The " I support ADSB" thread.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The " I support ADSB" thread.
A statement;
I strongly support the ADSB concept as a natural evolution of radar. Always have, and always will. I think it could be a valuable ATC tool in contemporary areas of debate such as Benalla.
I believe it should enhance safety in high traffic areas such as the "J' curve, indeed, anywhere a transponder is required.
I am unaware of any current move to have non TSO'd equipment approved for use where ADSB is mandated. Similarly I am unaware of any proposed subsidy schemes that may make any future mandated equipment affordable to an already financially stretched aviation industry.
Let me be very clear, I am not anti ADSB, nor is anybody within the industry that I have regular contact with.
People making these claims appear to be trying to focus attention in the wrong direction.
I strongly support the ADSB concept as a natural evolution of radar. Always have, and always will. I think it could be a valuable ATC tool in contemporary areas of debate such as Benalla.
I believe it should enhance safety in high traffic areas such as the "J' curve, indeed, anywhere a transponder is required.
I am unaware of any current move to have non TSO'd equipment approved for use where ADSB is mandated. Similarly I am unaware of any proposed subsidy schemes that may make any future mandated equipment affordable to an already financially stretched aviation industry.
Let me be very clear, I am not anti ADSB, nor is anybody within the industry that I have regular contact with.
People making these claims appear to be trying to focus attention in the wrong direction.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I strongly support WAAS with APV approaches eight times safer than the current RNAV/GNSS approaches (with RNAV/GNSS considered twenty five times safer than circling VOR/NDB approaches).
ADS-B would be fantastic in high traffic areas without radar.
ADS-B would be fantastic in high traffic areas without radar.
with RNAV/GNSS considered twenty five times safer than circling VOR/NDB approaches).
I support ADS-B!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kalavo, good link. Nothing that hasn't been said here many times over.
The Japanese MTSAT is already fully functional. Post-Hilmer Australia?..Public Good???? I don't think so
Financial case for WAAS as a safety mitigator is more compelling than anything else! Including ADS-B. The Feds will say straight up ..Sure, as long as aviation pays for it.
In my day job I can say from first hand experience the benefits of DGPS in civil works. Bulldozers able to carve the side of a hill in the shape of a freeway down to final trim without a survey peg in sight. This facility will be used as the argument AGAINST WAAS. Those who want the accuracy can pay for facilities to provide it.
LRH CFIT as the mitigator? If the CASA or AirServices were MADE to take responsibility for providing a service that would ensure safety...then, just maybe, there could be chance that the receiver of the dividends would have the "penny drop" revelation on "Public Good"
WAAS and affordable safety....what price is a life? Is it different because one is seated in 48D rather than behind the PF in a PA-31 PVT flight.
The Japanese MTSAT is already fully functional. Post-Hilmer Australia?..Public Good???? I don't think so
Financial case for WAAS as a safety mitigator is more compelling than anything else! Including ADS-B. The Feds will say straight up ..Sure, as long as aviation pays for it.
In my day job I can say from first hand experience the benefits of DGPS in civil works. Bulldozers able to carve the side of a hill in the shape of a freeway down to final trim without a survey peg in sight. This facility will be used as the argument AGAINST WAAS. Those who want the accuracy can pay for facilities to provide it.
LRH CFIT as the mitigator? If the CASA or AirServices were MADE to take responsibility for providing a service that would ensure safety...then, just maybe, there could be chance that the receiver of the dividends would have the "penny drop" revelation on "Public Good"
WAAS and affordable safety....what price is a life? Is it different because one is seated in 48D rather than behind the PF in a PA-31 PVT flight.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah the trick question, diversion into G airspace.
How about the real issue, which has been dragged through the weeds time and again, the cost.
Despite the opinion of others here I am a supporter of emergent technology where that technology can be justified , cost benefit analysed properly, and yes I understand the decreasing value curve on techology as it comes into wide spread use.
The difficulty with ADSB aircraft to aircraft is it requires Transponders that can handle antenna diversity and these are in short supply and are expensive in the +$ USD 5000 range, then there is the cost of the C145/C146 GPS to provide position data, last I looked these were in the +$USD 8000 range and then there is the Car 35 Engineering order to fit, an electrical load analysis and the Avionics Tech time to install wire and test.
