Australian Airspace Discussion
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bing
Up the back of the class with Bob
Does no knocker read the JCP before entering this debate?
JCP:
Bing you wonder if
Have you considered that the airlines who pay around 99% of Airservices charges might have a say in retention of navaids for the very reason quoted in the JCP?
Radar too? Should there be one of your hypothetical GNSS disruptions (and perhaps for defence reasons) the JCP is about removing EN ROUTE radar and retaining it in primary areas.
While you and Bob read the JCP, I'll do some lawnmowing. This info today has been most valuable in demonstrating to readers just how far ADS-B covers beyond radar - almost a reminder of John Flynn and his "Mantle of Safety"
Up the back of the class with Bob
Does no knocker read the JCP before entering this debate?
JCP:
Ensuring that a ‘backup’ network of some 165 navaids remains. This backup network would provide a continuation of navigation services in the event of a GNSS failure. It has been designed to ensure that IFR operations can continue if GNSS is unavailable.
after a few years - all non GPS nav-aids will go, probably radar to ?
Radar too? Should there be one of your hypothetical GNSS disruptions (and perhaps for defence reasons) the JCP is about removing EN ROUTE radar and retaining it in primary areas.
While you and Bob read the JCP, I'll do some lawnmowing. This info today has been most valuable in demonstrating to readers just how far ADS-B covers beyond radar - almost a reminder of John Flynn and his "Mantle of Safety"
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADS-B is no silver bullet to Australia being so damn big.
Chimbu with a flight from say Mout Isa to Perth in a GA aircraft, distance of 1430 nm, you will presently be in RADAR for approx 90nm at 10,000ft, ~60 at 5,000ft (coming into Perth).
With ADS-B, perhaps half of that trip you will be within ADS-B/tracked by TAAATS at 5,000ft, ~700nm. ADS-B all the ways at 10,000ft !!!!!!.
Certainly this is a step forward ?.
Hi Max,
ATC currently only provides a FIS in Class G, no clearance required;
So wouldn't turning the RAM alarm off for IFR flights OCTA reduce your work load, why does ATC even care about RAM OCTA ?.
EG, If an IFR aircraft is to fly from say Perth to Esperance, when descended through FL180, it enters Class G airspace, ATC being the consumate professionals they are, pass traffic.
Q. If the aircraft then deviates off track to line up for an approach at ESP and descend to Grid LSALT or 25nm MSA (presently off track, so can not use Route LSALT), your RAM alarm goes off and you question the PIC, What has the PIC done wrong ?, you know because he/she set an alarm off in Class G airspace ?.
Q. Should this alarm be disabled when in OCTA or is this the first step in the 3 dimensional management of IFR aircraft OCTA (RAM plus MSAW) ?.
Chimbu with a flight from say Mout Isa to Perth in a GA aircraft, distance of 1430 nm, you will presently be in RADAR for approx 90nm at 10,000ft, ~60 at 5,000ft (coming into Perth).
With ADS-B, perhaps half of that trip you will be within ADS-B/tracked by TAAATS at 5,000ft, ~700nm. ADS-B all the ways at 10,000ft !!!!!!.
Certainly this is a step forward ?.
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.
ATC currently only provides a FIS in Class G, no clearance required;
So wouldn't turning the RAM alarm off for IFR flights OCTA reduce your work load, why does ATC even care about RAM OCTA ?.
EG, If an IFR aircraft is to fly from say Perth to Esperance, when descended through FL180, it enters Class G airspace, ATC being the consumate professionals they are, pass traffic.
Q. If the aircraft then deviates off track to line up for an approach at ESP and descend to Grid LSALT or 25nm MSA (presently off track, so can not use Route LSALT), your RAM alarm goes off and you question the PIC, What has the PIC done wrong ?, you know because he/she set an alarm off in Class G airspace ?.
