Australian Airspace Discussion

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled, you are supposedly reknowned for your enclopaedic memory. Your arguments were shot down early last year on one of Scurvy's threads.

UAT was invented BEFORE ADS-B

TSO145 chipsets ARE available

Mode A,C,S 1090ES DO260A transponders are avilable right now. EU2600 and fit in the same hole as the KT76. Complete with that cable

not yet agreed by the airlines who have to finally fund it proposed subsidy

The Q and DJ have already signed off on ADS-B. In fact they urge DoTaRS to get out of the way and let it happen!

ADS-B and WAMLat is a very potent tool.

You say,Do you want AirServices watching your every move? I say, YES!
Not for my own direction, but for my position and intentions be known to pass on as KNOWN traffic to the people that PAY for the service. RPT and IFR.

And finally, does Aus GA need a unique broadband service? Who is going to pay for the bandwidth? What are you going to download? METRAD has a huge hole around Cobar that needs filling so pretty useless for anyone outside the J-Curve. Do you really need realtime MET and NOTAM services? I can already get that with my laptop tabletPC and a broadband connection right now. Just need to be near a mobile network.

[Flying Binghi]

Your arguments were shot down early last year on one of Scurvy's threads.

Ah, yes, OZBUSDRIVER - I have given you and Scurvy a hint via PM - care to play ?

[max1]

LHRT,

You state

'So wouldn't turning the RAM alarm off for IFR flights OCTA reduce your work load, why does ATC even care about RAM OCTA ?.

I thought the whole premise to Dicks argument, and by default yours, was that if we have the radar coverage AND the ability to alert pilots that this is what we should be doing. Whether it is CTA or OCTA. Dick, goes on to state that he would like to see a FS type function WITH Radar.

I thought you were talking about a duty of care scenario?

From the first page.

One of the reasons NAS was high on the agenda is that we do not use the radar properly in the enroute airspace below 8,500 feet. I could see lives were going to be lost. Already six lives have been lost at Benalla and I would imagine we will end up with an airline accident with possibly 100 plus deaths at a place like Proserpine. Remember we still have the old flight service non radar procedures below 8,500 feet even where we have good radar coverage Dick.

If you are flying on an IFR flight plan in this area (radar coverage) be it any class of airspace, say "G" (OCTA), and you descend below the LSALT, MSA or MVA, wouldn't it be great if the RADAR system recognised you were below this safe altitude, alerted the Flight Watch, Centre operator that your were doing so.LHRT

A reason we may care about RAM, might have to do with an ability to give unverified traffic OCTA i.e. a FIS .
e.g. aircraft has control services terminated. RAM alert inhibits on leaving CTA, aircraft deviates from planned track, aircraft cleans up other traffic that previously wasn't an issue.

LHRT what you are trying to achieve will enhance safety, but at a financial cost. As ATCs have been saying from the outset, happy to provide this additional service if resourced for it.

We signed on for this, but I hope you can empathise with what an ATC feels when involved in something like Benalla. Its not till you see up-close and personal the anguish that people feel even if the incident didn't involve a loss of life. Not sooking, but if this is not resourced PROPERLY, we will still have these incidents. For a pilot it would be like getting behind in the Approach , not in front of it, and still be required to carry out the landing, we wouldn't have the Go-Around option.

[TrenShadow]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

The aircraft in the Benalla accident was actually coming from Ulladulla, and clearly the lowest safe altitude for that route was over 7,000 feet.

Dick, LHRT,

It's been a week and lots of ADSB techo discussion has since passed, but I wanted to revisit this point.

At what point should TAAATS go DING with a MSAW alert for an aircraft on RADAR?

Firstly, as previously advised, the a/c must be on RADAR, as ADSB is not QNH corrected and the level readout is plain WRONG at altitudes (except for the trivial case where local QNH happens to equal 1013). The machine must then allow for MODE-C tolerance of 200'. So before we even start working out what the "lowest safe altitude" is for the aircraft's present position, TAAATS should NOT DING until the a/c is 300' below whatever we come up with.

