Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Portable Traffic Collision System. (PCAS)

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Portable Traffic Collision System. (PCAS)

Old 17th Nov 2008, 21:50
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is an unfortunate side effect of the probable demise of the JCP that the extra subsidy for the TSO 146 NAVS for IFR aircraft will be lost.

There has been agreement on the residual navaids but that may now alter - at our cost unfortunately - as the removal program may slow and retention of navaids means extra maintenance or replacement costs.
james michael is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2008, 22:37
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Scurvy D. Dog, how do I go about it? Simple – by communicating to the industry the cost advantages in removing some of the aids. For example, the NDB at Shellys is being removed, without even a squawk from the industry.

The problem with the JCP is that it mixed the cost advantages of removing the ground based aids, with the cost of ADS-B. Of course, they are quite separate. I totally support removing ground based aids where they do not improve safety in a cost effective way. In fact, I was told by people involved with the JCP at CASA that the greatest saving is from removing ground based aids, and they thought the only way they could convince the industry to support this was by offering the bait of “free” ADS-B.

Of course it is better to keep the ground based aids and ADS-B separate, and decide what can cost effectively be removed in an objective and scientific way. That is what I will be doing. I believe that tens of millions of dollars can be saved by removing a number of the ground based aids.

I should also point out that because I make my statements under my own name, these statements have more credibility than those written by people who constantly hide behind anonymity. If you really believe in what you are saying, there is nothing to stop you from posting under your own name on this site, and actually making statements to the powers that be. Then you will have influence.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2008, 23:46
  #23 (permalink)  
I'm in one of those moods
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In fact, I was told by people involved with the JCP at CASA that the greatest saving is from removing ground based aids, and they thought the only way they could convince the industry to support this was by offering the bait of “free” ADS-B.
.... well now, that is interesting ... and when might these CASA people have proffered this opinion in discussions with you?
Scurvy.D.Dog is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 00:15
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First debate the (somewhat diverted) topic as current:

I was told by people involved with the JCP at CASA that the greatest saving is from removing ground based aids
JCP
Replacement costs for legacy infrastructure are approximately $60 million for enroute radars and $30 million for non-backup navaids. Ongoing maintenance is in the order of $2.5 million per year.

Given any financial consideration (NPV, IRR or whatever) I'd rate the radar savings a tad higher.
by communicating to the industry the cost advantages in removing some of the aids
JCP
By comparison, the 11 ADS-B ground stations will cost approximately $3 million, with annual maintenance costs of approximately $130,000.

Wow - just think of your theory applied to removing the en route radars.

Then two current topics

these statements have more credibility than those written by people who constantly hide behind anonymity
Well. I'm anon and I've just posted direct from the JCP - and to be honest I'd rate those written numbers as far more credible than a conversation with CASA. If not, have you queried them with the APG?

The other topic - the 'usual suspects'. This constant carping about people's right to be anon gets you free entry to our heavy metal rock group "USUAL SUSPECTS" - our first hit will have you up front singing on, and on, anon, anon .....
james michael is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 00:42
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dr

The thread commenced ex the defunct ADS-B thread where PCAS were dumped on Jabba. It wandered to WAAS and ADS-B via Sunny's thought.

Completely ignoring ADS-B and PCAS, the navaid replacement program now becomes significant as it will affect YOUR IFR costs.

Unfortunately the costs suggested by Dick were embodied in the JCP and if we are to examine the NAVAID situation the current CBA is the JCP CBA.

Perhaps we need a separate thread for that. But retention of NAVAID above and beyond the legacy group IS going to cost GA money and that's a fact.

However, there are still people without TSO 146 GPS who require alternates and NAVAIDS. NVFR gets by with TSO 129 but still needs alternates.

At what cost?
james michael is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 00:55
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
JM - What the f*ck are JCP and CBA?

For my money they can rip out all the NDBs tomorrow. I fly one NDB approach a year - a ceremonial part of my CIR renewal. If I ever needed to fly one in anger I would do it as a GPS overlay approach anyway and just monitor the NDB needle - far safer than chasing that little needle around. If the ADF in the Bo plays up - it will be replaced by another TSOd GPS.