Q. Should this alarm be disabled when in OCTA or is this the first step in the 3 dimensional management of IFR aircraft OCTA (RAM plus MSAW) ?.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 5th Oct 2008 at 06:48. Reason: more goodera spelling and bolding to display my pprunemanship
Bing
Up the back of the class with Bob
Does no knocker read the JCP before entering this debate?
Up the back of the class with Bob
Does no knocker read the JCP before entering this debate?
Please re-read my other posts, in this and other threads, james michael.
From what I've seen of ASAs track record re staff planning etc, I think my assesment will be borne out in time... plus, theres those pesky terrorists to worry about - thats the thing that you've mostly attacked me about james michael ...does something worry you there ?
As to ordering me to the back of the class.....do you think I would be in your 'class' ?..... Heck, I prefer to go to classes where I might learn something apart from double-speak and gobledy-goop
Folks,
We have now established at least four things:
(1) James Michael has no idea whether the alleged AUD $10,000 device that so carefully matched the "not yet agreed by the airlines who have to finally fund it proposed subsidy" has no idea whether the $10,000 device meets the published standards for an ATS-B.
If it's the same "draft" brochure I have ( a bit of "brochuremanship" here**), the answers are;
YES, when you buy the add-on GPS box from FreeFlight Inc., and;
NO.
(2) James Michael (and his alterego and mates plugging for the mandate) have no idea whether the subsidy will meet the cost of the mandate, or half the cost of the mandate, or 10%. In fact, they have no idea of the real world installed cost of minimum equipment to satisfy the mandate.
We do know approximately the cost in QF Dash 8s, about fifteen times (15) the proposed $25,000 Regional subsidy -- 'TIS all on the ASA web site (or was, last time I looked).
The best guesstimated price so far, from GARMIN (but the DO 260A certification is not complete) is about AUD$35,000 - $40,000 installed, with AUD$1=US$0.86
(3) James Michael has no understanding of the difference between the C-145 and C-146 GPS TSOs.
(4) James Michael is a serial obfuscater, YES and NO are insurmountable obstacles.
I love this bit about me being an "ADS-B naysayer", as I was involved in the development and demonstration of a locally developed (the Au first? we think so) ADS-B "technology demonstrator", both ADS-B IN and OUT, and including a analogue panel display of proximate traffic, more than 10 years ago.
That bit is actually quite easy, as we proved!
It's the cost of meeting the required TSOs, GPS wise, and more particularly the DO 260A transponder requirement, all for a very small market ( and even the US market for UAT based equipment is small, compared to production runs big enough to get any real economies of scale) that make the end product VERY expensive.
James, old chap, YOU KNOW exactly what I oppose, and that is the imposition by mandate of a system that, by every competent and fair analysis, has no COST/BENEFIT justified advantage for most of GA, and precious little for Regional airlines. Indeed, very little, if any, demonstrated benefit at all, beyond a useful datalink. A $100M-$200M subsidy, ultimately paid by the (major) airline traveling public (reduced ASA charges) or the public at large ( reduced ASA dividend) --- this is economic waste, and the aviation sector and the country cannot afford to waste money, and certainly not on this grand scale.
In the future, ADS-B will be a very useful tool for ATC, where traffic density warrants radar/radar like services --- and that is what FAA/Eurocontrol are planning to use it for ---- not trying to justify it by claiming all sorts of almost mythical benefits.
ADS-B is NOT a substitute for ACAS/TCAS II or GPWS ---- just a very useful datalink ---- but in the Transponder Mode S implementation a very limited datalink.
Very limited, because of the very, very limited bandwidth, compared with UAT or VDL-4. And, as it has transpired in the real world, a very expensive datalink --- quite embarrassingly the opposite to the claims of the original promoters of "1090ES" as the "cheap and easy way" ---
Particularly for "promoters" who didn't hold the patent rights underlaying either UAT (CDMA) or VDL (TDMA), and for broke airlines that swallowed the "cheap and easy" bait.
