Australian Airspace Discussion
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
James,
Excuse my ignorance, how is ADS going to reduce CFIT without MSAW ?.
TAWS, EGPWS, GPWS is a completely different bit of kit to ADS.
1) How will ADS alone prevent CFIT OCTA ?,
2) Will not ADS + MSAW = better protection against CFIT OCTA ?,
3) No doubt ADS + TAWS + MSAW + Misc ( training, approach briefings, CAR217 approval ) = the greatest level of protection against CFIT OCTA ?.
Excuse my ignorance, how is ADS going to reduce CFIT without MSAW ?.
TAWS, EGPWS, GPWS is a completely different bit of kit to ADS.
1) How will ADS alone prevent CFIT OCTA ?,
2) Will not ADS + MSAW = better protection against CFIT OCTA ?,
3) No doubt ADS + TAWS + MSAW + Misc ( training, approach briefings, CAR217 approval ) = the greatest level of protection against CFIT OCTA ?.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 4th Oct 2008 at 02:01.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
james michael;
So?... Does your gadget you found in a comic book meet TSO C145(a) or TSO C146(a) standard? (I understand 145 is the chip and 146 is the chip and motherboard. The chip having a problem with availability).
Open my mind! Why don't you ask yourself what will happen if the subsidy does not materialise. You and "your team" whoever they are, support without question the mandate of the equipment.
It amazes me (If you are who I believe you are), that you are such an expert as a private VFR day non owner pilot.
Also, talking about "outing" posters, please explain the genesis if xinhua2 for me.
So?... Does your gadget you found in a comic book meet TSO C145(a) or TSO C146(a) standard? (I understand 145 is the chip and 146 is the chip and motherboard. The chip having a problem with availability).
Open my mind! Why don't you ask yourself what will happen if the subsidy does not materialise. You and "your team" whoever they are, support without question the mandate of the equipment.
It amazes me (If you are who I believe you are), that you are such an expert as a private VFR day non owner pilot.
Also, talking about "outing" posters, please explain the genesis if xinhua2 for me.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHRT you state,
'I standby my statements regarding MSAW and the determination of some to try to sink any of Dicks opinions, i.e. where does Niles find his motivation ?, although I believe I know the answer to that one.'
I don't believe you will find people trying to sink Dicks ideas, just pointing out that it will cost tens of millions in updating software, and hiring more people to effectively monitor the airspace.
Form page one, people have said it will increase safety. The issue has been at what cost? Since your post on page one, do you now concede that it WILL cost money and need more people to effectively monitor the airspace?
How can you stand by your statements when even Dick has come around to the assertion that it will cost.
'I agree that this will require en route controllers to be trained to do approach work (as they do in other countries) and also require smaller sectors.
All of this will cost money.' Dick
P.S. Lets not muddy the waters by referring to Niles, he's jumped back in his box.
'I standby my statements regarding MSAW and the determination of some to try to sink any of Dicks opinions, i.e. where does Niles find his motivation ?, although I believe I know the answer to that one.'
I don't believe you will find people trying to sink Dicks ideas, just pointing out that it will cost tens of millions in updating software, and hiring more people to effectively monitor the airspace.
Form page one, people have said it will increase safety. The issue has been at what cost? Since your post on page one, do you now concede that it WILL cost money and need more people to effectively monitor the airspace?
How can you stand by your statements when even Dick has come around to the assertion that it will cost.
'I agree that this will require en route controllers to be trained to do approach work (as they do in other countries) and also require smaller sectors.
All of this will cost money.' Dick
P.S. Lets not muddy the waters by referring to Niles, he's jumped back in his box.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
I didn't do the analysis but it is covered in the JCP and the JCP CBA in more detail. It seems CASA, ASFA, etc are of the belief that the TSO 146 will provide - first, terrain alert and second, supporting map data.
I admit to watching the terrain info on my G495 when flying in a/c with no other electronic support.
ADS alone will not prevent CFIT - it's what people do as a result of the cross industry funding to upgrade their GPS capability that will assist.
And, if we take Dick's point re radar surveillance being a safety increase - remembering there are others who decry the 'big brother watching' concept - then ADS-B is an extension of Dick's concept and there may well be a greater safety case with extended areas of surveillance.
I think that answers all three of your points? Dick's argument and mine are not mutually exclusive, rather they are supportive of each other. Others have done the CBA and safety case for mine, just need a case for Dick's.
Bob
Pardon? Everything I have seen in support of ADS-B for GA is solidly underwritten with the covenant "subject to the subsidy".
Xinhua 2 genesis - reborn again immediately after a recent outing, following me around, interesting history of posts - draw your own conclusions.
TSO 145/146 - forget chips and motherboards and try
gps.faa.gov and
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/9b4559db46f3a0f985256cfb007c037e/8f5172f7537bbc6286256dad00643ce3/$FILE/C145a.pdf
I didn't do the analysis but it is covered in the JCP and the JCP CBA in more detail. It seems CASA, ASFA, etc are of the belief that the TSO 146 will provide - first, terrain alert and second, supporting map data.
