the "subsidised" fitment if it is offered?
Just my opinion, and open to look at other crystal balls
BUT
CASA policy is now to look after "the safety of the fare paying passenger"
AND
The world is changing whether we like it or not.
Reading between the lines, this means that there will be more onerous requirements on any traffic in the vicinity of passenger transport operations, in compliance with ICAO requirements.
The net result will be that CTAF-R will be the minimum requirement wherever PTO go, have been, or want to go. CTAF-R will rapidly transform into CTAF-T, and then to CTAF-ADSB. Note that there will still be no direct benefit to GA, except that without ADS-B more & more airspace will not be available for use by private GA except under special circumstances.
Gazing into the crystal ball, for the T28 ferry of the future, without ADS-B there would be no Mildura drop-in, no Kalgoorlie, etc
So why not take the "subsidised" fitment if it is offered?
Just my opinion, and open to look at other crystal balls
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gupta;
And if it is not subsidised?
On another matter, a certain organisation supported the ASIC because they thought they were going to be "the" accredited issuerer of cards and therefor make a motza out of the members and force the other non members to come on board.
The ASIC theoretically allowed you access to the RPT apron, but realistically, how many of us wanted to go swanning around there anyway.
Same with ADSB, what VFR private pilot wants to go swanning around high traffic major Capital City airports and operations in the J curve in the flight levels. I don't.
I don't have an ASIC out of principle and fly all over the place now without having to go anywhere near RPT operations, (not that it was unsafe before), but places like Moree don't get my fuel money, for what is was worth. Narromine and Chinchilla do.
And if it is not subsidised?
On another matter, a certain organisation supported the ASIC because they thought they were going to be "the" accredited issuerer of cards and therefor make a motza out of the members and force the other non members to come on board.
The ASIC theoretically allowed you access to the RPT apron, but realistically, how many of us wanted to go swanning around there anyway.
Same with ADSB, what VFR private pilot wants to go swanning around high traffic major Capital City airports and operations in the J curve in the flight levels. I don't.
I don't have an ASIC out of principle and fly all over the place now without having to go anywhere near RPT operations, (not that it was unsafe before), but places like Moree don't get my fuel money, for what is was worth. Narromine and Chinchilla do.
VFR private pilot wants to go swanning around high traffic major Capital City airports and operations in the J curve in the flight levels.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gupta, yes sadly I think you are right.
Horatio Leafblower;
Rural centres as you list make me pay to land there, something else I'm not fussed about. However if I do need to go there on the rare occasion I can't equate any cost or safety benefit for me or the paying passenger.
Do you know there are a lot of rural pilots with licences that are restricted to "OCTA only", I personally know five, cuts down on flying training and I believe makes those extra hours available from the syllabus add toward a better pilot if you have no need to fly into those places. I reckon most glider pilots and RAA blokes are not qualified to fly into or transit control zones except GAAP.
Do these owner pilots need ADSB? Last I saw were 7,000 RAA members alone.
I can see a benefit for ATC mainly and those RPT that believe they must have a sterile environment in which to operate. My answer to that is they should pay. (which the subsidy half addresses), After all those airports have a tower and separation now. The introduction of ADSB here amounts to the double condom theory.
No amount of gadgetry or money can guarantee "absolute safety". That is a myth used by the enthusiasts to scaremonger.
Which brings us back to the "subsidy" which I,as a pessimist, believe may not happen. Governments and their departments don't have a good track record of keeping promises.
What happens then?
Horatio Leafblower;
Rural centres as you list make me pay to land there, something else I'm not fussed about. However if I do need to go there on the rare occasion I can't equate any cost or safety benefit for me or the paying passenger.
Do you know there are a lot of rural pilots with licences that are restricted to "OCTA only", I personally know five, cuts down on flying training and I believe makes those extra hours available from the syllabus add toward a better pilot if you have no need to fly into those places. I reckon most glider pilots and RAA blokes are not qualified to fly into or transit control zones except GAAP.
Do these owner pilots need ADSB? Last I saw were 7,000 RAA members alone.
I can see a benefit for ATC mainly and those RPT that believe they must have a sterile environment in which to operate. My answer to that is they should pay. (which the subsidy half addresses), After all those airports have a tower and separation now. The introduction of ADSB here amounts to the double condom theory.
No amount of gadgetry or money can guarantee "absolute safety". That is a myth used by the enthusiasts to scaremonger.
Which brings us back to the "subsidy" which I,as a pessimist, believe may not happen. Governments and their departments don't have a good track record of keeping promises.
What happens then?
Bob
Most of the PTO destinations DON'T have a tower, and are self-arranged separation - that is partly what ADS-B will be for.