Remember the ASA presentations --- just a wire and a 1.44 floppy - "TIS" all "airlines" would required, said they. You do remember what a 1.44 floppy is, things that came before CDs, that came before DVDs. Seeing that most FMCS run on Motorola 68000 series CPU, I guess that the 1.44 is "appropriate contemporary technology".
Sadly, another small part of the reason why "1090ES" was such a dumb idea, and ICAO had it right in the first place, airlines in the future are going to need a broadband transceiver for multiple uses --- Let's call it a Universal Access Transceiver, or UAT for short --- and VDL does the same job, but no catchy name.
See the FAA/Eurocontrol timetable (mandate) to require (almost) all routine ATC communications to be transferred from voice to datalink. So, the poor sodding broke airliner sector is going to wind up carrying the initial and ongoing expense of both UAT/VDL and of 1090ES. Smart, or what ??
Should I regard my copy of that ASA presentation as a collectors item, or evidence for the Senate inquiry.
Remember that the $$$$many tens of millions ---- nice big impressive numbers, serious Ooooh!! Aaaah! factor numbers --- of savings claimed by ASA --- actually translated to something like 3% on the bottom line. An insignificant amount in the big picture, and that was the estimate ---- anybody want to wager that any real savings to ASA would have been realized, at all. All these numbers are in public documents.
Remember --- the claimed cost of maintaining/replacing the remote SSR heads is also hotly disputed, a core cost saving factor in the JCP, with local cost claims some ten times the demonstrated NZ replacement costs of identical SSR heads.
Even all the much touted "four dimensional" approaches, and other time/cost saving for the big end of town, RNP etc, are NOT dependent on ADS-B --- that can and is being done now!
As soon as massive subsidies are involved, it is axiomatic that there is NO BUSINESS CASE, (and that includes the cost of accidents and incidents ) for the imposition on GA.
As we have seen, time and again, with GRAS just the latest example, we have never been short of boffins, who may have great pet ideas, technologically, demanding subsidies for their pet ideas ---- because there is no business case for them to stand on their own two feet.
Don't anybody forget --- The first CASA ADS-B "cost/benefit" study showed all sorts of cost/benefit justified benefits for airlines, and NONE for GA, so the CASA airspace people's (not CASA senior management, I hasten to add) attitude was --- CASA priority is the paying passenger, so GA will just have to lump it.
Then the seriously gross errors in the CASA calculations were pointed out, and, low and behold, the airline benefits evaporated.
Surprise, surprise, CASA cost/benefit study Mk.II suddenly finds all sorts of "GA safety benefits" ---- is this double incompetence that these were not discovered in the first place, or "creative" thinking to justify the unjustifiable ??
Very much the latter. The conduct of these studies, by (now) former CASA employees, was a travesty of how a cost/benefit study should be conducted.
The fact remains: For the bulk of GA and Sports and Recreational Aviation, ADS-B is a technological answer looking for a problem.
However --- Widespread adoption of C-145/146 based GPS devices --- with terrain warnings, virtual terrain displays and all sorts of other possible add-ons ( and making the cost savings of obsolete and/or remote navaid removal possible) are all proceeding apace --- without subsidy.
The really sad thing is that -- ASA kiboshing WAAS --- in the vain hope that would make the now aborted GRAS attractive ---- has robbed us of the ability to have CAT 1 precision approaches nationwide, almost anywhere you wanted to do an adequate obstacle survey, and precision vertical guidance (boffin-speak for a glideslope) for any approach.
With due recognition of Norman Lindsay; "ADS-B ain't no Magic Pudding" --- And that goes double for what is left of the GA pudding.
Tootle pip!!
** With aplogies to Rollo Freelunch, Head of PR for Sir Charles Boost, late of Straight and Level, c/- Flight International.
PS: James the Oracle, pray tell how the (if and when it ever happens) ADS-B coverage down to 10,000ft helps the majority of the Australian fleet, the ones the target of the mandate, which are unpressurized, with very few even oxygen equipped to operate above 10,000.
