ADSB...Seems to work OK in Canada...

[onthedials]

I can't make the connection about toys, sorry. The contributions of Frank A. look like a typical Pprune ruse anyway - so I don't intend to spend any more time on that aspect of the response.

The regulation (the CAO 20.18 amendments) quoted were a disgrace and Frank A should take some comfort in knowing he is not the only one who thinks so.

That does not, however, diminish the point asked by the original poster - if ADS-B works elsewhere, why not here?

The answer to that question is connected with the regulator's precipitous inclination to regulate everything with nary a thought as to how industry might comply; complicated by a sceptical and poorly informed industry and little publicly shared future vision. The particular regulatory amendment quoted by Frank A serves to ensure that no-one ever again installs the ADS-B avionics that ASA air-tested in the Bundaberg trial. It worked fine in the trial, but apparently not well enough for the regulator. Our aircraft has a manufacturer supported STC to install that ADS-B transponder and GPS combo, but thanks to this regulation, we won't. The only party that could have been disadvantaged by the confluence of factors that might have caused it to go outside allowable HPL in operations was us. But never mind, Australia had to regulate to make sure that never happened. And it didn't and won't. I hope they feel better about that.

Nevertheless, the truth, no matter how much the other posters might wish to turn it, is:

1. Joke#10 was wrong when he said TSO'd ADS-B transponders are unaffordable. Even if you have not TSO C145/146 suitable data source, you can install a 1090ES ADS-B transponder for little more than the cost of any other Mode S unit. I quoted earlier one alternative for $US 1945. In addition to that product, Honeywell's KT 73 and Garmin's GTX 330ES and 33ES may be ordered now. Garmin are offering GTX 33 and 330 ES upgrades now in the expectation that some proportion of the US market will choose 1090ES over UAT. The situation was different two years ago. It is not the same now.

I would have thought that met an aircraft owner's reasonableness test. If you do not have a TSO'd data source, then yes, you will either have it install one or wait to use it. But there is no reason not to be ADS-B ready, for any altitude band of operations now. Assuming, of course, that you need it and that there is not some other axe to grind.

2. Joke#10 was also wrong when he said that ADS-B could not be used below 5000 in Australia. I gave a list of some of the existing stations at which ADS-B is available.

If you do not have and don't intend to a acquire a TSO'd data source then you could fit a stand-alone GNSS TSO C145 unit such as the Free Flight 1201, $US 5450.

I would have thought that for a serious IFR aircraft owner, these figures were "reasonable". No doubt others will have a different view, which is fine, since with the demise of the JCP noone is asking them to fit anything anyway. The point is that if you operate IFR or in CTA in the vicinity of these locations, your fitment of ADS-B WILL extend ATS surveillance, whether Joke#10 thinks so or not.

It is seems that the original poster's intention of asking what is different between here and Hudson Bay has been addressed only in relation to some concerns by Joke#10 about lack of water. I'll leave that for others to consider.

I'm not going to engage further. I believe Joke#10's points as to lack of TSOd equipment for GA has been answered. His concern about whether transponders are TSOd has no bearing on the subject since TSO C166A covers this subject exactly. He might care to read it.

Frank's concern that ADS-B equipment must meet the TSO C145/146 requirements of CAO 20.18 by 2012 is understandable but has no bearing on whether we should proceed in future with ADS-B at any level. The ABIT proponents have already indicated that SA-aware is probably the most important aspect of producing acceptable HPL parameters and this is only one aspect of that TSO.

I shall leave the rest of you in the hands of the Joker to continue what must be the most poorly-informed aviation discussion I have seen in a long while.

OTD.

[Joker 10]

Ok trying to keep it simple, I accept there is a cogent argument for ADSB for IFR traffic.

My contention is and always has been there is no valid argument for ADSB fitment to Day VFR general aviation aircraft.

The thought of an Auster fitted with ADSB being fed position information by a suitable TSO data source C145/146 compliant fills me with some mirth.

I can see the 60 year old farmer, good stick and rudder man, kept himself out of trouble for past 40 years flying over to his neighbours farm and saying thank god for that ADSB I might have got lost without it, the trusty C 172 VHf probably hasn't been turned on since the last 100 hourly.

ADSB will really be useful in R 22 mustering, they simply should not be without it, despite the fact every bit of extra weight compromises their safety margins close to the ground.