After all those airports have a tower and separation now. The introduction of ADSB here amounts to the double condom theory.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTDK;
I don't even fly IFR or even NVFR any more, just day VFR. Is there some elitist thing with you IFR blokes that make me less a pilot?
Been flying since 1965 mate. Being a dinosaur only means I have a head full of knowledge that has enabled me to still be here today. I was flying turbocharged V35B VH- DLO and Cessna turbo 210 VH MRH way back in 1974
If you choose to fly IFR everywhere and fly in my hemispherical sector and altitude and don't use the radio for separation during climb and descent, then that is the first tangible reason for me to have ADSB if it's all it's cracked up to be. (if that pretty much sums you up).
Correct me if I am wrong, but when I did my IFR training years ago you had to be able to hold some 50ft of assigned altitude and some lateral margin that I just forget. If I can fly near these margins today why can't you?
An example. Tracking 200 degrees VFR one day on the NDB (which I am endorsed on), and the gps for VFR backup, 4500ft I hear someone depart an airport on my near left tracking 295 IFR at 4000ft. It was CAVOK 8/8 blue sky. Why did this bloke need to be below 5000 for a start, (why did he need to be IFR), and why did Melbourne Centre need to advise him of unknown VFR traffic and then need Melbourne Centre to advise him once we had passed each other. Both on the same QNH and my electric slave holding an accurate altitude since 2 hours before? Was this a near miss or a near hit?
More, when I identified myself to Melbourne Centre as the unknown traffic and offered to climb if he was so concerned, I was ignored.
Is this common to IFR pilots, fly there because they can, and need to pay fror a separation service. We don't fly in cloud when you are there, so why should IFR cruise B050 on good days?
I don't even fly IFR or even NVFR any more, just day VFR. Is there some elitist thing with you IFR blokes that make me less a pilot?
Been flying since 1965 mate. Being a dinosaur only means I have a head full of knowledge that has enabled me to still be here today. I was flying turbocharged V35B VH- DLO and Cessna turbo 210 VH MRH way back in 1974
If you choose to fly IFR everywhere and fly in my hemispherical sector and altitude and don't use the radio for separation during climb and descent, then that is the first tangible reason for me to have ADSB if it's all it's cracked up to be. (if that pretty much sums you up).
Correct me if I am wrong, but when I did my IFR training years ago you had to be able to hold some 50ft of assigned altitude and some lateral margin that I just forget. If I can fly near these margins today why can't you?
An example. Tracking 200 degrees VFR one day on the NDB (which I am endorsed on), and the gps for VFR backup, 4500ft I hear someone depart an airport on my near left tracking 295 IFR at 4000ft. It was CAVOK 8/8 blue sky. Why did this bloke need to be below 5000 for a start, (why did he need to be IFR), and why did Melbourne Centre need to advise him of unknown VFR traffic and then need Melbourne Centre to advise him once we had passed each other. Both on the same QNH and my electric slave holding an accurate altitude since 2 hours before? Was this a near miss or a near hit?
More, when I identified myself to Melbourne Centre as the unknown traffic and offered to climb if he was so concerned, I was ignored.
Is this common to IFR pilots, fly there because they can, and need to pay fror a separation service. We don't fly in cloud when you are there, so why should IFR cruise B050 on good days?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gupta, I was discussing Tamworth, Albury and Coffs with Capt Leafblower.
I know what you are on about, but I reckon the alphabet soup organisations should fight this sort of introduction because it impinges on ones right to fly responsibly without unnecessary costs and restrictions. If they did, they would probably have more volunteer members.
I know what you are on about, but I reckon the alphabet soup organisations should fight this sort of introduction because it impinges on ones right to fly responsibly without unnecessary costs and restrictions. If they did, they would probably have more volunteer members.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob
It's quite simple - Gupta has vision, you too - but you keep looking backward.
What did YOU do about CTAF R and ASIC as a director of alphabet soup - answer, nothing according to my research. Clue - did the number of CTAF R diminish in your time. With you it's all the older I get the faster I was as you ask the world to fix what you didn't
You keep dragging up this ASIC furphy - NO organisation I know of SUPPORTED it. You know quite well it was bulldozed in by a spook fuelled Government and NOTHING and NOBODY was going to stop it.
CTAF R has been on the discussion table with the alphabet soups for some time - let's have your alternative - don't keep giving us problems for someone else to wave a magic wand, give us workable solutions. No doubt your research will show you that MBZ or equivalent are emerging overseas for RPT, perhaps even in that magic GA country NZ.
Gupta
I reckon you are bang on the $. And I don't find any real option - CTAF R becomes CTAF T becomes CTAF A(DSB). But, only on the basis that RPT fits TCAS or it's unreasonable.
We need to consider a real world of jets into CTAF, and get past the open cockpit big sky view from Bob's Tiger Moth cockpit - and ADS-B seems the technological solution.