Dick, as you rightly point out, the GRID LSALT coming from UDA to BLA is over 7000'. To be precise, from abeam CRG to abeam AY, it's 7900, then 7100 to BLA. However, it would be simplistic for TAAATS to just look at grid LSALTS, as many spurious alerts would be generated for aircraft legally flying in IMC below those levels within those grids.

How you ask - they could be established on the AY-CRG track with a track LSALT of 5700. Or airworking within 25NM CRG, remaining wholly in the western quadrant with a MSA of 6200. etc etc.

I have drawn up a diagram showing a DCT track from UDA to BLA (in red), overlayed with various circles. As you can see, the route remains wholly contained within the overlap of BLA/WGT/AY/CRG MSA circles.

Adding some numbers.
The AY 25NM MSA to the south is 5400'
WGT 25NM to the east is 6300', 10NM is 3000'
BLA 25NM is 3000' to the north, 5000' to the south and 3500' within 10NM

So, from the time the track enters the 25NM AY ring, 5400' is a justifiable LSALT until it leaves the AY ring at approx 40NM BLA. The next 10NM or so until it enters the 10NM ring from WGT, the best MSA is 6300'. After that, you have 3000' within 10NM WGT followed by 3500' within 10NM BLA.

Thus far, the machine SHOULD NOT DING unless a radar paint is at 5100' within 25 AY, or 6000' for the 10NM only covered by 25 WGT, or a miserly 3200' (well below radar coverage) once west of 10NM WGT.

Not finshed yet though... The dumb computer must also take into account published route LSALTS. "But he's not on one" I hear you saying. True. However, for the approx 10NM the track is ONLY covered by the WGT 25NM MSA (6300'), it IS within the procedural tolerances of either/or of the AY-ELW and AY-SBG tracks (6.9 degree NDB splay from AY and tracks are 12 degrees apart). So, this section covered only by WGT 25 MSA can be further reduced to 5300' worst case being the AY-ELW track (both these tracks highlighted in blue).

In summary, the dumb computer, assuming knowledge of grid, route, and MSA LSALTS would have NO cause to go DING on any aircraft indicating a MODE C level of 5100' or above.

[welcome_stranger]

Also note the lowest on the W465 to the SW of WGT (which almost goes over BLA) is 4000 and the system would have the flight on that track on tolerances.

So from ABM WGT (4000) to BLA the system wouldnt ding until the acft was below 3700. Meanwhile ML TWR has just issued a RWY change and the controller has 4 holding at ELW to allow approach time to resequence everyone else.

Ding what ding???

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Tren,

Haven't we already looked at this, Page 7, post 126 or there abouts ?, nice picture by the way.

Did not we agree that sometime shortly after 1042am and before the sudden stop, the aircraft did breach the protected areas ?.

So what is your point ?, IF in RADAR coverage this aircraft would have made TAAATS MSAW go "BING' at some stage, it might have saved the day.

Perhaps you could also transpose the actual track of the aircraft as per the ATSB report and zoom in on the last 5 minute of flight ?.

I thought the whole premise to Dicks argument, and by default yours

Come one Max, I know you're smarter than that.

I'm sick of this round about, if you've read the JCP you'll know that MSAW OCTA and ADS-B are going to happen, bye bye.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Trenshadow, Excellent post

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

The point is, and this has been made over and over and over again, is that the damn thing wont go 'ding' if there is no surveilance at the levels it's meant to go 'ding' at

Owen, without trying to sound condescending, DERRRRR !!!!, Never has it been suggested that ATC mysteriously find more RADAR coverage, use what they've got.

If you believe the current RADAR coverage combined with MSAW protection would not have saved the day at Benalla, so be it.

Then comes the ADS-B nay saying, ADS-B will be sending PH (pressure height) data (i.e 1013 mb / 29.92"), whilst this is not on area QNH, neither is Mode C on the SSR, Mode C is also of the same type, if not the exact same PH encoder, do you guys really understand that little about what goes on ?, from my understanding TAAATS then levels all the data with the Area QNH's.