ADSB should really be useful around GAAP airport where some current teaching says turn the Transponder to standby inside 3 miles so there are not a jumble of returns at the local TCU.

And don't forget the croppies, they really need ADSB to complement their already sophisticated GPS systems and they have got the time in flight to moniter the ADSB.

Now Glider fitment will be a challenge, need lots of battery, guess we just dispense with some of the water ballst.

Yes there is a really persuasive and highly technical argument put up by the ADSB proponents, IFR I am good with, day VFR I personally think it is nonsense.

Day VFR if I recall correctly if operating outside any form of Controlled Airspace ot CTAF only requires the carraige of a Watch, Whisky Compass, Altimeter, even ASI not mandatory I believe add a VHF and a Transponder and you are good to go almost anywhere with proper notice.

ADSB above FL 290 good idea, below 5000 not particularly useful.

[peuce]

Joker ... that appears to be a very selfish attitude.

Sure, in most of the cases you mentioned, that particular pilot may not need ADSB IN ... however, by far the greater use of ADSB at low levels is SA for others ... including ATC and especially IFRs on descent into uncontrolled aerodromes.

Admittedly, that means installing equipment that is propably more useful to other airspace users than yourself, however, the proposed subsidy would have eased that burden.

Now, without the subsidy, I agree there is not much incentive to be unselfish.

[Frank Arouet]

onthedials;

I've dealt with you in a previous life I believe.

The sentiments I copied (yes copied), are from an official CASA communique. Not my contribution of guesswork or a ruse. Ignore it at your own peril.

Unless you spend more time on that aspect, the balance of your ravings are useless as a promotion to Day VFR fitment below 10,000 ft of non TSO'd equipment.

ADSB works well in Canada as it will work well here. What is the problem? I certainly don't have a problem. Above FL290 it will work just as good here as there.

What I have a problem with is a bunch of Day VFR pilots who don't own aeroplanes trying to shove something down my throat that will cost me money irrespective of how good it may be for ATC. I don't buy the theory that AsA will be watching every blip and therefor can see a crash as it happens. Neither do I buy the snake oil sales speil about anti collision unless everyone who matters has ADSB IN/OUT which means the OUT will have to be mandated.

I certainly don't buy the speil about non certified equipment being allowed to interface with the Airlines or ATC.

Finally in answer to the "reasonable" factor, I can tell you from experience that the purchase price will probably be in the order of 1/3rd the actual fitted cost and does not include yearly inspections or ADs. Read this if you think is baloney;

"CASA has published Notice of Final Rule Making (NFRM) 0709CS -
Proposal to Automatically Mandate Compliance with Airworthiness
Directives issued by the State of Design - Amendments to CASR Part 39
Full detail of the NFRM are available on the CASA website":
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NFRM 0709CS


What serious IFR owner/ pilots think may be reasonable bears no resemblance to what a DAY VFR owner/ pilot may think.

Now lets stick to the fact that there is no subsidy, never was. So these costs must be borne by the owner.

For the record are you an owner, operator, or pilot who hires others aircraft, or alternatively fly something that is owned by someone else for a living? Are you an AsA employee? What qualifications do you have to speak on behalf of a lot of private owners. -Please don't tell me you are part of a "peak" aviation organisation.

peuce;

I think the selfishness is a factor of both sides in this debate. Trouble is my selfishness is due to the fact that I don't have the financial resources to be a benefactor to others.

[Joker 10]

Frank, The subsidy was a cruel myth, propogated by individuals for their own aggrandisment and has done incalculable damage to the real debate which is 'Why does day VFR need ADSB ???' and why should owners of C 172 that never see controlled airspace need anything more than a serviceable VHF to go into CTAF.

The separation myth is another cruel impost on the day VFR community, most of whom are smart enough to stay away from CTAF when RPT may be active.

[peuce]

Frank & Joker .... do you have turn indicators on your car?

I'm guessing yes. Why, because the rulemakers decided, at some point in time, that the traffic density was such that, for safety reasons, indicators were required to assist with the SA of all road users.

I'm sure there were some who said ... "Bugger that, I know where I'm going ... the others can just watch me if they want to get out of my way". But they were gradually removed from the roads.

