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

Dick Smith to ASA: "See you in Court!"

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

Dick Smith to ASA: "See you in Court!"

Old 26th Nov 2013, 23:55
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
ASA will charge for GPS use...

mandatory requirement to install ADS-B
Interesting legal consideration. How is it that ASA/CASA can be mandating a device that needs a GPS system to work, when the GPS system itself is neither owned or operated by CASA/ASA and they have no written guarantee that the GPS will continue to be available for their 'use'..

Where is the ASA/CASA written authority to use GPS from the US government ?
Where is the US governments written confirmation that they will compensate GPS users when the GPS signal is 'lost'...













.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 00:04
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 58
Posts: 308
No way! It's top secret like the AsA tender for the new combined AsA/military radar system.
C'mon Dick, stick to the topic, you seek transparency but when challenged do reveal the safety case you want to hold you cards close to your chest. Affordable safety, bah humbug.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 00:12
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 302
Where is the ASA/CASA written authority to use GPS from the US government ?
Where is the US governments written confirmation that they will compensate GPS users when the GPS signal is 'lost'...
The regs all speak of GNSS (which is a generic term for satellite navigation systems), rather than specifying GPS. GPS is a GNSS system, as are BeiDou, Galileo and GLONASS.

In practice though, most if not all the TSO'd GNSS receivers on the market are GPS receivers, so the fact other systems exist doesn't really matter much!

Interestingly, while AsA and CASA are so confident that GPS will be around for ever that they're happy to put all their eggs into the ADS-B basket, they're not confident enough to get rid of all the ground based navaids. They're going to keep a "Backup Navigation Aid Network" around after most VORs and NDBs are decommissioned, specifically in case of a large scale GPS outage.
bankrunner is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 00:34
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
It’s interesting to see how the military people in Airservices look after their own. Yes, you’ve got it – they are allowing all military aircraft to operate in all the airspace without ADS-B – no requirement at all. It appears the military pointed out that it would be quite expensive to fit their aircraft so, “no problems! You’ll be able to fly without ADS-B – you’re our mates!”.

Also interesting to note that airlines will be allowed to operate for up to three days with the ADS-B equipment not operating. That means Airservices is happy to procedurally separate their aircraft for up to three days but not procedurally separate a business aviation aircraft for ten minutes. The hypocrisy of these people in Airservices is amazing, isn’t it!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 00:39
  #25 (permalink)  
Sprucegoose
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 55
Posts: 3,490
We had the same arguments about 406 ELT's a couple of years back, now it's just common place and ADSB will be too. Gotta say I love ADSB, departing from the back O'Bourke, no waiting for a clearance, makes life easy!
Howard Hughes is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 00:51
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
We had the same arguments about 406 ELT's a couple of years back...
"the same arguments"..












.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 01:03
  #27 (permalink)  
Sprucegoose
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 55
Posts: 3,490
"the same arguments"..
"Where will we get all the units?"
"Who's gonna pay?"
"CASA don't care about the little guy, they only look after the airlines"

OK, so not exactly the same arguments, but similar and with the same general 'sky is falling' mentality...
Howard Hughes is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 01:39
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
I hope we have the same success in getting commonsense to prevail.

With the elt issue CASA mandated all the new units must be hard installed in he aircraft. Cost would be about 5k an aircraft

Boyd Munro took them to task attempting to get portable units approved at about $500 a throw.

CASA would not budge so Munro went to the opposition and got them to disallow the requirement. He succeeded and our industry has saved tens of millions since then!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 08:22
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,263
It is quite correct for ASA to keep some ground aids. A possible issue is a stand off over Formosa between the US and China. Civil use GPS may well be downgraded in accuracy if not switched off altogether.
4Greens is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 09:56
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 33
Posts: 44
If I can I'd like to present an alternate view to the mandate of ADS-B.
I am an air traffic controller. My airspace in part, is a large section of Western Australia, and excluding a small (comparatively) area around Paraburdoo my airspace is procedural. My traffic is largely comprised of FIFO traffic servicing the multitude of mine sites around WA but also all the traffic from the Mid-East and some from South East Asia.
I procedurally control traffic every day, but traffic levels are growing, and quickly at that. Airspace utilisation is high.
Now, some separation standards: within surveillance coverage, I only need 5nm laterally/longitudinally. 4.9nm is a breakdown of separation, 5nm is golden.
Procedurally, best case is 20nm, that's with speeds locked, distance checks every 30 minutes. If there is a faster following aircraft same level, distance checks are done every 15 minutes. The maximum closing we may have is M0.06 or 35kts. If there is more closing speed than that, the separation standard is 10 minutes.