I admit to watching the terrain info on my G495 when flying in a/c with no other electronic support.
ADS alone will not prevent CFIT - it's what people do as a result of the cross industry funding to upgrade their GPS capability that will assist.
And, if we take Dick's point re radar surveillance being a safety increase - remembering there are others who decry the 'big brother watching' concept - then ADS-B is an extension of Dick's concept and there may well be a greater safety case with extended areas of surveillance.
I think that answers all three of your points? Dick's argument and mine are not mutually exclusive, rather they are supportive of each other. Others have done the CBA and safety case for mine, just need a case for Dick's.
Bob
You and "your team" whoever they are, support without question the mandate of the equipment.
Xinhua 2 genesis - reborn again immediately after a recent outing, following me around, interesting history of posts - draw your own conclusions.
TSO 145/146 - forget chips and motherboards and try
gps.faa.gov and
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/9b4559db46f3a0f985256cfb007c037e/8f5172f7537bbc6286256dad00643ce3/$FILE/C145a.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max,
No, the automatic function of the MSAW, is exactly that, the automatic funtioning of the MSAW program, that will only require input from an ATCO if someone is about to die.
An IFR aircraft reporting visual to an ATCO at its destination may slightly increase an ATCO's, what will be the nett effect ?.
Max hows this sound " If you are certain it will cost more money so be it, I personally do not care about that, it will save lives".
TIBA being used commonly is not due to over worked ATCO's, it is due to a shortage of ATCO's, a completely different argument, yes more staff more money etc etc.
GPWS data is readily commercially available, it is a whole load of ones and zeros in a certain format, if the format is different to the format required by TAAATS, you run the ones and zeros through a program that converts to the required format, Yes that might cost money but how much, not $10,000,000.00,not rocket science ( over simplistic view I know, but it will not take a room full of university trained computer programmers ).
I believe Dick is on the NAS wagon again, refer my post 142 and second last post, I'm not on that wagon.
I believe your thoughts here have less to do with MSAW and more to do with your perception of either how inadequate the system presently is or it would be with NAS. Not talking about NAS or the present situation.
Not trying to muddy the waters with Niles, just voicing an opinion, I feel for Niles, I too have taken a licking on pprune and now try to choose my words carefully.
The issue has been at what cost? Since your post on page one, do you now concede that it WILL cost money and need more people to effectively monitor the airspace?
An IFR aircraft reporting visual to an ATCO at its destination may slightly increase an ATCO's, what will be the nett effect ?.
Max hows this sound " If you are certain it will cost more money so be it, I personally do not care about that, it will save lives".
TIBA being used commonly is not due to over worked ATCO's, it is due to a shortage of ATCO's, a completely different argument, yes more staff more money etc etc.
GPWS data is readily commercially available, it is a whole load of ones and zeros in a certain format, if the format is different to the format required by TAAATS, you run the ones and zeros through a program that converts to the required format, Yes that might cost money but how much, not $10,000,000.00,not rocket science ( over simplistic view I know, but it will not take a room full of university trained computer programmers ).
'I agree that this will require en route controllers to be trained to do approach work (as they do in other countries) and also require smaller sectors. All of this will cost money.' Dick
WILL cost money and need more people to effectively monitor the airspace?
Not trying to muddy the waters with Niles, just voicing an opinion, I feel for Niles, I too have taken a licking on pprune and now try to choose my words carefully.
Folks,
A lot of TSOing and frowing on this thread, could we, perhaps simplify a few things
What is ADS-B ?? ---- It is just a method of communication, nothing more, in this case position and rate data to whoever is receiving it, for whatever purpose.
For ADS-B to provide any assistance in "hill abatement", avoiding the cloud with the solid center, it would have to be communications with some form of ground based (ie: TAAAAAATS) system that could, by whatever the technological means, derive and broadcast back a terrain warning, (to be displayed, sounded or whatever ,cattleprod equipped pilot seat) that selected life is about to become extinct, unless said selected life does something real smart, RFN, having been real dumb to get into the position in the first place.
The above is absolutely nothing to do with a proprietary GPS system, available right now, with some form of terrain warning, based on the widely available worldwide digitized terrain database, and the GPS position. There are many. This does not need TSO 145/146 GPS. It does not need a transponder of any kind. It does NOT need ADS-B. Not in my B747-400, or my GA fun machine.
Claiming reductions in CFIT as a benefit of "ADS-B" is just plain wrong/dishonest/fraudulent, unless it comes via the ADS-B datalink.
Given the planned availability of ADS-B ground stations needed to give widespread coverage to low level (ie; making ANY kind of automated ADS-B -- or ATC VHF voice) terrain warning reasonably available across Australia at low level just ain't going to happen any time soon.