FYI
"You may ask, "how about the altitude reporting part?" Well, the first thing to remember is the Mode C is always referenced to pressure altitude which is 29.92" barometric pressure. The important thing to remember is that you should have your altimeter baro-scale set at the pressure the controller has given you. Now you say, "if my altimeter is set at let's say 30.23" and Mode C is putting out at 29.92 there will be an error on the controllers screen! The controller's computer will take the Mod "C" output based on 29.92" and convert it to barometric pressure at your present position." taken from Transponders for Dummys

So no, it is not connected to the back of ones altimeter.

So ADS-B should work just fine for MSAW.

The point is Dick there is no point implementing an airspace system if you haven't got the surveilance to provide it.

And that I believe is the main reason NAS made such a big splat with its fall from grace.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

I dunno, probably cry in the privacy of my own home

Does someone need a pprune hug ?.

Since the day of the BLA accident Dick has blamed the ATC'S involved for the loss of life.

I do not, the ATC guys and gals do a stirling job, they have a hugely difficult job and deserve the same level of support that I get in my little aeroplane, GPWS (MSAW), TSO GPS (RAM), TCAS (STCA), moving map and airspace warnings (DAI) etc etc, it just scare me to think about going back to flying an aircraft without all those levels of protection.

All I'm trying to point out to our airspace crusader is what he is suggesting WILL NOT WORK with the current surveilance.

No argument from me. I feel it a shame that a man with such power and passion could not be used more contructively, for a man that in my opinion is clearly very very intellegent to keep coming back to the same spot in space and time is disappointing.

Re: the ADS-B info, was not directed at you.

[TrenShadow]

Originally Posted by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

Haven't we already looked at this, Page 7, post 126 or there abouts ?, nice picture by the way.

Yes. and thanks

Originally Posted by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

Did not we agree that sometime shortly after 1042am and before the sudden stop, the aircraft did breach the protected areas ?.

Nope... The ATSB report's lowest observed radar altitude is 5100'. I have shown how 5100' could be considered VALID and SAFE by our lovely French piece of engineering.

Originally Posted by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

So what is your point ?, IF in RADAR coverage this aircraft would have made TAAATS MSAW go "BING' at some stage, it might have saved the day.

My point is that exactly the radar coverage that was present on the day would quite possibly NOT have made the machine go BING, despite Dick's (correct) claim that the aircraft was on radar and below the GRID lowest safe of 7000' plus.

Originally Posted by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

Perhaps you could also transpose the actual track of the aircraft as per the ATSB report and zoom in on the last 5 minute of flight ?.

Working on that now, although it's a little hard to do exactly... Certainly from what I see can on the atsb's diagram, that last observed radar paint was within 25NM BLA at 5100' - which is kosher as the 25NM MSA is 5000'. The only question is whether the diversion left of track took him outside the tolerances of the AY-ELW track, within the 25NM MSA WGT of 6300' (or possibly even outside that with the grid of 7100'), and what altitude was observed at the time...

Originally Posted by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

Then comes the ADS-B nay saying, ADS-B will be sending PH (pressure height) data (i.e 1013 mb / 29.92"), whilst this is not on area QNH, neither is Mode C on the SSR, Mode C is also of the same type, if not the exact same PH encoder, do you guys really understand that little about what goes on ?, from my understanding TAAATS then levels all the data with the Area QNH's.

All correct. Transponder sends out PH reference 1013. TAAATS uses QNH feeds from a selection of locations (ML, WG, CB, AY to name a few) and has grids defined which determine which locations local QNH to correct the radar altitude with. An aircraft overhead AY will be corrected with the AY local QNH. Overhead BLA will be corrected by AY or ML (not at work to check which at the moment). As long as everyone is operating on Area QNH and no local QNH is more than 5 different to Area all is kosher.

AT THE PRESENT TIME, there are no QNH feeds into TAAATS from areas outside radar coverage, but within ADS-B coverage. Hence, TAAATS cannot apply QNH correction. No doubt at some distant point down the track the plan will be to connect QNH sensors at each ADS-B ground station and at that point in time we will be able to use ADS-B altitude below FL130.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

I believe the actual QNH is an easy fix, there are a great number of automatic MET stations on the BOM website, surely ASA has access to this data, be it real time or at fixed times.