Why didn't you put up the diagram for 5000'coverage?? Perhaps because it would illustrate how unlikely it was that ADS-B coverage in the GA altitudes would ever eventuate, except as might be incidental to a mast sighted for high level coverage ??
I suppose you do know that ASA have given no undertaking to provide any low level service, just because "it's there". Indeed, quite the opposite, unless you are a "client", ie; they can send you the invoice.
We have now established at least four things:
(1) James Michael has no idea whether the alleged AUD $10,000 device that so carefully matched the "not yet agreed by the airlines who have to finally fund it proposed subsidy" has no idea whether the $10,000 device meets the published standards for an ATS-B.
If it's the same "draft" brochure I have ( a bit of "brochuremanship" here**), the answers are;
YES, when you buy the add-on GPS box from FreeFlight Inc., and;
NO.
(2) James Michael (and his alterego and mates plugging for the mandate) have no idea whether the subsidy will meet the cost of the mandate, or half the cost of the mandate, or 10%. In fact, they have no idea of the real world installed cost of minimum equipment to satisfy the mandate.
We do know approximately the cost in QF Dash 8s, about fifteen times (15) the proposed $25,000 Regional subsidy -- 'TIS all on the ASA web site (or was, last time I looked).
The best guesstimated price so far, from GARMIN (but the DO 260A certification is not complete) is about AUD$35,000 - $40,000 installed, with AUD$1=US$0.86
(3) James Michael has no understanding of the difference between the C-145 and C-146 GPS TSOs.
(4) James Michael is a serial obfuscater, YES and NO are insurmountable obstacles.
I love this bit about me being an "ADS-B naysayer", as I was involved in the development and demonstration of a locally developed (the Au first? we think so) ADS-B "technology demonstrator", both ADS-B IN and OUT, and including a analogue panel display of proximate traffic, more than 10 years ago.
That bit is actually quite easy, as we proved!
It's the cost of meeting the required TSOs, GPS wise, and more particularly the DO 260A transponder requirement, all for a very small market ( and even the US market for UAT based equipment is small, compared to production runs big enough to get any real economies of scale) that make the end product VERY expensive.
James, old chap, YOU KNOW exactly what I oppose, and that is the imposition by mandate of a system that, by every competent and fair analysis, has no COST/BENEFIT justified advantage for most of GA, and precious little for Regional airlines. Indeed, very little, if any, demonstrated benefit at all, beyond a useful datalink. A $100M-$200M subsidy, ultimately paid by the (major) airline traveling public (reduced ASA charges) or the public at large ( reduced ASA dividend) --- this is economic waste, and the aviation sector and the country cannot afford to waste money, and certainly not on this grand scale.
In the future, ADS-B will be a very useful tool for ATC, where traffic density warrants radar/radar like services --- and that is what FAA/Eurocontrol are planning to use it for ---- not trying to justify it by claiming all sorts of almost mythical benefits.
ADS-B is NOT a substitute for ACAS/TCAS II or GPWS ---- just a very useful datalink ---- but in the Transponder Mode S implementation a very limited datalink.
Very limited, because of the very, very limited bandwidth, compared with UAT or VDL-4. And, as it has transpired in the real world, a very expensive datalink --- quite embarrassingly the opposite to the claims of the original promoters of "1090ES" as the "cheap and easy way" ---
Particularly for "promoters" who didn't hold the patent rights underlaying either UAT (CDMA) or VDL (TDMA), and for broke airlines that swallowed the "cheap and easy" bait.
Remember the ASA presentations --- just a wire and a 1.44 floppy - "TIS" all "airlines" would required, said they. You do remember what a 1.44 floppy is, things that came before CDs, that came before DVDs. Seeing that most FMCS run on Motorola 68000 series CPU, I guess that the 1.44 is "appropriate contemporary technology".