There is no relaxation of the Regulaions that allows this process to be circumvented as at today, yes there may be all sorts of kit one can buy that could be fitted to experimental home built aircraft or RAA/SAA aircraft. But no matter what claas of airspace one might fly a General Aviation aircraft on the VH register in, there are the cost implications.
This is and always has been the bogey man in the whole discussion.
A C150 fully fitted out would probably double in value, how about the venerable Auster Aiglet, somewhat over capitalised ????
How about the real issue, which has been dragged through the weeds time and again, the cost.
Despite the opinion of others here I am a supporter of emergent technology where that technology can be justified , cost benefit analysed properly, and yes I understand the decreasing value curve on techology as it comes into wide spread use.
The difficulty with ADSB aircraft to aircraft is it requires Transponders that can handle antenna diversity and these are in short supply and are expensive in the +$ USD 5000 range, then there is the cost of the C145/C146 GPS to provide position data, last I looked these were in the +$USD 8000 range and then there is the Car 35 Engineering order to fit, an electrical load analysis and the Avionics Tech time to install wire and test.
There is no relaxation of the Regulaions that allows this process to be circumvented as at today, yes there may be all sorts of kit one can buy that could be fitted to experimental home built aircraft or RAA/SAA aircraft. But no matter what claas of airspace one might fly a General Aviation aircraft on the VH register in, there are the cost implications.
This is and always has been the bogey man in the whole discussion.
A C150 fully fitted out would probably double in value, how about the venerable Auster Aiglet, somewhat over capitalised ????
Guest
Posts: n/a
It works (seen it myself at MB), it's affordable even for GA owners, and it'll get you traffic on your 430/530:
Products Enigma Avionics
Products Enigma Avionics
EDIT- Good grief Charlie Brown. If I have got this right you are now confirming(english dude!) there are Rx units out there. Because, and I have to admit I had to go back and learn a thing or three. Diversity is not required for ADS-B Tx as such, nice if you've got it but ...well nice to have it but not neccessary. SELEX in their Rx unit does have two separate receivers that can work from either a top or bottom, diversity or alternating in software.
Just to clarify what you are talking about...how about putting up a link to back your claim of a requirment. Free flight do not seem to think they need it. Just garden variety modeA/C or modeS for transmit. If you've got TCAS the FAA will allow you to use those $15,000US aerials provided they do not degrade TCAS operations.
Just to clarify what you are talking about...how about putting up a link to back your claim of a requirment. Free flight do not seem to think they need it. Just garden variety modeA/C or modeS for transmit. If you've got TCAS the FAA will allow you to use those $15,000US aerials provided they do not degrade TCAS operations.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 8th Jul 2009 at 12:16.
either way...good trap Tunes, you almost got me
I had to go back to a definition of the actual meaning and almost missed the specification for top and bottom aerials....live and learn...but not required
I had to go back to a definition of the actual meaning and almost missed the specification for top and bottom aerials....live and learn...but not required
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want aircraft to aircraft the antennas are needed, air to ground different story, but if the game is separation in G then antenna diversity essential, as at today it seems the Garmin 330 mode S transponder top of range model is the only one that has capabilty to address diverse antenna,s
I say no. I think you are mixing up the need for a TCAS to see a direct signal to ascertain it's position without masking of the fuselage with the ability of receiving a datastream containing that position. Does your aircraft have two VHF aerials (top and bottom) to receive transmissions?
Joker 10,
I don't think any initial "requirement" for ADS-B in G Airspace, or below F290, will be "aircraft to aircraft".
It will more likely be a minimum of ADS-B OUT only... so that ATC, or other IN aircraft, can see you.
Is that an expensive ask?
I don't think any initial "requirement" for ADS-B in G Airspace, or below F290, will be "aircraft to aircraft".
It will more likely be a minimum of ADS-B OUT only... so that ATC, or other IN aircraft, can see you.
Is that an expensive ask?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for highlighting that peuce;
The requirement for ADSB above FL 290 is for ADSB OUT only.