If in the case of Benalla, if the altitude V's plot in RADAR coverage keeps the aircraft in protected area's, you would be correct then, MSAW might not have saved the day, we could play this game all day, what about the PA31 or the B407 in North QLD.

Guess ADS-B will make this equation even better ( yes whilst still in line of sight with a ADS station ), but not perfect.

Perhaps another spin, what if the two crays super computers you were talking about earlier would only enable the flight planned departure aerodrome, enroute Grids and LSALTs then destination MSA/MVA and appoaches ?, would this be better than the broad brush ?

[Flying Binghi]

How will UAVs be integrated into Oz airspace ?

Via Grand Forks Herald -

The unmanned aerial vehicles that the “systems” will fly need a special kind of airspace, one that restricts commercial and other traffic in the areas the UAVs use.

So far, so good. Still, local pilots would have to get used to the new restrictions...

OUR OPINION: 'Airspace' link proves vital to UAVs here | Grand Forks Herald | Grand Forks, North Dakota

[james michael]

Bing

Just shows how sometimes we in Oz are way ahead of the USA.

UAV are or have been flying in Vic, Qld, WA, without 'a special kind of airspace'.

Try 5.3, http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/rapac/minutes/vic071004.pdf and note the Heidi Fourier comment in Herti UAV air traffic integration test-flights to occur in Australia-16/03/2007-Melbourne-Flightglobal.com (mixing it with the heavies at 30,000)

It will be nice, though, when they have ADS-B onboard to enhance the separation

Tren

Question at your leisure - the radar surveillance data between the two recorded flights of TNP seemed to work lower on the earlier event when the wx was better.

Do you get much variation in the capability (due refraction, scatter, etc?) between a bright sunny day and a day of heavy cloud/rain?

[TrenShadow]

Originally Posted by james michael

Tren

Question at your leisure - the radar surveillance data between the two recorded flights of TNP seemed to work lower on the earlier event when the wx was better.

Do you get much variation in the capability (due refraction, scatter, etc?) between a bright sunny day and a day of heavy cloud/rain?

Can't honestly say I've ever paid enough attention to correlating wx conditions to radar coverage to say...

Certainly radar coverage around the BLA/AY/CRG area does vary greatly from day to day, and even intraday. Night time seems to have particularly poor coverage around CRG - we regularly lose SW4 off radar for 50-80 miles at FL150 down the CB-CRG-ELW track. Atmospherics perhaps similar to HF (and to a lesser extent VHF) signals?

Today I had an SR22 overhead AY at A090 who mostly stayed on radar, but ended up dropping off for a few minutes. The SF34 inbound from ML behind him dropped off at A067 while the inbound DH8C from SY dropped off around A059. That's fairly typical of most days - lighties over the top will disappear for between 1 and 10 minutes depending on the strength of their transponder; turboprops and the virgin jungle jet around A060 to the north and A070-A090 to the south.

I've had bad days where I lose lighties for the best part of 1/2 an hour, and don't see the RPTs below F120. I've had good days where I've watched a PA28 from the north track almost all the way into the cct at A030.

[LeadSled]

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 ------

James, my dear chap, absolute rubbish.

It is completely improper to run the line that has been around since the first CASA ADS-B CBA, and came from the ASA project team in the first place, it goes like the this:

(1) We, Australia, who are going to lead the world on ADS-B, and need a large installed base,particularly to help promote export ASA "services" and to;

(2) Claim to the world what a good idea it is (and it is, where it has a useful purpose), but;

(3) We forecast that Australian owners will not spend the money, because they can see little, if any, benefit, because there isn't, so;

(4) We need to force a widespread base of ADS-B, to show the rest of the world what a good idea it is, particularly if you (a sovereign nation) contract with ASA to provide the "knowhow", based on the widespread "successful adoption" in Australia, ergo;

(5) We must have a "mandate", pass regulations to legally force the widespread adoption of ADS-B, but;