So here's the situation: front plane is a Phenom Jet cruising along at F380 doing M0.73 nil ADS-B. Following aircraft is an A380 from the mid-east, having been flying for the last 10 hours, also at F380 but cruising at M0.80 and with a bit of a tail wind is grounding at 600kts. The only separation standard is 10 minutes longitudinally. With the A380 doing 10nm/minute the breakdown of separation occurs when the A380 is 99nm behind the phenom.
Instead of being able to have 15 or so aircraft in that space we can have 2. That's it, 2.
Another one. Lets say that you're heading back into PH in the evening at F400 when you get your 15 minute delay, you want to do down to F300 to slow down, if there's a non-ADS-B jet below you at F380, you're stuck, expect holding within radar coverage.

Now I like Mr Smith, I like his house in Gunderoo with the mini train, I think he does a lot of good for Australian aviation, I buy his food, I shop at his stores from time to time and I was disappointed when his electronics stores stopped selling electronic components. I do however think that perhaps he ought be directing his frustration at the aircraft/avionics suppliers vs against something that has been on the notice boards for years.

Anyway, that's all just my insight/opinion.
Kieran
Kieran17 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 10:34
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
Kieran17, what happens when GPS goes off-line ?
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 11:53
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karratha,Western Australia
Age: 38
Posts: 427
If the GPS goes down, then it goes back to a procedural standard. Is it better to stick with a procedural standard just in case or use what's available now and have contingency plans. If it's the former we should probably get rid of that pesky radar thing in case it fails as well. Then we can rely on pilot reports. Oh wait, as a procedural tower controller, I often see how far out a departure time is (even after a time check is given on taxi) or a pilot tell me they are established on a radial when I can very clearly see they aren't anywhere near it

From a controller perspective I think we should make the most of it. Definitely makes our sequences into Karratha a lot easier (even though we in the tower don't have a feed).

However, in my opinion, there should be some scope for non ADSB aircraft to still use the airspace, workload permitting. However I am a long way down the food chain
Awol57 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 11:57
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,206
Kieran 17, I don't think that Dick Smith has had any financial interest in the electronic stores bearing his name, for many years. But as Dick is active on this particular thread, I'll request that he clarify that.
gerry111 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 13:11
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,283
Kieran, mate, your logic is wasted here. They will never understand the difference between procedural & surveillance. All they're worried about is the 20 minutes at the runway threshold
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 14:20
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
jack ranga use of the great "They" is spurious.

the real problem that people like me (yes I'm a people) have with ADSB is the lack of suitable units.

when I fly into kalgoorlie or newman or port hedland, as I have done, I occupy 3 dimensional space with my metal bits so you cant just fly a Boeing 717 through me and pretend there wont be a problem.

to say that adsb units arent mandated for the light aircraft misses the point.

we have essentially the same problem as Dick.
what adsb unit can be used????? why isnt there a standalone unit that can be fitted simply into an avionics rack???
fer fckus sake all aircraft need an adsb unit for the system to work properly in terminal areas.