Change the environment, add a few noughts to the equipment cost ... and you have the airways situation. Methinks it might be approaching the time when the rulemakers will decide that, considering the traffic densities, the speed of new aircraft and the traffic mix ... it's time we enforced indicators (ADSB Out) on our chitty chitty bang bangs.

Everyone, whether they own an aircraft or not, will be paying for it ... in some way (hire charges etc).

I consider the only variable is the timing.... and every aviator has the right to challenge that if they disagree with the proposals .... however, the tide will eventually come in.

[Frank Arouet]

considering the traffic densities, the speed of new aircraft and the traffic mix ... it's time we enforced indicators (ADSB Out)

Gets us back to quantifying this statement doesn't it.

It has been said that there is always the POSSIBILITY of a mid air crisis, but what is the PROBABILITY?

To date everybody has an opinion as to how concerned they are, near misses, near hits or whatever, but nobody has been able to QUANTIFY the RISK except use anectdotal dreamtime stories of how they failed to look out the window in VFR.

Let me put this into another frame: I believe, as you, that ADSB will be a natural evolution of the present radar coverage and probably beyond. I will embrace this evolution just like I have the new ELT. However in Class G airspace in the GAFA ADSB is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist.

Show me a quantifiable risk in G, facts and figures, and I may change my mind. In the meantime the use of this equipment below FL290 is only an annoying dream of a few who know it must be mandated to achieve optimum perfoprmance as anything but a tool for the benefit of Airservices.

[Joker 10]

Peuce, One of my aircraft has EGPWS and TCAS because I chose to invest in the extra safety that this affords me and my family, I don't force this on anyone else I chose the investment and use the benefits.

The aircraft is not day VFR nor does it operate below 5000.

I agree with Frank that ADSB is an evolutionary technology and may ultimately become useful for all who choose to fit it.

However there is a long way to go before that day, there needs to be a lot of VHF repeaters commissioned across Australia before we see universal ADSB, then there is the standards questions, at present there is a mis mash of standards in the U.S. you can use either UAT or 1090 Es.

Some gear is TSO some not, some accepts data feeds from low end EFIS, some C145/146 GPS some C129 some have on board GPS chips.

There are passionate supporters in each technology camp, some say TSO is not necessary.

But at the end of the day like the blinkers on my car if the farmer wants to drive his ute next door for a chat he most probably won't need the blinkers, if there is no traffic then why would he ? habit I guess.

Like wise if flying the trusty c 172 next door he probably only needs to lokk out the window, lots of good technology in the aircraft but not necessary for his purpose, all he really needs is clean windows.

[Frank Arouet]

OK, lets try to get back to sensible discussion and try to prove your arguement about a crisis that asserts we have a major mid air collision risk that needs addressing.

Firstly, why pilots don't see other aeroplanes is because they are not looking for aeroplanes.

WW1 pilots wore silk scarves to lubricate the neck when constantly searching the sky for enemy aircraft. These blokes were actually looking for aircraft, which is more than I can say about some of our local VFR pilots. You know the V stands for visual don't you?

Now these WW1 pilots were looking for aircraft to shoot at and because others may shoot them. A matter of life and death you would agree.

Now the land mass of Australia is 7,617,930 sq kms with lets say for the low level arguement includes 20 hemispherical levels to 10,000ft. Thats a lot of sky.

Australia has how many aircraft at any one time flying in it?

France, you know where most of the WW1 shooting was going on with aeroplanes, has 547,030 sq kms. Of which lets say 1/3 was the aerial theatre. No hemispherical divisions. Say 182,343 sq km.

How many aircraft were flying around in say 1918 at any one time?

Now to prove your crisis theory, all you have to do is fill in the gaps above, allow for the fact that one lot were actually looking for aeroplanes and another lot wouldn't know what to look for, come up with a better arguement than you once heard someone say he saw another aeroplane that he thought was an airprox because it frightened him. Then tell me why I am selfish because I don't want to spend a lot of money to satisfy someone who is not capable of learning to look for other aeroplanes in the sky, or needs ATC to help him navigate the boonies, or to make Airservices life a bit easier to re-introduce air nav charges.

Satisfy my questions and I may change my mind and see things your way. But don't go all feral on me and start name calling because you are backed into a corner.

Bloody poor show that.