(6) There is a very big fly in the ointment, which is;

(7) The Productivity Commission required (mandates) justification of all regulation, and Little Johnny, (remember him) ran an inquiry, which created the OBPR, the Office of Best Practice Regulation, the ORR, Office of Regulation Review on steroids, which, amongst other matters;

(8) Reinforced required substantial Cost/Benefit justification,so;

(9) As a result of the ORR, later OBPR requiring CBA, the (then) CASA airspace mob had this great idea, which was;

(10) If we mandate ADS-B with the (now) specifications, that will mean a forced widespread adoption of C-146/146 equipped GPS systems, which means;

(11) ASA can pull a bunch of navaids, and;

(12) We can (quite improperly) claim the costs savings as being attributed to ADS-B, when;

(13) It is nothing of the sort, it is a benefit of C-145/146 GPS, which is in no way dependent on ADS-B.

In short, the Government policies which are meant to protect us from excessive and/or unjustified regulation, and the often/usually horrendous cost of same, were largely ignored. "Decisions" were "made", then there was (and is an ongoing) unholy scramble to cobble up any justification for the unjustifiable.

I don't envy the present Board and management of ASA unscrambling this one, the GRAS ambitions are the first to go.

If proper process had been and continued to be observed (without ASA ambitions to be big players in the CNS/ATM export market) we would have still has the high level ADS-B rollout, because that was a service enhancement, agreed between ASA and its major customers.

James, of the rose colored glasses ---- "please explain" how NZ replaced their SSR heads so cheaply (fact), compared to the costs claimed in the JCP and previous documents.

Even allowing the ASA SSR replacement estimates being accurate, (which certainly seem to suggest our NZ peers are much better at getting a $$$$ good deal) as you are unwilling to accept, the savings on the ASA bottom line were sod all, and unlikely to be achieved in the real world --- especially after all the bonuses for such wonderful estimated savings were paid.

Pardon? Would it have anything to do with both getting ADS-B but IFR getting TSOP 146 navigator subsidy for the NAVAID replacement?

You really have no idea about C-145 v. C-146, do you!

All you can do is parrot the technical errors in the JCP.

There is absolutely nothing VFR v. IFR in C-145 v.146. Do you really think that, if I turn up with an IFR aircraft that has C-145 GPS engines in the IFR fit, I will only get the 'VFR' subsidy ---- if there are ever any subsidies.

Your post was at 16:38. Perhaps check mine at 16:00

Cute little fellow, aren't you, James ---- why don't you put up the ASA diagram showing the estimated no. of ground stations to produce 5000' coverage across Australia, it so well illustrates the improbability of widespread low level ADS-B coverage.

Did you say ASA had kiboshed WAAS? I know they have kiboshed GRAS. More info (as I value much of your research, sorry Bing )

Oh, dear, you really haven't been doing your homework, have you, or you don't remember ( or didn't understand what you were told by ASA at Narromine), didn't you know about the report commissioned by (then) DOTARS (BAH) because WAAS has widespread uses, beyond ASA "paying customers" ----- And just who prevailed on DOTARS to seek wider opinion than ASA on WAAS.

Haven't your good mates in YSCB told you the results ? I though you were "in the know".

If you really thought out of your box, you would understand why the WAAS coverage contract was moved (not the "new" Japanese bird) east to another satellite, and that coverage now misses Australia.

UAT was invented BEFORE ADS-B

OZBD,

I have never said otherwise, UAT and VDL1/2 emerged from the ICAO requirement for a broadband datalink, and that was a interesting piece of forward thinking, at the time. As you are probably aware, VDL-4 is VDL-2 plus the ADS-B component, and is in day to day use in NW Europe. Interestingly, the US Marines have adopted VDL-4 for their range datalink, and it is the basis of a number of Runway Incursion Monitor systems in US.

As to UAT, that is/was the whole point of having a Universal Access Tranceiver, all sorts of communications, of which ADS-B information is but one use. UAT is an application of the Qualcomm CDMA data format.