Have a look at the published coverage figures planned, in the short and long run, no ASA coverage below 10,000 (except incidental to the siting) is planned, if my recollections are correct. And that's the "long run". It's all in the ASA documents and the JCP submissions, and these facts are not in dispute.
The estimate for coverage to 5000 ft. was in the order of 350+/-, which seems consistent with the FAA estimate of almost 500 stations for coverage to 1000 ft, over a roughly similar land area. And, what are ASA planning short term?? In the long term?? Without looking it up, I seem to recall (in the long run) about 150-160.
More facts: For the"airline" end of town, where ADS-B "IN" is available, you have two choices:
(1) As per the relevant RTCA standard, ADS-B IN can be processed ( if you buy the mod.) by TCAS 11, and the output will be exactly the same as for TCAS.
ie; the same as either both aircraft having TCAS 11, or one aircraft having having TCAS 11 and the other aircraft having a Transponder Mode C.
(2) Without TCAS processing, just a proximate traffic symbol on the moving map, if the ADS-B position "in" is displayed, as well as/instead of the proximate position derived from the transponder of the "other" aircraft.
Result, no benefit, compared to the present, where there is widespread fitments of Transponders with Mode C, for aircraft used "regularly". ie: "The rest" don't represent a serious in-air collision risk, because being airborne is such a rare event.
It would be a brave airline operations department that recommended maneuvering based on a proximate traffic symbol, in the absence of a TCAS resolution advisory (quite apart from matters of adhering to a clearance, in the absence of said RA)
Now to TSO's, and our mate James of the Michaels:
Dear James,
Could you please advise YES or NO answers to the following questions, re. your claims of a so far very shy manufacturer re. a "compliant", AUD $10,000 ADS-B IN/OUT/ALL ABOUT box.
(1) Does said box incorporate ( not an add-on to be paid separately ) a C145 or C146 GPS engine, and;
(2) Does the transponder component comply with DO 260A requirements for an ADS-B signal that can be used (if we, Australia, are going to comply with the regulations we have published, and met our obligations to ICAO, and by complying, not "complying by notifying a difference") for ATC purposes.
James, my dear chap, I suppose you do have a full and comprehensive understanding of the difference between most current TSO C-166 transponders, and those that comply with DO 260A. To save time,Yes or No will do.
The latter DO-260A are rather thin on the ground, those that are available are many multiples of AUD $10,000, and that's just for the transponder.
Just YES or NO to each question, without obfuscation and waffle.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Bob Murphie was essentially right about the difference between C-145 and 146. C-145 is for incorporation into proprietary FMCS type systems, C-146 is C-145 plus additional processing on a board to produce navigation outputs.
Contrary to the rubbish in various early CASA "cost benefit" and the JCP, there is NO relation between C-145 and VFR, C-146 and IFR. Indeed, there will be NO difference in the cost of installation, VFR or IFR, so why is VFR going to be slugged with/robbed off $5000.00, if the so far mythical subsidy ever becomes real.
PS2: A tricky little detail --- the "subsidy" is ONLY for ADS-B OUT, what's the chance a bureaucrat would only "subsidize" the "OUT" bit of the alleged AU box.
A lot of TSOing and frowing on this thread, could we, perhaps simplify a few things
What is ADS-B ?? ---- It is just a method of communication, nothing more, in this case position and rate data to whoever is receiving it, for whatever purpose.
For ADS-B to provide any assistance in "hill abatement", avoiding the cloud with the solid center, it would have to be communications with some form of ground based (ie: TAAAAAATS) system that could, by whatever the technological means, derive and broadcast back a terrain warning, (to be displayed, sounded or whatever ,cattleprod equipped pilot seat) that selected life is about to become extinct, unless said selected life does something real smart, RFN, having been real dumb to get into the position in the first place.
The above is absolutely nothing to do with a proprietary GPS system, available right now, with some form of terrain warning, based on the widely available worldwide digitized terrain database, and the GPS position. There are many. This does not need TSO 145/146 GPS. It does not need a transponder of any kind. It does NOT need ADS-B. Not in my B747-400, or my GA fun machine.
Claiming reductions in CFIT as a benefit of "ADS-B" is just plain wrong/dishonest/fraudulent, unless it comes via the ADS-B datalink.
Given the planned availability of ADS-B ground stations needed to give widespread coverage to low level (ie; making ANY kind of automated ADS-B -- or ATC VHF voice) terrain warning reasonably available across Australia at low level just ain't going to happen any time soon.
Have a look at the published coverage figures planned, in the short and long run, no ASA coverage below 10,000 (except incidental to the siting) is planned, if my recollections are correct. And that's the "long run". It's all in the ASA documents and the JCP submissions, and these facts are not in dispute.