[Jabawocky]

Well when Virgin or Jetsar create a smoking hole at Hervey Bay or some other place similar due to a non visible a/c (by eye or any kind of Transponder), you can come to their defence and say a silk scarf and a rubber neck would have saved them.

Come on Owen or peuce..........plenty of fodder here!

[Flying Binghi]

plenty of fodder here!

Hmmm, i smell straw..

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Just stating the obvious here Bob and co., but the problem is really in the terminal areas.
The 'Big Sky' approach works reasonably ok in Oz due to our low enroute traffic density. (however I've had unexpected/unannounced A/C in the GAFA climb/descend at close quarters through my track...., not a pleasant experience).

Airports attract traffic because of the overflyers who want a definite fix, or because there's a navaid, or because someone wants to land there.
They generate traffic when someone wants to depart from there.
that is really where something like ADSB will help.

'See and Avoid' has problems., its' been proven to have problems., if it's the only anti-collision aid available then we'd be stupid to not use it..., but...., Alerted 'see and avoid' is a lot better and saves on laundry bills.

[Flying Binghi]

Check out the line of John Deere hay and forage equipment. Our broad offering includes rotary mower conditioners, self-propelled windrowers, round and square balers, pull-type and self-propelled forage harvesters, choppers, mowers, rakes and tedders.

Forage and hay equipment

[Frank Arouet]

Biggles;

The J curve already has Radar. What terminal areas are you talking about? Surely you don't mean CTAF? Are you advocating sterile CTAF's?

Airports attract traffic, agreed, and one has to be first at ground level to climb to FL290, so it stands to reason someone will be in some conflict with someone else at some time.

All I want to know is what is the risk? Not much to ask of the screaming deaf dumb and blind private GA VFR non owner pilots and ATC inputters who want this technology shoved up my arse before the Country and I are ready or can afford it.

It's OK to bludge off the Taxpayer to fund these excesses but why don't they offer to pay me to buy, fit, and maintain the gear so they can feel happy and safe.

That would be right. Poor bloody "lefty" whingers, probably reckon Dick should buy me one. Freekin Robin Hoods without any arrows for their bow.

Their only agenda is to have it mandated.

Hmmm, i smell straw

I've noted this before by Binghi but confess to not knowing what it means. I can only plead that I was left in charge of a case of whisky.

If it is referring to identities I can possibly see a similarity to strawmen, but given that a six pack of idiots on another forum make a habit of "outing" Pprune identities (correctly or incorrectly), it is small wonder that if compromised by innuendo, a poster may want to change his or her identity.

One does presume the mantle of anonymity when posting here. Doesn't one?

Well doesn't one?

Biggles old mate. I would ask you to think about that when next assuming first names please. Don't get too familiar on the first date.

EDIT to add to Binghi post while I was rabbitting on.

You are a strange chap Binghi. Likeable but strange. I would like to meet you one day because I happen to like eccentrics. I just sold my round baler however. Bloody drought means there is nothing to bale.

I'm thinking of inventing a bull$hit baler however. Plenty of fodder here.

[Flying Binghi]

Frank Arouet, i were havin a dig at (multi callsign) Jaba...

[Frank Arouet]

What subsidy? There never was a subsidy, only a suggestion by some vested interests which was not taken seriously enough to implement.

THERE WAS NEVER, EVER, A SUBSIDY.

Get it?

I am still waiting for those facts and figures. If you and your cronies can't back up your claims, I know who is talking drivel.

[PlankBlender]

Frank Arouet wrote:

The J curve already has Radar.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but one of the main points of the whole ADS-B/subsidy debate was that ADS-B, properly implemented and mandated, would supersede radar technology, shift funds from radar maintenance to increasing situational awareness for all concerned, and stimulate the aviation industry in many different ways (and yes, handing out a massive surplus to the great unwashed is a very daft idea and utterly useless to stimulate anything in the long term apart from health care and social security costs).

It would have made perfect sense to subsidise all aircraft owners to get ADS-B OUT equipment, and a small light Aussie-built ADS-B in/out box with connector to popular GPS's was ready to go within the subsidy amount.

It's because this country has backward-looking, oversized, unproductive and in many ways useless regulators and air services providers, that reason and rational thought can't keep or get the upper hand.