Sadly, another small part of the reason why "1090ES" was such a dumb idea, and ICAO had it right in the first place, airlines in the future are going to need a broadband transceiver for multiple uses --- Let's call it a Universal Access Transceiver, or UAT for short --- and VDL does the same job, but no catchy name.
See the FAA/Eurocontrol timetable (mandate) to require (almost) all routine ATC communications to be transferred from voice to datalink. So, the poor sodding broke airliner sector is going to wind up carrying the initial and ongoing expense of both UAT/VDL and of 1090ES. Smart, or what ??
Should I regard my copy of that ASA presentation as a collectors item, or evidence for the Senate inquiry.
Remember that the $$$$many tens of millions ---- nice big impressive numbers, serious Ooooh!! Aaaah! factor numbers --- of savings claimed by ASA --- actually translated to something like 3% on the bottom line. An insignificant amount in the big picture, and that was the estimate ---- anybody want to wager that any real savings to ASA would have been realized, at all. All these numbers are in public documents.
Remember --- the claimed cost of maintaining/replacing the remote SSR heads is also hotly disputed, a core cost saving factor in the JCP, with local cost claims some ten times the demonstrated NZ replacement costs of identical SSR heads.
Even all the much touted "four dimensional" approaches, and other time/cost saving for the big end of town, RNP etc, are NOT dependent on ADS-B --- that can and is being done now!
As soon as massive subsidies are involved, it is axiomatic that there is NO BUSINESS CASE, (and that includes the cost of accidents and incidents ) for the imposition on GA.
As we have seen, time and again, with GRAS just the latest example, we have never been short of boffins, who may have great pet ideas, technologically, demanding subsidies for their pet ideas ---- because there is no business case for them to stand on their own two feet.
Don't anybody forget --- The first CASA ADS-B "cost/benefit" study showed all sorts of cost/benefit justified benefits for airlines, and NONE for GA, so the CASA airspace people's (not CASA senior management, I hasten to add) attitude was --- CASA priority is the paying passenger, so GA will just have to lump it.
Then the seriously gross errors in the CASA calculations were pointed out, and, low and behold, the airline benefits evaporated.
Surprise, surprise, CASA cost/benefit study Mk.II suddenly finds all sorts of "GA safety benefits" ---- is this double incompetence that these were not discovered in the first place, or "creative" thinking to justify the unjustifiable ??
Very much the latter. The conduct of these studies, by (now) former CASA employees, was a travesty of how a cost/benefit study should be conducted.
The fact remains: For the bulk of GA and Sports and Recreational Aviation, ADS-B is a technological answer looking for a problem.
However --- Widespread adoption of C-145/146 based GPS devices --- with terrain warnings, virtual terrain displays and all sorts of other possible add-ons ( and making the cost savings of obsolete and/or remote navaid removal possible) are all proceeding apace --- without subsidy.
The really sad thing is that -- ASA kiboshing WAAS --- in the vain hope that would make the now aborted GRAS attractive ---- has robbed us of the ability to have CAT 1 precision approaches nationwide, almost anywhere you wanted to do an adequate obstacle survey, and precision vertical guidance (boffin-speak for a glideslope) for any approach.
With due recognition of Norman Lindsay; "ADS-B ain't no Magic Pudding" --- And that goes double for what is left of the GA pudding.
Tootle pip!!
** With aplogies to Rollo Freelunch, Head of PR for Sir Charles Boost, late of Straight and Level, c/- Flight International.
PS: James the Oracle, pray tell how the (if and when it ever happens) ADS-B coverage down to 10,000ft helps the majority of the Australian fleet, the ones the target of the mandate, which are unpressurized, with very few even oxygen equipped to operate above 10,000.
Why didn't you put up the diagram for 5000'coverage?? Perhaps because it would illustrate how unlikely it was that ADS-B coverage in the GA altitudes would ever eventuate, except as might be incidental to a mast sighted for high level coverage ??