It's quite simple - Gupta has vision, you too - but you keep looking backward.
What did YOU do about CTAF R and ASIC as a director of alphabet soup - answer, nothing according to my research. Clue - did the number of CTAF R diminish in your time. With you it's all the older I get the faster I was as you ask the world to fix what you didn't
You keep dragging up this ASIC furphy - NO organisation I know of SUPPORTED it. You know quite well it was bulldozed in by a spook fuelled Government and NOTHING and NOBODY was going to stop it.
CTAF R has been on the discussion table with the alphabet soups for some time - let's have your alternative - don't keep giving us problems for someone else to wave a magic wand, give us workable solutions. No doubt your research will show you that MBZ or equivalent are emerging overseas for RPT, perhaps even in that magic GA country NZ.
Gupta
I reckon you are bang on the $. And I don't find any real option - CTAF R becomes CTAF T becomes CTAF A(DSB). But, only on the basis that RPT fits TCAS or it's unreasonable.
We need to consider a real world of jets into CTAF, and get past the open cockpit big sky view from Bob's Tiger Moth cockpit - and ADS-B seems the technological solution.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why did Melbourne Centre need to advise him of unknown VFR traffic and then need Melbourne Centre to advise him once we had passed each other. Both on the same QNH and my electric slave holding an accurate altitude since 2 hours before? Was this a near miss or a near hit?
More, when I identified myself to Melbourne Centre as the unknown traffic and offered to climb if he was so concerned, I was ignored.
Relevance to ADS/B? ATC are more likely to know a callsign for the unknown(?) traffic, depending on the VFR pilot's preference, which could be useful for discussions on the CTAF, irritating en-route...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
james michael;
As a director of that organisation and during my tenure, there was no issue to address.
The ASIC was NOT opposed by that organisation, in fact it WAS initially supported because the executive at the time thought they were to get a monopoly accreditation. (I and a few others opposed it). Remember this organisation has historically been, and was run by a fiat executive. Your research has let you down as usual, or perhaps you just listen to what is now just amended policy.
I say again, when I was on the board of that organisation, there was no issues to address with CTAF R, there were only CTAF's MBZ's as well you know.
You are so certain that this concept of ADSB and the subsidy is a done deal, all I am saying is that I will believe it when it comes to fruition. I hope for your sake it does.
I won't not suffer if it does, and I'll embrace the evolutionary benefits as and when they materialise, but I will haunt all the enthusiasts if causes me any financial hardships as I am sure the members of organisations will do if they find out their own elected directors are enthusiastically promoting it.
Spodman;
Your post is interesting. I hadn't looked at this from your perspective. Perhaps my mind was set on responding to private IFR mindset that treats VFR like some sort of inferior way to fly. The incident mentioned stuck in my mind because of an 8/8ths clear blue sky and a bloke 500ft below me at 4000ft on an IFR plan. Even training would sensibly fly above 5000ft.
As a director of that organisation and during my tenure, there was no issue to address.
The ASIC was NOT opposed by that organisation, in fact it WAS initially supported because the executive at the time thought they were to get a monopoly accreditation. (I and a few others opposed it). Remember this organisation has historically been, and was run by a fiat executive. Your research has let you down as usual, or perhaps you just listen to what is now just amended policy.
I say again, when I was on the board of that organisation, there was no issues to address with CTAF R, there were only CTAF's MBZ's as well you know.
You are so certain that this concept of ADSB and the subsidy is a done deal, all I am saying is that I will believe it when it comes to fruition. I hope for your sake it does.
I won't not suffer if it does, and I'll embrace the evolutionary benefits as and when they materialise, but I will haunt all the enthusiasts if causes me any financial hardships as I am sure the members of organisations will do if they find out their own elected directors are enthusiastically promoting it.
Spodman;
Your post is interesting. I hadn't looked at this from your perspective. Perhaps my mind was set on responding to private IFR mindset that treats VFR like some sort of inferior way to fly. The incident mentioned stuck in my mind because of an 8/8ths clear blue sky and a bloke 500ft below me at 4000ft on an IFR plan. Even training would sensibly fly above 5000ft.
I don't even fly IFR or even NVFR any more, just day VFR. Is there some elitist thing with you IFR blokes that make me less a pilot?
I have no issues with VFR only pilots! Many of my mates are just that. I am fortunate in that I get to lap around the place in a well equipped IFR machine, and the ability to do so makes the aeroplane a very effective business tool.
Correct me if I am wrong, but when I did my IFR training years ago you had to be able to hold some 50ft of assigned altitude and some lateral margin that I just forget. If I can fly near these margins today why can't you?
Is this common to IFR pilots, fly there because they can, and need to pay fror a separation service. We don't fly in cloud when you are there, so why should IFR cruise B050 on good days?