The estimate for coverage to 5000 ft. was in the order of 350+/-, which seems consistent with the FAA estimate of almost 500 stations for coverage to 1000 ft, over a roughly similar land area. And, what are ASA planning short term?? In the long term?? Without looking it up, I seem to recall (in the long run) about 150-160.
More facts: For the"airline" end of town, where ADS-B "IN" is available, you have two choices:
(1) As per the relevant RTCA standard, ADS-B IN can be processed ( if you buy the mod.) by TCAS 11, and the output will be exactly the same as for TCAS.
ie; the same as either both aircraft having TCAS 11, or one aircraft having having TCAS 11 and the other aircraft having a Transponder Mode C.
(2) Without TCAS processing, just a proximate traffic symbol on the moving map, if the ADS-B position "in" is displayed, as well as/instead of the proximate position derived from the transponder of the "other" aircraft.
Result, no benefit, compared to the present, where there is widespread fitments of Transponders with Mode C, for aircraft used "regularly". ie: "The rest" don't represent a serious in-air collision risk, because being airborne is such a rare event.
It would be a brave airline operations department that recommended maneuvering based on a proximate traffic symbol, in the absence of a TCAS resolution advisory (quite apart from matters of adhering to a clearance, in the absence of said RA)
Now to TSO's, and our mate James of the Michaels:
Dear James,
Could you please advise YES or NO answers to the following questions, re. your claims of a so far very shy manufacturer re. a "compliant", AUD $10,000 ADS-B IN/OUT/ALL ABOUT box.
(1) Does said box incorporate ( not an add-on to be paid separately ) a C145 or C146 GPS engine, and;
(2) Does the transponder component comply with DO 260A requirements for an ADS-B signal that can be used (if we, Australia, are going to comply with the regulations we have published, and met our obligations to ICAO, and by complying, not "complying by notifying a difference") for ATC purposes.
James, my dear chap, I suppose you do have a full and comprehensive understanding of the difference between most current TSO C-166 transponders, and those that comply with DO 260A. To save time,Yes or No will do.
The latter DO-260A are rather thin on the ground, those that are available are many multiples of AUD $10,000, and that's just for the transponder.
Just YES or NO to each question, without obfuscation and waffle.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Bob Murphie was essentially right about the difference between C-145 and 146. C-145 is for incorporation into proprietary FMCS type systems, C-146 is C-145 plus additional processing on a board to produce navigation outputs.
Contrary to the rubbish in various early CASA "cost benefit" and the JCP, there is NO relation between C-145 and VFR, C-146 and IFR. Indeed, there will be NO difference in the cost of installation, VFR or IFR, so why is VFR going to be slugged with/robbed off $5000.00, if the so far mythical subsidy ever becomes real.
PS2: A tricky little detail --- the "subsidy" is ONLY for ADS-B OUT, what's the chance a bureaucrat would only "subsidize" the "OUT" bit of the alleged AU box.
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Oct 2008 at 05:33.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you lead sled
It's about time we looked at facts, and the facts do not seem to back up all the waffle about the wildly exagerated benefits light aircraft owners will get from ADSB, for no cost.
Looks like there are some salesmen around.
Looks like there are some salesmen around.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy
If you are basing your belief on Leaddy's post - good luck.
Leaddy
I'm surprised at the technical accuracy you trot out but the factual inaccuracy. However, you are an acknowledged ADS-B naysayer so we have to agree to look at this from different ends of the ground.
In rough order:
Yes ADS-B is a comms method. After that you bend it a tad. You and I have read the JCP and know it is not just ADS-B.
The JCP is a marriage of convenience of ADS-B and Navaid replacement. One about 60M one about 30M from memory? But, either could be done INDEPENDENT of the other. Just convenient to mix them because of the TSO 145/146 issue of VFR non-panel map display and IFR panel map display etc.
Who has claimed ADS-B saves CFIT - I think you will find it is a JCP claim re the married package.
Your questions 1 and 2 - I said I saw an article not that I had a brochure. I am certain from the article I saw that more is expected when the consortium publicly announces its package and its specifications.
So I can give you a definite yes or no, as you wished.
Pardon? Would it have anything to do with both getting ADS-B but IFR getting TSOP 146 navigator subsidy for the NAVAID replacement?
And certainly the subsidy is only for ADS-B OUT. That's why a very smart marketer will include ADS-B IN as an INTEGRATED item so it is included as a given.
Can I quote you that Bob was right about 145/146?
Well, that's put a bullet in the ATC watching over us theory (now whose was that again?) - looks like you are plugging the value of the TSO 146 navigator with terrain? 
If you are basing your belief on Leaddy's post - good luck.
Leaddy
I'm surprised at the technical accuracy you trot out but the factual inaccuracy. However, you are an acknowledged ADS-B naysayer so we have to agree to look at this from different ends of the ground.
In rough order:
Yes ADS-B is a comms method. After that you bend it a tad. You and I have read the JCP and know it is not just ADS-B.