I suppose you do know that ASA have given no undertaking to provide any low level service, just because "it's there". Indeed, quite the opposite, unless you are a "client", ie; they can send you the invoice.
Last edited by LeadSled; 5th Oct 2008 at 06:05.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaddy
I think you join the other two at the back.
Not going to spend the time going through your bit by bit - but let's examine the start and finish of your post as samples.
(start of your post):
Sadly it ain't, and the rest of your argument goes down the gurgler with it.
(end of your post):
Your post was at 16:38. Perhaps check mine at 16:00 
Checking under the bonnet we find
If ADS-B IN is provided FOC, that argument joins the rest. Then you might note the LHR post re coverage from The Isa to Pth as but one minor example.
Then the end - and what a statement
Now Leaddy, I do/have used numerous ASA services and while VFR have not received an invoice - should I write and tell them? Flight following, flightwatch. nav, position, speed advisory, being tracked across water with a faulty txpdr, Bass Strait crossings - not a cent.
They don't have to give an undertaking to provide a low level service - it's purely an extension of the great services they provide TODAY (and that Dick desires extended even further).
Established four things - in your dreams. Go have a beer and watch for ADS-B (coming to an airspace near you)
I think you join the other two at the back.
Not going to spend the time going through your bit by bit - but let's examine the start and finish of your post as samples.
(start of your post):
If it's the same "draft" brochure I have ( a bit of "brochuremanship" here**), the answers are;
YES, when you buy the add-on GPS box from FreeFlight Inc., and;
NO.
YES, when you buy the add-on GPS box from FreeFlight Inc., and;
NO.
(end of your post):
Why didn't you put up the diagram for 5000'coverage?? Perhaps because it would illustrate how unlikely it was that ADS-B coverage in the GA altitudes would ever eventuate, except as might be incidental to a mast sighted for high level coverage ??
Checking under the bonnet we find
no COST/BENEFIT justified advantage for most of GA, and precious little for Regional airlines
Then the end - and what a statement
I suppose you do know that ASA have given no undertaking to provide any low level service, just because "it's there". Indeed, quite the opposite, unless you are a "client", ie; they can send you the invoice.
They don't have to give an undertaking to provide a low level service - it's purely an extension of the great services they provide TODAY (and that Dick desires extended even further).
Established four things - in your dreams. Go have a beer and watch for ADS-B (coming to an airspace near you
)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-ABC: Flight watch, ummm, errrrrrr, ABC VFR C172, we are uncertain of our position.
Flight watch: squark 1234 and climb to 10,000ft,,,
4 minutes later,,,
Flight Watch: Jack ass is identified, you are overhead Burketown, look out the lefthand side windows (I just love lefthanded storys
).
Better than the present set up.
Just wanted to make the page even wider, since you guys put all those ADS-B coverage maps in.
Flight watch: squark 1234 and climb to 10,000ft,,,
4 minutes later,,,
Flight Watch: Jack ass is identified, you are overhead Burketown, look out the lefthand side windows (I just love lefthanded storys
).Better than the present set up.
Just wanted to make the page even wider, since you guys put all those ADS-B coverage maps in.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 5th Oct 2008 at 11:40.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
Sorry about the maps - but a pic beats a thousand hypotheses
Here's two links - not Regionals but similar issues often in worse conditions:
Australia's flying doctors prescribe ADS-B
and
http://www.astra.aero/downloads/ABIT...DS-B_BRIEF.ppt (from someone who, like Leaddy, has been involved in early days of ADS-B)
Sorry about the maps - but a pic beats a thousand hypotheses
Here's two links - not Regionals but similar issues often in worse conditions:
Australia's flying doctors prescribe ADS-B
and
http://www.astra.aero/downloads/ABIT...DS-B_BRIEF.ppt (from someone who, like Leaddy, has been involved in early days of ADS-B)
Leaddy
I think you join the other two at the back.