TSO145 chipsets ARE available

Again, never said otherwise, it is the $$$$$ that is the issue, compared to the fanciful claims of our mate James, of an all singing and dancing but unnamed TSO's ADS-B IN and OUT for AUD$10,000.

Mode A,C,S 1090ES DO260A transponders are avilable right now

Again, never said otherwise, it is the $$$$$ that is the issue, would you like to quote a price for this device, I know roughly how much the Garmin is/will be, likewise the Collins TDR-94D -800 #.

As a matter of interest, anything that fits the KT 76 slot (without major modification) can't meet the present regulations CASA have published, without an exemption that seriously compromises the performance, but I will leave you to work out why.

And finally, does Aus GA need a unique broadband service

Nope, never said they did, but airlines do.

You are aware, are you, of the SITA/ARINC VDL-2 network well on the way, to succeed ACARS, due the bandwidth limitations of ACARS ----- and the FAA/Eurocontrol "mandate" to transfer most/all high level and most else routine voice comms. to datalink, due running out of frequencies/channels.

ICAO had this one right in the first place some 20 years ago, short term thinking ( a common problem) has got us into this position, yet again the "cheap and easy" solution is turning out to be very expensive for everybody, especially airlines.

Tootle pip !!

[K-941]

Yeh good one Lead, post in the one thread he cannot respond in!
TW, how about it?

[james michael]

Leaddy

What on earth are you smoking? Again you start off wrong, then go both downhill and convoluted into an obscure political argument.

ADS-B can be done with a simple blind box in the luggage compartment using a TSO145 driver to generate GPS data to a transponder squitting ADS-B OUT (among other things).

ALL affected aircraft - VFR and IFR - can be so fitted. That's ADS-B.

Meantime, and absolutely a separate exercise with no relevance at all to ADS-B, Airservices are reducing the NAVAIDS to a backup network capable of providing 'home, Jeeves' at full tootle pip speed in the event of a GNSS failure. That needs a GPS navigator. That is why IFR gets a greater subsidy.

Who gives a rats about the NZ SSR - are you determined to keep the wagon wheels rolling as the rest of the world moves from the horse and cart to the automobile?

How many stations to completely cover Oz at 5000' - what a great idea Leaddy - have you suggested it to Telstra, Optus, Three etc for mobiles as well? We could probably bitumen all the tracks as well. The ADS-B cover suggested is to cater for reasonable coverage of much that is now NOT covered by the antique monsters with revolving heads, and never will be under that technology.

Are you so set in your opposition that a doubling or tripling of the mantle of safety is inadequate - you must have 100% or nothing - cost me that out in NZ SSR heads.

The WAAS coverage contract moved - I see, that was Airservices was it? Always thought it was the yanks and outside our control.

Leaddy, go and read that USA document. They are waking up that THEY are going to be the unique group in the world.

You've lost me Leaddy - good luck with your kero lantern and coolgardie safe

[Flying Binghi]

UAV are or have been flying in Vic, Qld, WA, without 'a special kind of airspace'.

I am well aware of the Oz tests james michael. I see there was a thread on pprun recently about U.K. airspace closeures for UAVs - did you read it ?

It will be nice, though, when they have ADS-B onboard to enhance the separation

Is that the plan ? ...ADS-B for UAVs

[Flying Binghi]

I see there has been no rebutle to the GPS guided terror weapons scenario I offered .... heck, I even threw in an easy to rebutt section in the PMs to get a bite from the main players - nothing


...So, as it stands, the GPS guided terrorist 'buzz bomb' scenario is highly probable, and could very well indirectly affect any GPS based nav system in Oz.

Fin.

[james michael]

Bing

I'm not even game to go fishin' or stand in the backyard in case of a terrorist attack with curare dipped arrows dropped from a marauding UAV - you have converted me to fear of attack and I have pulled out my 1942 copy of the Air Raid Warden's Handbook

But, in the world of reality, yes UAV will have ADS-B - although it will of course be turned off should they be in hostile territory at war.

try Avionics Magazine :: Europe’s Answer: UAVs in Controlled Airspace

And, no, I did not read the thread re airspace closures overseas for UAV - I cannot see the need for such measures.