The JCP is a marriage of convenience of ADS-B and Navaid replacement. One about 60M one about 30M from memory? But, either could be done INDEPENDENT of the other. Just convenient to mix them because of the TSO 145/146 issue of VFR non-panel map display and IFR panel map display etc.
Who has claimed ADS-B saves CFIT - I think you will find it is a JCP claim re the married package.
Your questions 1 and 2 - I said I saw an article not that I had a brochure. I am certain from the article I saw that more is expected when the consortium publicly announces its package and its specifications.
So I can give you a definite yes or no, as you wished.
Indeed, there will be NO difference in the cost of installation, VFR or IFR, so why is VFR going to be slugged with/robbed off $5000.00, if the so far mythical subsidy ever becomes real.
And certainly the subsidy is only for ADS-B OUT. That's why a very smart marketer will include ADS-B IN as an INTEGRATED item so it is included as a given.
Can I quote you that Bob was right about 145/146?
145 is the chip and 146 is the chip and motherboard
Given the planned availability of ADS-B ground stations needed to give widespread coverage to low level (ie; making ANY kind of automated ADS-B -- or ATC VHF voice) terrain warning reasonably available across Australia at low level just ain't going to happen any time soon.
I am being polite to you because you have stopped the circular whizz bomb GPS argument.
james michael, as far as I am concerned, the scenario I presented (in other threads) re the terrorist miss-use of GPS affecting ADS-B still stands. I am yet to see any real rebuttal.
I note if it was'nt for the hysteria, and what I read as near panicky threats and abuse of one particular poster, my posts on the subject would most likely have been 'sooner' to the piont.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bing
You have a delightful sense of humour.
"Knife" - item for eating - item for killing people.
Fact - use of knives - lots of eating - small amount of killing people.
If we adopt your GPS / buzz bomb scenario we will forsake the use of all the positives of GPS because someone might misuse the technology. On the analogy, we may as well ban knives and go back to tearing at food with our hands (actually a little like the troglodyte return to caveman resistance to the positives of ADS-B when I analyse it).
Australian airspace will soon change to appreciate the marriage of new technology with safety. Those who believe otherwise obviously won't post on here - they are still using snail mail
Oh, I just remembered your concern at being compared to Walter Mitty and some amazing James Bond analogy you purported. This may help (ah, apology this is the commonly accepted version, not your flight of fiction):
Bing, when you have finished diverting the threads let's talk about Oz Airspace and how Leaddy, you, Bob & X, and even Dick - can support an Oz consortium joining with the regulators for Oz to exercise its amazing intellectual capability and lead the world in airspace management. There's a lot of people who can be saved from CFIT, and a lot of Regional RPT pilots, who just might thank you for your review of the situation.
You have a delightful sense of humour.
"Knife" - item for eating - item for killing people.
Fact - use of knives - lots of eating - small amount of killing people.
If we adopt your GPS / buzz bomb scenario we will forsake the use of all the positives of GPS because someone might misuse the technology. On the analogy, we may as well ban knives and go back to tearing at food with our hands (actually a little like the troglodyte return to caveman resistance to the positives of ADS-B when I analyse it).
Australian airspace will soon change to appreciate the marriage of new technology with safety. Those who believe otherwise obviously won't post on here - they are still using snail mail
Oh, I just remembered your concern at being compared to Walter Mitty and some amazing James Bond analogy you purported. This may help (ah, apology this is the commonly accepted version, not your flight of fiction):
Walter Mitty appears in the short story The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, written by humorist James Thurber and published in The New Yorker in 1939. Mitty is a meek and henpecked husband who daydreams of being a daring surgeon, heroic pilot and dashing naval commander. ("Throw on the power lights! Rev her up to 8500! We're going through!") Thurber's story was a mere 2100 words long, but the character struck a chord and "Walter Mitty" has become popular shorthand for any timid soul who dreams of a more dashing life. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty was made into a 1947 film with Danny Kaye as Mitty.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHRT,
You state,
'No, the automatic function of the MSAW, is exactly that, the automatic funtioning of the MSAW program, that will only require input from an ATCO if someone is about to die.
An IFR aircraft reporting visual to an ATCO at its destination may slightly increase an ATCO's, what will be the nett effect ?. '
Go back and read the posts about alarms and how often they go off.Posts 15,24,56,59,66 would be worth a re-read.
The nett effect at the moment with the RAM alarm, is that when pilots are told that control services are terminated they tend to get the mindset that seeing they are no longer 'tied' to an airways clearance that they don't need to advise ATC if they are changing their tracking.
Sectors along the J-curve have told me that they have up to 90% of aircraft OCTA positioning for approaches set off the RAM alert, with all the work involved in trying to raise the aircraft and ascertain their intentions.
Your comment, 'that will only require input from an ATCO if someone is about to die.' No it won't it , it will require immediate action if the alarm goes off.