Not going to spend the time going through your bit by bit - but let's examine the start and finish of your post as samples
I think you join the other two at the back.
Not going to spend the time going through your bit by bit - but let's examine the start and finish of your post as samples
via post number 40 http://www.pprune.org/d-g-reporting-...a-ads-b-2.html
...So if Leady is credible - and I have a high regard for much of his research...
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 5th Oct 2008 at 07:25. Reason: add a bit
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi JM,
Have been a very small cog in that very big well run machine you speak of for about six months, the ADS-B is fantastic, especially when tied in with TCAS, MFD, TSO GPS etc etc.
With the new ADS stations on and coming on over the next couple of weeks, it is a fantastic support tool (save ATCO's work, less position reporting, lets be honest ASA is not going to cough up for equivalent RADAR coverage).
Unfortunately, as per usual, many operators that can afford these safety tools have not been proactive in their acceptance.
Like GPWS, I guess CASA will soon enough see the Safety benefits, as its all about Safety, and mandate these new tools for commercial operators, I look forward to this day.
Have been a very small cog in that very big well run machine you speak of for about six months, the ADS-B is fantastic, especially when tied in with TCAS, MFD, TSO GPS etc etc.
With the new ADS stations on and coming on over the next couple of weeks, it is a fantastic support tool (save ATCO's work, less position reporting, lets be honest ASA is not going to cough up for equivalent RADAR coverage).
Unfortunately, as per usual, many operators that can afford these safety tools have not been proactive in their acceptance.
Like GPWS, I guess CASA will soon enough see the Safety benefits, as its all about Safety, and mandate these new tools for commercial operators, I look forward to this day.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 5th Oct 2008 at 07:39.
FB,
Well clearly I am not the bright, how about you explain it for, please use small words
Well clearly I am not the bright, how about you explain it for, please use small words
Perhaps start with "many operators that can afford these safety tools have not been proactive in their acceptance" ...sorry I copied your post, I caint writ long words
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Queensland
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
Your right about the page width, pain in the a*rse. Why not just post a link and not inconvenience anyone who mght have had a small amount of interest but now not prepared to scroll to follow some of the cr*p being spruiked. Isn't Pprunes better if "User Friendly". And No that is not5 a "motherhood" statement
Frothy
Your right about the page width, pain in the a*rse. Why not just post a link and not inconvenience anyone who mght have had a small amount of interest but now not prepared to scroll to follow some of the cr*p being spruiked. Isn't Pprunes better if "User Friendly". And No that is not5 a "motherhood" statement
Frothy
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many operators cried poor when CASA mandated GPWS/EGPWS, the outcry in the newspapers etc etc, or the Cessna SID ( although I feel that was very very very very poorly executed).
In the case of GPWS, I believe there is sufficient statistics to prove it was a good move for Safety, a big thumbs down for the popularity vote.
If operators can't afford to be in the Aviation Industry, how can they afford to be in the Aviation Industry ?, if you catch my drift.
In the case of GPWS, I believe there is sufficient statistics to prove it was a good move for Safety, a big thumbs down for the popularity vote.
If operators can't afford to be in the Aviation Industry, how can they afford to be in the Aviation Industry ?, if you catch my drift.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
Every cog in that org is vital and it is nice to know that the people who fly to provide the mantle of safety are getting their own mantle of safety via ADS-B.
Steve Lansell, with whom I have dealt, has done a great job in achieving the RFDS ADS-B cover in WA.
In theory early identification via ADS-B should also make it a smoother clearance into the CTA. I know RFDS were having more than enough trouble getting cleared across to Jandakot some time ago unless Med1.
Since this thread is about 'airspace' apply some thought to the current alphabet soup and what can ensue under ADS-B. Are Classes A to G here for the long haul?
Bing
You are vexatious. I said, as you well quoted
Much does not equal all. Try "Mindwatching" by the Eysencks and you will find "the phenomenon of experimenter bias has been demonstrated many times ......"