1) I can! 2) If you are gonna fly IFR it pays to stay "in the groove" with IFR procedures 3) Its easier than VFR cause ATC looks after you 4) There is a small measure of increased safety cause you are flying on a "full reporting" basis
I generally fly as high as I can cause: 1) in my part of the world you get a much smoother ride up there 2) I get better range 3) I get better radio reception etc etc
I recently had my first "near miss" in 35 yrs flying. I was at 9000' west of Hughenden (HUG) headed for Townsville. A C182/206/210 that I think was climbing out from HUG, passed <100' below me. I didn't see him coming and there were no radio calls, no nothing! Scared me so much I bought a Zaon PCAS in the hope that I might spot a similar conflict in the future. I am into anything that might reduce the chance of a collision.
See and be seen has severe limitations.
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 3rd Sep 2008 at 12:56.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not insecure. I expect instrument pilots to be at 7000 if they say they are. I sometimes get worried about gliders at Narromine in summer, but I have never had an encounter. In fact while the tug is airborne he has a situational awareness of where he and the gliders are and sometimes it is easilly arranged for a non standard right base entry to maintain the safe flow.
I have flown into Hughenden a few times, I guess this is an RPT security controlled airport now. Traffic density comensurate with the kangaroos but aeroplanes do land there for fuel. I don't recall any landing charges either so any VFR cowboys can't even use this as an excuse for no radio departure.
Thing is I expect you as an IFR pilot to be where you say you are as you would expect me to be somewhere nearabouts but a bit less accurate on the altitude and track. Especially with a low performance aircraft on a high performance day.
When I owned a Maule, it paid to fly high because it had a low wing loading and thermals would kick your head in. I was very aware of IFR traffic when flying at 9500ft and in the calm air there was little excuse for being too far from where you should be.
Trouble is there are a lot of aeroplanes that don't have the grunt of the Maule or the 285 HP wizzers to get above 5000ft in summer without a special incantation and a lot of patience. IFR traffic at those heights and at speed is dumb as a general rule don't you think?
See and be seen has limitations, but I don't agree they are "severe". Away from the circuit the most dangerous time is conflicting traffic in the climb and descent. A decent radio, airmanship, and common sense should prevail. I can't believe they are turning out pilots these days that are dumber than me.
I have flown into Hughenden a few times, I guess this is an RPT security controlled airport now. Traffic density comensurate with the kangaroos but aeroplanes do land there for fuel. I don't recall any landing charges either so any VFR cowboys can't even use this as an excuse for no radio departure.
Thing is I expect you as an IFR pilot to be where you say you are as you would expect me to be somewhere nearabouts but a bit less accurate on the altitude and track. Especially with a low performance aircraft on a high performance day.
When I owned a Maule, it paid to fly high because it had a low wing loading and thermals would kick your head in. I was very aware of IFR traffic when flying at 9500ft and in the calm air there was little excuse for being too far from where you should be.
Trouble is there are a lot of aeroplanes that don't have the grunt of the Maule or the 285 HP wizzers to get above 5000ft in summer without a special incantation and a lot of patience. IFR traffic at those heights and at speed is dumb as a general rule don't you think?
See and be seen has limitations, but I don't agree they are "severe". Away from the circuit the most dangerous time is conflicting traffic in the climb and descent. A decent radio, airmanship, and common sense should prevail. I can't believe they are turning out pilots these days that are dumber than me.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T28D
The key words in your post are the last two.
'See and Avoid' is sensible, prudent and wise., but alerted 'See and Avoid' is much, much better. for a start, it substantially reduces the volume of airspace that needs to be looked at.
Now as to what provides that extra alerting., well, if it's ATC when I'm on an IFR plan or within radar coverage, or radio, or tecno-wizzardry such as ADSB-aided ATC, I, don't care.
I've had my share of close encounters in outback class-G VFR and I just don't like unalerted 'see and avoid'.
If that makes me appear less macho or less of an aviator to some, then so be it., I won't care., I just want to live long enough to spend my superannuation.
And it is a really good idea to look out side the airplane not being distracted my multiple technological marvels that tell you what your eyes already know.
'See and Avoid' is sensible, prudent and wise., but alerted 'See and Avoid' is much, much better. for a start, it substantially reduces the volume of airspace that needs to be looked at.
Now as to what provides that extra alerting., well, if it's ATC when I'm on an IFR plan or within radar coverage, or radio, or tecno-wizzardry such as ADSB-aided ATC, I, don't care.
I've had my share of close encounters in outback class-G VFR and I just don't like unalerted 'see and avoid'.
If that makes me appear less macho or less of an aviator to some, then so be it., I won't care., I just want to live long enough to spend my superannuation.