As I said earlier it will probably be a future natural evolution of the radar function ATC provide now WHERE radar is needed. And I support that. After all it is an ATC tool, not TCAS.
At present there is no requirement for a transponder in class G airspace.
The requirement for ADSB above FL 290 is for ADSB OUT only.
As I said earlier it will probably be a future natural evolution of the radar function ATC provide now WHERE radar is needed. And I support that. After all it is an ATC tool, not TCAS.
At present there is no requirement for a transponder in class G airspace.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is far too much reliance on brochure ware in the whole debate.
The original premise OCTA was that aircraft would be able to see each other and thus we had "poor mans TCAS"
The concept of ADSB out allowing ATC to see aircraft OCTA is quaint, why would that be important if the aircraft is OCTA and there are no ATC services provided ??? Or are we heading back to full VFR reporting OCTA once ADSB comes in ????
The original premise OCTA was that aircraft would be able to see each other and thus we had "poor mans TCAS"
The concept of ADSB out allowing ATC to see aircraft OCTA is quaint, why would that be important if the aircraft is OCTA and there are no ATC services provided ??? Or are we heading back to full VFR reporting OCTA once ADSB comes in ????
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally ADSB was supposed to do all sorts of "pie in the sky" things that are not yet realistic in Australia.
The airlines have to be "nannied" and ADSB is obviously a way that they can be given traffic etc in those "remote" areas like Ayers Rock. I can see a future requirement for ADSB out, or its' sucessor being mandatory in CTAF(R)s. so centre can see traffic. It may also be used to close some towers and hand the job to centre in areas of low airline traffic.
Capital cities will probably still use radar, because real radar can see aircraft that don't have a transponder or ADSB operating. Some radar can see birds.
It looks as if Australia is going to try to set up a commercial monopoly again (like the old DME(A)) and will have a "unique Australian" system that covers part of the country. (Australia only extends 100 miles from the coast. Beyond that is "Outbackland")
Vertical guidance is needed for approaches in hundreds of places like Lockhart River. We really should be spending money on things that will give us that, and terrain and weather displays.
A wide area system that anyone can use is not what Airservices want, for commercial reasons. There are already instrument approaches that only one company can use, and I see this as a serious problem developing. Will exclusive instrument approaches be sold? Has that already happened?
Cost recovery is one thing, but the major purpose of Airservices is to provide services that aviation needs.
If services are witheld or distorted for commercial reasons then we should look again at the "cost recovery" to see if it is appropriate.
The airlines have to be "nannied" and ADSB is obviously a way that they can be given traffic etc in those "remote" areas like Ayers Rock. I can see a future requirement for ADSB out, or its' sucessor being mandatory in CTAF(R)s. so centre can see traffic. It may also be used to close some towers and hand the job to centre in areas of low airline traffic.
Capital cities will probably still use radar, because real radar can see aircraft that don't have a transponder or ADSB operating. Some radar can see birds.
It looks as if Australia is going to try to set up a commercial monopoly again (like the old DME(A)) and will have a "unique Australian" system that covers part of the country. (Australia only extends 100 miles from the coast. Beyond that is "Outbackland")
Vertical guidance is needed for approaches in hundreds of places like Lockhart River. We really should be spending money on things that will give us that, and terrain and weather displays.
A wide area system that anyone can use is not what Airservices want, for commercial reasons. There are already instrument approaches that only one company can use, and I see this as a serious problem developing. Will exclusive instrument approaches be sold? Has that already happened?
Cost recovery is one thing, but the major purpose of Airservices is to provide services that aviation needs.
If services are witheld or distorted for commercial reasons then we should look again at the "cost recovery" to see if it is appropriate.
Last edited by bushy; 9th Jul 2009 at 02:34.
Bushy, how come it's nannying for airlines into Ayers Rock but safety into Lockhart River? Or is that because you use one & not the other?
I presume the single company approaches you mean are RNP? They're still in a trial phase & will be made available to Virgin as well.
https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...sup/a9-h08.pdf
I presume the single company approaches you mean are RNP? They're still in a trial phase & will be made available to Virgin as well.
https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...sup/a9-h08.pdf