Leaddy has a bias and what I see rose coloured he sees as everyone being captured in the system, everyone being big brothered, and everyone having to fit a B747 panel to squit ADS-B. I admit to my own bias about the pros of ADS-B. Guilty, yer 'onner.
Leaddy
Did you say ASA had kyboshed WAAS? I know they have kyboshed GRAS. More info (as I value much of your research, sorry Bing)
Every cog in that org is vital and it is nice to know that the people who fly to provide the mantle of safety are getting their own mantle of safety via ADS-B.
Steve Lansell, with whom I have dealt, has done a great job in achieving the RFDS ADS-B cover in WA.
In theory early identification via ADS-B should also make it a smoother clearance into the CTA. I know RFDS were having more than enough trouble getting cleared across to Jandakot some time ago unless Med1.
Since this thread is about 'airspace' apply some thought to the current alphabet soup and what can ensue under ADS-B. Are Classes A to G here for the long haul?
Bing
You are vexatious. I said, as you well quoted
I have a high regard for much of his research...
Leaddy has a bias and what I see rose coloured he sees as everyone being captured in the system, everyone being big brothered, and everyone having to fit a B747 panel to squit ADS-B. I admit to my own bias about the pros of ADS-B. Guilty, yer 'onner.
Leaddy
Did you say ASA had kyboshed WAAS? I know they have kyboshed GRAS. More info (as I value much of your research, sorry Bing
)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frothy
As one who has not had much experience until today in inserting pix, I thought it was easier for the reader to put the pic in than the link - not getting any page problems this end.
More info - is it better I just post the link? Be nice please.
LHR
CASA withdrew the Cessna 300 SID for private ops - absolutely agree it was NOT well handled but the return to FAA/manufacturer guidelines for private ops does indicate CASA are listening (praise where due).
As one who has not had much experience until today in inserting pix, I thought it was easier for the reader to put the pic in than the link - not getting any page problems this end.
More info - is it better I just post the link? Be nice please.
LHR
CASA withdrew the Cessna 300 SID for private ops - absolutely agree it was NOT well handled but the return to FAA/manufacturer guidelines for private ops does indicate CASA are listening (praise where due).
Hmmm, I wonder if this relates to our little Oz airspace discusion -
Currently there is a big push in the US for "user fees" The Government wants to charge a $25 per flight user fee. This is being strongly resisted by the GA people and is currently held up in Congress and the Senate, but not defeated. President Bush has threatened a veto if some form of user fee on GA is not passed. With ADSB that can't be turned off their Airservices people will be able to not only charge a per flight fee but also a charge per mile fee
Extract via - you'll have to type it - ragandtubeaviator.blog and spot (one word) .com
Currently there is a big push in the US for "user fees" The Government wants to charge a $25 per flight user fee. This is being strongly resisted by the GA people and is currently held up in Congress and the Senate, but not defeated. President Bush has threatened a veto if some form of user fee on GA is not passed. With ADSB that can't be turned off their Airservices people will be able to not only charge a per flight fee but also a charge per mile fee
Extract via - you'll have to type it - ragandtubeaviator.blog and spot (one word) .com
An observation about these debates ... and I don't point at anyone in particular ...
On the surface, there appears to be a lot of double standardeers poking their heads up in these pages
- When it comes to providing a terrain collision warning service ... we are told to "bring it on" ... "don't worry about the cost" ... "we'll pay for it".
- However, when it comes to implementing ADS-B ... the proponents won't be taken seriously unless they can identify every cent to be spent, provide a copy of the chip board code and table survey charts detailing coverage at Argadagada
On the surface, there appears to be a lot of double standardeers poking their heads up in these pages
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has degenerated into a pissing contest, he said, she said, blah blah blah. Can anyone please add somethng constructive. (Note. I realise this its self isnt constructive).