The only ground based navaid that is required is the ILS, cause those in control seem to be too stupid to go with WAAS in this country. Maybe a case can be made for keeping VORs - but I never use them so it is not an issue for me.

What is required is widespread VHF coverage - down to circuit height at every licenced aerodrome and on the ground everywhere RPT goes.

Dr

Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 18th Nov 2008 at 01:11.
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 01:12
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hiding..... in one hemisphere or another
Posts: 1,067
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Apparrently, the "Joint Consultation Paper" and the "Costs Benefit Analysis"

They're both here somwehere:

Transition to satellite technology for navigation and surveillance - Joint Consultation Paper

There's a Bubble Diagram as well........
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 01:20
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Atlas

Spot on as usual

Dr

You have an expensive aircraft very well fitted.

Then there are those out there without $15-20K GPS who are reliant on their VOR or ADF for some of their operations in their $75K aircraft. At prsent the Albury NDB is a hot spot of debate re retention for such people.

Likewise for VOR.

The "unmentionable" provided an incentive to equip with 146 and escalate the demise of the navaids. Even so, the backup network is still quite substantial remembering that should Bing's whizzer ever turn off GPS there is a need to safeguard those very RPT you mention until they land.

But, it's all at a cost. And, likewise VHF coverage. However, VHF won't get you on the ground in IMC.

Even funnier, even a faulty data card can crash that sole means GPS which you only need one of. If you are 'in the soup', in the soup, with your one GPS blank, the good old antique NDB and VOR might seem good friends indeed
james michael is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 02:54
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
What a load of drivel !!!!

JM - Do you set out to deliberately mislead or are you just ignorant?

You have an expensive aircraft very well fitted. Then there are those out there without $15-20K GPS who are reliant on their VOR or ADF for some of their operations in their $75K aircraft. At prsent the Albury NDB is a hot spot of debate re retention for such people
The cheapest TSO'd Garmin GPS (155XL) is currently available for US$2700! Cheaper than a new indicator for my 30 year old ADF.

It would be interesting to know how many people are flying IFR in $75k aircraft equipped only a 30 year old ADF and or VOR. I suspect not many.

As for NVFR - man, I would rather be relying on a modern VFR-only GPS for navigation at night than some of the NDBs around the country that only become reliable from about 20 nm out!

The "unmentionable" provided an incentive to equip with 146 and escalate the demise of the navaids. Even so, the backup network is still quite substantial remembering that should Bing's whizzer ever turn off GPS there is a need to safeguard those very RPT you mention until they land
OK, now pay attention cause this bit is tricky!

NOBODY IS GOING TO TURN OFF THE F*CKING SATELLITES!

Aviation is the USA is rapidly becoming totally dependent on the GPS satellites.

You can also use a mobile phone to set off a bomb - but nobody is going to turn off the mobile phone network either!

But, it's all at a cost. And, likewise VHF coverage. However, VHF won't get you on the ground in IMC
No - but a GPS will get you down more often, with a greater safety margin, than an NDB approach.

Even funnier, even a faulty data card can crash that sole means GPS which you only need one of. If you are 'in the soup', in the soup, with your one GPS blank, the good old antique NDB and VOR might seem good friends indeed
True - but the Garmin 296/396/496/596/or 696 (or in my case "and 696" ) on the yolk will still get me down.

Do you seriously think the 30 year old ADFs in most GA aircraft are a more reliable option?

If this really bothers you, we can mandate the carriage of a spare data card - at a cost of about $300.

Get real and stop talking complete crap!

Dr
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 03:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dr

You are obviously having a bad day. It shows. Doesn't make you correct.

For your information my former aircraft, worth $75K, was NVFR and relied on the ADF and VOR for fixes. Nothing misleading or ignorant about that mate.

Likewise for your information ASA have been copping substantial flak from Albury where the locals are obviously mislead and ignorant in wanting the NDB retained.