Let me share a recent personal experience from my own flying: Inbound close to a YBAF reporting point last weekend, a slower high wing aircraft reported just ahead of me, due to the slightly hazy conditions and sunlight from the front I never saw him although I did plenty of looking, and I was afraid I could have been encroaching on him from the top in my low wing as we were both moving to the assigned inbound altitude. That's what happened in quite a few of the mid-air's and it's almost impossible to avoid, wrong place wrong time and you're dead! The only thing that provided some relief in this situation was the other guy's transponder interrogator (which of course doesn't work out back as it requires an interrogating entity which these small/cheapish boxes can't provide) that made me show up on his screen.

Now tell me again why mandated ADS-B is useless, i.e. everybody can see everyone else after complete implementation?

I feel a lot of the negativity is from people who want a way to fly illegally one way or the other, would would be deprived of their anonymity with an always-on unit.. well, to any of you bl@ody !diots out there, get out of the sky, you're as much a menace to the rest of us as the drunk m@ron who plows into pedestrians because he's just killed his last brain cell with a Bundy & Coke

[Frank Arouet]

tell me again why mandated ADS-B is useless

ADS-B is not useless. Never said it was. As an evolution of existing radar I have always supported it. There is no radar in the GAFA. Why, because there is not enough traffic to have separation issues.

Again to all those who believe there is a problem with separation in class G airspace, QUANTIFY it here so all can see the RISK.

If it's so good, and the risk is so real, you won't need to mandate it will you?

Anyway low level ADSB is not on the cards in the near future so your immediate concern should be to learn spatial awareness of potential threats in the air.

As for drunk morons, well there is another thread about that and there are thousands being arrested by CASA on a daily basis.

[Joker 10]

Gosh, Now I am worried, so we all go into busy GAAP environments peering at targets on small LCD screens

Your Quote:

Let me share a recent personal experience from my own flying: Inbound close to a YBAF reporting point last weekend, a slower high wing aircraft reported just ahead of me, due to the slightly hazy conditions and sunlight from the front I never saw him although I did plenty of looking, and I was afraid I could have been encroaching on him from the top in my low wing as we were both moving to the assigned inbound altitude. That's what happened in quite a few of the mid-air's and it's almost impossible to avoid, wrong place wrong time and you're dead! The only thing that provided some relief in this situation was the other guy's transponder interrogator (which of course doesn't work out back as it requires an interrogating entity which these small/cheapish boxes can't provide) that made me show up on his screen.

Now I frequently use TCAS in quite busy environments around Minneapolis St Paul and I can assure you my eyes are not inside peering at the avidyne display.

Eyes scan the sky even though I am in a Radar Controlled IFR environment, the TCAS is a great aid enroute but in a busy intensive traffic environment it can be distracting to the point that it becomes a nuisance.

Nothing will ever replace eyes as the primary collision avoidance aid, yes environmental conditions can compromise their effectiveness but that is when all the situational awareness tools come into play.

ADSB unquestionably is a great aid above FL 290 and helps with reducing separation standards to increase traffic densities.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Joker 10

Now I frequently use TCAS in quite busy environments around Minneapolis St Paul and I can assure you my eyes are not inside peering at the avidyne display.

and quite rightly so.., fixating on the panel is not a good idea and nobody says that one should do so.

Eyes scan the sky even though I am in a Radar Controlled IFR environment,

ahhh, another set of eyes there from ATC who can see the 'big picture' in your radar area.

the TCAS is a great aid enroute but in a busy intensive traffic environment it can be distracting to the point that it becomes a nuisance.

so..., you have an auxilliary aid to assist your 'see and avoid' but you choose to place less reliance on its' warnings in the busy terminal area because you are already expecting to find extra traffic there, flying there in semi-standardised patterns.

You use a system to help you avoid possible traffic conflicts, so why are you so opposed to a different system, that'll do a similar function, but with more benefits to ATC and, (if you have ADSB-IN) directly to you ?

If you had an option to reduce the sensitivity of the TCAS,would you do so as part of your inbound procedure to reduce the 'distractions' ? genuine question



and Frank A

What subsidy? There never was a subsidy, ....

that wasn't how I interpreted the JCP. I still don't believe that the $ voucher was sufficient to cover the real costs, but I do believe that it was/is still a good idea.