As I have said, and said, if a pilot does not (forgets, or considers giving the flying their full attention due busy cockpit environment, don't forget 'Control services terminated' mindset)or cannot (frequency issues) report visual the alarm will go off because the machine hasn't been told there isn't a problem.
Do you have alarms that go off in your cockpit even when you know you don't have a problem? What mindset might this give you?
What does the C stand for in PIC, if flying an approach in IMC it is up to this individual to assess the priorities of cockpit workload, and when they are able to advise ATC when visual. Ater all they are now OCTA and not restricted to a clearance.
I appreciate that we come after Aviating and Navigating when the aircraft is OCTA. Your premise in regards to MSAW would work if we live in a perfect world, our experience here as ATCs shows otherwise.
As I said will be happy to do this, if given the resources.
You state,
'No, the automatic function of the MSAW, is exactly that, the automatic funtioning of the MSAW program, that will only require input from an ATCO if someone is about to die.
An IFR aircraft reporting visual to an ATCO at its destination may slightly increase an ATCO's, what will be the nett effect ?. '
Go back and read the posts about alarms and how often they go off.Posts 15,24,56,59,66 would be worth a re-read.
The nett effect at the moment with the RAM alarm, is that when pilots are told that control services are terminated they tend to get the mindset that seeing they are no longer 'tied' to an airways clearance that they don't need to advise ATC if they are changing their tracking.
Sectors along the J-curve have told me that they have up to 90% of aircraft OCTA positioning for approaches set off the RAM alert, with all the work involved in trying to raise the aircraft and ascertain their intentions.
Your comment, 'that will only require input from an ATCO if someone is about to die.' No it won't it , it will require immediate action if the alarm goes off.
As I have said, and said, if a pilot does not (forgets, or considers giving the flying their full attention due busy cockpit environment, don't forget 'Control services terminated' mindset)or cannot (frequency issues) report visual the alarm will go off because the machine hasn't been told there isn't a problem.
Do you have alarms that go off in your cockpit even when you know you don't have a problem? What mindset might this give you?
What does the C stand for in PIC, if flying an approach in IMC it is up to this individual to assess the priorities of cockpit workload, and when they are able to advise ATC when visual. Ater all they are now OCTA and not restricted to a clearance.
I appreciate that we come after Aviating and Navigating when the aircraft is OCTA. Your premise in regards to MSAW would work if we live in a perfect world, our experience here as ATCs shows otherwise.
As I said will be happy to do this, if given the resources.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning, Max.
Might be time to do some more myth busting. For two reasons:
1. Remove the myth that ASDS-B does not offer extended surveillance over the Australian continent, and,
2. Reinforce the staffing matter - given the extended ADS-B surveillance capability ATC will necessarily be getting more RAM and MSAW alerts.
Re the first, the cover of interest to us is the 10,000'. Those who wish to debate the 5,000' coverage can deduce smaller circles than shown and base the calculation on the VHF radio range figures for 5000' versus 10,000' (although in much of the area shown I have no desire to be at or below 5000' of an afternoon as I'm not a big rap for unnecessary turbulence).
In terms of SAFETY and - given the cross industry funding - AFFORDABLE safety, is there anyone who wishes to debate that the ADS-B coverage does not make them feel happier about ambulating outback?
So what we have if Dick's proposition is accepted is a massive increase in ATC availability enroute. Couple that with the JCP TSO 146 navigator subsidy for moving map and terrain, but most fundamentally - all ADS-B equipped aircraft with ADS-B IN or TCAS capability being able to see each other - and someone tell me there is no safety benefit
(PS good news the way things worked out in SY/IRC)
Might be time to do some more myth busting. For two reasons:
1. Remove the myth that ASDS-B does not offer extended surveillance over the Australian continent, and,
2. Reinforce the staffing matter - given the extended ADS-B surveillance capability ATC will necessarily be getting more RAM and MSAW alerts.
Re the first, the cover of interest to us is the 10,000'. Those who wish to debate the 5,000' coverage can deduce smaller circles than shown and base the calculation on the VHF radio range figures for 5000' versus 10,000' (although in much of the area shown I have no desire to be at or below 5000' of an afternoon as I'm not a big rap for unnecessary turbulence).
In terms of SAFETY and - given the cross industry funding - AFFORDABLE safety, is there anyone who wishes to debate that the ADS-B coverage does not make them feel happier about ambulating outback?
So what we have if Dick's proposition is accepted is a massive increase in ATC availability enroute. Couple that with the JCP TSO 146 navigator subsidy for moving map and terrain, but most fundamentally - all ADS-B equipped aircraft with ADS-B IN or TCAS capability being able to see each other - and someone tell me there is no safety benefit
(PS good news the way things worked out in SY/IRC)
Via james michael, we get -
Via - Walter Mitty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Use of the term as an insult, we get - ...Tom Kelly, a spokesman for British prime minister Tony Blair, publicly apologised for referring to David Kelly as "a Walter Mitty character"... David Kelly (weapons expert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
---------------------------------------------------------
james michael, I note in the U.S. there is a little bank problem. My reading of the background to it, is it was caused by greed. It looks to me as though many knew what would happen though just couldnt resist those short term profits and bonuses.