USD $2700 plus fitment plus updates might just be a little burden for those not currently residing in the manor, old chum

The bit about Bing was satire as you well know from my debates with him. No-one is going to turn off the satellites but they do have outages and the data card example was given to me at a meeting on the 10 November. It's real, or the highly qualified pilot was perhaps mislead or ignorant?

The garmin GPS on the yolk will get you down? Which TSO does it meet to be legal? The navaids are actually there for legal and safety purposes or the 495 (I have one as backup) would be standard fitment in the A380.

Get real and stop talking complete crap - yourself - and apology for responding in kind, not my usual style.

Owen

I've looked at the backup network with someone not far from you and it's OK, although Forrest might be a little lonely.

I've also put a paper to ASA re going 'global' for WAAS to try and get enough critical mass (global meaning farming, mining etc in Oz).

PS - what happened to the Tommy - storm?
james michael is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 03:49
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The navaids are actually there for legal and safety purposes or the 495 (I have one as backup) would be standard fitment in the A380
Yet another furphie - I rest my case!

JM - I am actually having a very good day thank you! I am just fed up with reading all of this rubbish.

Time to face up to it, NDB's are history - along with lights on towers to mark the airways, VAR, flight engineers (mostly)/wireless operators/navigators, Ozzie DME, DME homings and let downs etc etc etc. Its called progress!

Dr
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 04:07
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dr

I should have not been facetious. OK, no furphies.

1. Does the G495 allow a legitimate IFR letdown.

2. Here's some more rubbish to ponder. JCP page 13/14 (I have it on good authority that ASA who drafted some of the doc would do ANYTHING to reduce the backup navaids so what you are about to read is the best they could manage). Rubbish, furphie - nay, fact.

8.5 Future Backup Navigation Network
In the expectation that most aircraft will in time be equipped with suitable GNSS
navigation avionics (as part of the ADS-B avionics system), Airservices proposes to
decommission just under half of the existing NDBs and VORs, 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.

No mention of the 495 on the yoke

Unfortunately the CNS / ATM model has to be designed around ICAO requirements and safety of fare paying pax. If you'd like a pic of the backup navaid network, I'll link it but I assure you the NDB is alive and well and even more so since the JCP passed away.

Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger, nor is it 'rubbish' - it's fact. Your nav charges will include ASA keeping a lot more navaids going a lot longer than planned.

EDITED TO ADD

Pre-that word VOR 88 NDB 200 ADS-B 28
Post-that word 45 120 39

So there are now 43 VOR and 80 NDB in limbo as post-that word is likely defunct.

Last edited by james michael; 18th Nov 2008 at 04:23. Reason: Add some numbers
james michael is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 04:28
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
James I think you have missed the Dr's point.

No the G295 etc is not a legal GPS for IFR use. Nobody ever said it was.

Currently the use of a TSO 146 GPS is all that is required to meet the regs and I can see why. As for a backup should it turn into a smouldering heap, I would rather the G295 over a 30+ yr old ADF...... even in an IMC let down.

One may have a certification from 30 years ago, but that does not mean a thing when it is far less reliable, and in many parts of the country....an NDB available to use.

So I think you are preaching to the converted in a roundabout way. the move to a GPS system is what you have been in favour of all along, and the Dr is also.

A problem you have had with some of your adversories on here has been those with stone age equipment resisting the new era, as proposed by yourself and myself included. The problem is they need to get with the times, and I think the Dr is suggesting that also.

Cheers!

J
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 04:42
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: planet earth
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Currently the use of a TSO 146 GPS is all that is required to meet the regs
True for PVT and aerial work ops only. RPT and CHTR require two TSO146 or one plus a radio navaid or two radio navaids or a visual approach by day.
desmotronic is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 04:54
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
D

Too true and a lot of $$ in the good old $120K Cherokee 6 on charter. I think the backup network is here for the long haul.

J

Agreed and well put. I likewise agree with the Dr re the way forward and I'm as frustrated as he is at the setback.

However I did not set out to deliberately mislead nor am I ignorant. That's why I've kept feeding in the facts and data to demonstrate what I stated. I agree entirely with the capability of things like the G495 and the TSO 146 navigator, but the navaid network is not based on those with the new gear until there is sufficient fitment, and we are not there yet.

Somewhere I saw the stats on GPS fitment, cannot lay my hands on it at this moment. But we have some way to go to being able to DEMAND GPS navigation and dump the navaids
james michael is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 05:10
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: planet earth
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Too true and a lot of $$ in the good old $120K Cherokee 6 on charter.
Not to mention lots of fuel looking for an alternate in a PA31, metro or DHC8 not equipped with twin TSO146 GPS's.
desmotronic is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 05:47
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Too true and a lot of $$ in the good old $120K Cherokee 6 on charter. I think the backup network is here for the long haul
Oh come on guys, give it a rest!

How is a PA32 on charter relevant to a discussion about the need to retain NDBs?

Dr
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 05:55
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
D

Hadn't thunk of that!

Owen

Sorry to hear - I have a lot of time in Tommys - but you seem to have consoled your grief very adequately with the RV10

As an interest, what avionics are you fitting (relevant to the navaid issue on this thread).
james michael is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 06:09
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dr

We cross posted.

How is a PA32 on charter relevant to a discussion about the need to retain NDBs?
What am I misunderstanding in the table at AIP GEN 1.5-4? Are you suggesting we limit the charter to day VFR?
james michael is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2008, 06:15
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South
Posts: 638
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Slight thread drift but here goes

Agreed FTD.

It sounds like ASA need to devise a policy similar to NZ but specifically for AU

Airways NZ has confirmed that 95% of the IFR air transport fleet in NZ including charter are RNAV capable and they are moving to remove NDB from service at Aid's EOL. The remaining NDB will be for terminal approaches and one or two enroute tracks. Enroute VOR are also likely to be withdrawn.

Airways NZ has a published policy.

GNSS Policy
Introduction
This AIC invites industry comment to assist in refining policy in respect to:
  • The development and maintenance of RNAV procedures (non precision and BARO-VNAV approaches, departure and enroute procedures); and
  • The integration of RNAV procedures into the Airways navigation network.
GNSS design standards
Procedures will conform with CAA Rules, ICAO PANS OPS Doc 8168, flight inspection criteria contained in ICAO Doc 8071 and Airways Flight Inspection Manuals.
GNSS advantages
Airways will actively promote and encourage the implementation of GNSS for air navigation in New Zealand to deliver the following advantages:
  • Operating efficiencies for operators.

Examples are:

1. Direct routing subject to ATM requirements;
2. Efficient profiles;
3. Lower enroute and minimum descent levels;
4. BARO-VNAV approaches, which offer ILS like continuous descent profiles for suitably equipped aircraft;
5. RNAV terminal, arrival and departure procedures.
  • ATM Operating efficiencies.
Straight-in instrument approaches.
Approaches for all runways at multiple runway aerodromes.
Enable withdrawal of some NDB and DME equipment.
Enable IFR operations into airports and heliports where provision of procedures based on ground-based navigation aids is impracticable or uneconomic.

Ground-based navigation infrastructure
A network of VOR/DME and NDB/DME will be retained to provide:
  • Enroute guidance to locations served by regular air transport operations.
Departure and non-precision approach procedures at destination or a diversion airport within a time or distance to be determined by consultation (nominally between 30 and 60 minutes flying time) for all locations served by regular air transport operations (see criteria below).

RNAV procedures will be developed at these locations to provide contingency.

Some associated NDB will be withdrawn.
Data to support FMS (flight management systems) above 9500ft on appropriate sectors where regular air transport operations take place.
For the purposes of this policy “regular air transport operations” are defined as 2 or more scheduled IFR services, arrival and departure, provided by Part 121 or 125 operators, per day on 5 or more days of the week sustained over a period of not less than 3 months.

c100driver is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.