I'm wondering, after reading about the other ASA problems covered in pprun, if there isnt a bit of short term thinking happening with ADS-B ?
I note in Oz that we have security fenceing of regional airports, and ASICs - all aparently just in case Osama gets his hands on a little aircraft and flys off into the nearest building, or whatever. james michael, perhaps your "knife" scenario is valid in the ASIC/Fenceing situation.
As to unmaned GPS guided flying terror weapons that have been deliberatly designed for the job intended, I dont think the knife analogy stacks up.
Oh, I just remembered your concern at being compared to Walter Mitty and some amazing James Bond analogy you purported. This may help (ah, apology this is the commonly accepted version, not your flight of fiction):
---------------------------------------------------------
james michael, I note in the U.S. there is a little bank problem. My reading of the background to it, is it was caused by greed. It looks to me as though many knew what would happen though just couldnt resist those short term profits and bonuses.
I'm wondering, after reading about the other ASA problems covered in pprun, if there isnt a bit of short term thinking happening with ADS-B ?
Fact - use of knives - lots of eating - small amount of killing people.
As to unmaned GPS guided flying terror weapons that have been deliberatly designed for the job intended, I dont think the knife analogy stacks up.
Grandpa Aerotart
What is the ADS-B coverage at 6000'?
Just curious to see how many CFITs it might actually be in a position to influence. Let alone how many SAR efforts - you'd need coverage down to about 2000' to really influence that.
Just curious to see how many CFITs it might actually be in a position to influence. Let alone how many SAR efforts - you'd need coverage down to about 2000' to really influence that.
What is the ADS-B coverage at 6000'?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu
A good question and a good point.
SAR first - I think the claim in the JCP is ambitious because the 406 ELT/PLB is the first line of defence, not ADS-B.
However, where there is no ELT/PLB signal heard, there may be value in the last known track seen as far as possible on the TAAATS console record in narrowing the circle of uncertainty. Given the greater area of coverage of ADS-B there is more chance of some line being available.
6000' range second - don't have an answer because the pic you saw is what ASA provided and it only gives 5 and 10K.
However, let's go back to Mr Thom who cites <5000' radio horizon 60 Nm, 5000-10000 radio horizon 90 Nm. (The equation from the ARRL handbook, refraction excluded, is d (Nm) = SqRt 2h (h in feet).
Therefore if you reduce those darker blue circles to two-thirds of their size on the pic that would be your worst case scenario at 5000'.
I say worse case because every attempt is made to position antennae on high ground for the purpose of maximising range. Therefore, one expects a better range than above.
So, looking at the map I linked, there are unarguably holes (although not sure how many of those holes are 'well travelled') but the ADS-B coverage of your journey is far more reassuring than what now exists.
From memory there are also a discretionary 9-11 extra ADS-B tower locations still being negotiated - that increases it further.
CFIT = TSO 146 GPS with terrain. There was never any claim to my knowledge that ADS-B was the answer - some earlier writers are confusing the TOTAL JCP thrust with the ADS-B partner in the marriage.
As Max noted earlier, many PIC want to be in "C" (i.e. command) of their own destiny. FTDK being an extreme example requiring 4 alternators and batteries to power the command console. $15K toward ADS-B plus TSO 146 NAV is the most likely CFIT defence.
Bing
Not worth a response in its own right, however, delete Mitty, insert McCarthy. We cannot go through life diverting (threads included) from technology because of one-percent hypothetical risks (although I admit margarine is off my shopping list).
Edited to add - terrain shading depends on where the base station aerial is located - hint - ask someone how far up the East coast the Tassie WaMLAT is seeing.
A good question and a good point.
SAR first - I think the claim in the JCP is ambitious because the 406 ELT/PLB is the first line of defence, not ADS-B.
However, where there is no ELT/PLB signal heard, there may be value in the last known track seen as far as possible on the TAAATS console record in narrowing the circle of uncertainty. Given the greater area of coverage of ADS-B there is more chance of some line being available.
6000' range second - don't have an answer because the pic you saw is what ASA provided and it only gives 5 and 10K.
However, let's go back to Mr Thom who cites <5000' radio horizon 60 Nm, 5000-10000 radio horizon 90 Nm. (The equation from the ARRL handbook, refraction excluded, is d (Nm) = SqRt 2h (h in feet).
Therefore if you reduce those darker blue circles to two-thirds of their size on the pic that would be your worst case scenario at 5000'.
I say worse case because every attempt is made to position antennae on high ground for the purpose of maximising range. Therefore, one expects a better range than above.
So, looking at the map I linked, there are unarguably holes (although not sure how many of those holes are 'well travelled') but the ADS-B coverage of your journey is far more reassuring than what now exists.
From memory there are also a discretionary 9-11 extra ADS-B tower locations still being negotiated - that increases it further.
CFIT = TSO 146 GPS with terrain. There was never any claim to my knowledge that ADS-B was the answer - some earlier writers are confusing the TOTAL JCP thrust with the ADS-B partner in the marriage.
As Max noted earlier, many PIC want to be in "C" (i.e. command) of their own destiny. FTDK being an extreme example requiring 4 alternators and batteries to power the command console. $15K toward ADS-B plus TSO 146 NAV is the most likely CFIT defence.
Bing
Not worth a response in its own right, however, delete Mitty, insert McCarthy. We cannot go through life diverting (threads included) from technology because of one-percent hypothetical risks (although I admit margarine is off my shopping list).
Edited to add - terrain shading depends on where the base station aerial is located - hint - ask someone how far up the East coast the Tassie WaMLAT is seeing.
Last edited by james michael; 5th Oct 2008 at 04:28. Reason: Bing's post re terrain shading
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He doesn't want you to know what the coverage is at 6000ft. The maths are an "anal pluck"
Quote: "Re the first, the cover of interest to "us" is the 10,000'."
Who is this Royal "us"? Do we assume this is your canvassed majority of Day VFR owner pilot flights in Australia? Or just another sales speil? I guess this includes the 8,000 odd RA-Aus people who can't fly that high anyway.
The illustration, except for existing radar, shows nothing to do with flying below 10,000ft and as for CFIT, how many airports are at or above 10,000ft in Australia?
From memory, and I'm sure someone will argue this point, all aircraft must descend at some point in time to ground level which unfortunately leaves Oodnadatta out in the cold for this ADSB.
Quote: "Re the first, the cover of interest to "us" is the 10,000'."
Who is this Royal "us"? Do we assume this is your canvassed majority of Day VFR owner pilot flights in Australia? Or just another sales speil? I guess this includes the 8,000 odd RA-Aus people who can't fly that high anyway.
The illustration, except for existing radar, shows nothing to do with flying below 10,000ft and as for CFIT, how many airports are at or above 10,000ft in Australia?
From memory, and I'm sure someone will argue this point, all aircraft must descend at some point in time to ground level which unfortunately leaves Oodnadatta out in the cold for this ADSB.
Not worth a response in its own right, however, delete Mitty, insert McCarthy. We cannot go through life diverting (threads included) from technology because of one-percent hypothetical risks (although I admit margarine is off my shopping list).
Speaking of banks again - isnt the ASA long term goal to get rid off most non GPS nav-aids and put most of its eggs into GPS based nav, etc ? ...and I wonder if after a few years - all non GPS nav-aids will go, probably radar to ? ...it may-be like airport privatisations (not related to ASA), promises not kept.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 5th Oct 2008 at 05:07.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Bob, if you were a horse you certainly wouldn't have the luck of Weekend Hustler - it's more like foot in mouth outbreak
In order:
Happy to show the 5000' coverage because I found it in a non-JCP doc.
"Anal pluck" - I think that 'wreckedum' - I apologise for not being able to alter the factual and mathematical rules of radio propagation to support your theories
The Royal "Us" - conspiracy theory reigns supreme. The 10,000' circles were of interest to US - i.e. those reading this - because, Bob, the 30,000' ones were CERTAINLY not of interest to US.
Agree not many airports at or above 10,000'. Just as well, or you could drive. But, we do tend to AVIATE above airfield height (except when taking off or landing)
Oodnadatta out in the cold. Bob - none out of ten, go to the back of the class for not reading the homework. Oadnadatta, last I saw, gets dual ADS-B site.
Here's the 5000' chart - circles seem about what I estimated earlier - no? And I feel you will find they cover a large expanse of NON radar area.
Hint - you may need to relate the map to population centres, mobile phone coverage, etc.
In order:
Happy to show the 5000' coverage because I found it in a non-JCP doc.
"Anal pluck" - I think that 'wreckedum' - I apologise for not being able to alter the factual and mathematical rules of radio propagation to support your theories
The Royal "Us" - conspiracy theory reigns supreme. The 10,000' circles were of interest to US - i.e. those reading this - because, Bob, the 30,000' ones were CERTAINLY not of interest to US.
Agree not many airports at or above 10,000'. Just as well, or you could drive. But, we do tend to AVIATE above airfield height (except when taking off or landing)
Oodnadatta out in the cold. Bob - none out of ten, go to the back of the class for not reading the homework. Oadnadatta, last I saw, gets dual ADS-B site.
Here's the 5000' chart - circles seem about what I estimated earlier - no? And I feel you will find they cover a large expanse of NON radar area.
Hint - you may need to relate the map to population centres, mobile phone coverage, etc.