if the system (casa, air services etc ) can beat on our heads for fitment why can't they persuade the makers to put out units that can be used?
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 19:19
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 33
Posts: 44
If the GPS signal goes down, then I use procedural standards and work a hell of a lot harder, a lot less aircraft get their request levels and a lot of people around the world have a very bad day. Just like the fact that your car may break down so you may as well walk, there's a risk, and you accept that.
Now, a lateral scenario, surveillance, 5nm. Easy. A box of 25 square miles around the aircraft.
Procedural, basic standard is 1nm between the possible positions of aircraft. The best case is GPSRNAV which has a CEP of 7nm. Therefore the best we can have is 15nm laterally between the nominal track of aircraft (7nm for aircraft 1 plus 7nm for aircraft 2 plus 1nm between).
We're coming into wet season out west and while so far there has only been a few WX days, it's coming... Our mate in his nil-ADSB Phenom (or insert any aircraft here) is cruising along at 7nm/minute and trying to get around a line of thunderstorms. The best we can have is 10 minutes ahead and 10 minutes behind longitudinally but I wouldn't run a bare standard then let the lead aircraft go wandering off, no standard anymore if I do that. So it'll be 15 minutes behind and 10 ahead.
To get around storms our mate is up to 100nm off track (if you think that's excessive, go fly out west). That means the lateral tolerance is 107nm (100 on one side plus 7 on the other side).
That box of airspace, 175nm by 107nm 1000ft deep belongs to our mate phenom, no one else goes in there, that's his airspace and his alone. That's 18725 square miles of space that one aircraft is occupying. That's 749 times more airspace than an identified aircraft is occupying.

For a non-ADSB aircraft on track, as mentioned earlier, best case is 20nm ahead, 20nm behind plus 7 either side of track. That's 560 square miles of airspace vs 25 miles if identified. W8, you're right, you do occupy an airspace, and no one else is allowed in that space that you occupy. If you don't have ADSB then best case is you're occupying 22 time more airspace than the next plane with ADSB.

There is still plenty of scope for non-ADSB aircraft to fly around, it's 28000ft deep. If you want to fly higher outside of the J-Curve go to CASA and present you're safety case as to why you should be there.

Gerry111, I am aware that Mr Smith sold his named stores to Woolworths long ago, in the early 80s I think, who have since sold again to some private equity mob. However, it was much easier to fix a power supply or TV in a pinch when bits were available just down the road...

Anyway, again just my insight. Take the fight to the avionics mobs that have dragged their feet for so many years, they're the ones who are unable to supply the required goods.

Last edited by Kieran17; 28th Nov 2013 at 07:18.
Kieran17 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 20:41
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: meh
Posts: 660
Forget all this technical talk. Dick is a very smart man. He knows full well who writes regs and grant exceptions. Any coincidence that internal issues at Airservices hit the papers the same time as this?

Everyone remembers NAS 2 right? I have moved ANSPs over the years and where my headset plugs in these says sees us playing C and A airspace with RNAV 5 minimum. Anyone with enough coin to buy a plane should just stfu and jump a business class flight to wherever they want to go and let the adults get on with the industry.
Plazbot is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 21:24
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
Gents, another point of view.

Contrary to popular belief, ASA is not the custodian of airspace in Australia. It’s the CASA OAR that has custodianship of the airspace. So, whilst I think it is great that Dick has gone and got himself an exemption, the exemption has been granted to the wrong person.

Consider that CASA have declared airspace above FL290 to be ADS-B mandatory. That is now an airspace rule...just like "though shall not fly through a prohibited area...ever". What that means from AsA side of things is that if you are not equipped they cannot let you in....end of story. If AsA does issue a clearance to a non-ADSB aircraft in this airspace, then they will have to answer to CASA in the form of an NCN. Make no mistake, CASA love issuing NCN's for stuff like this. Ask the TWR and operators at Jandakot about issuing a SID that requires an NDB to aircraft that do not have an ADF.

If CASA have issued Dick an exemption then good on em...but if AsA don't have one, then don't expect a clearance. Also consider that if everyone else is equipped and the controller has them all spaced at 10nm apart...then along come Dick with his steam driven transponder and requests a clearance....how do you fit a 100nm separation standard within an already established 10nm separation.

Sorry Dick, but exemption or not....if others are ADS-B equipped and already occupying the airspace I reckon the chances of a clearance are slim anyway.

Alpha
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 21:31
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
So how do air traffic controllers handle F18s on ferry from Willy to Tindal?

Why is the reg specifically written so CASA can give an exemption ?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 21:32
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Kieran17 - Thanks for your really important input.

Of course, what you don’t actually state is whether you can handle an occasional non-ADS-B aircraft. I have been told by senior controllers that, “any controller worth his salt” would be able to handle a non-ADS-B aircraft without too much delay.

By the way, you blame the avionics people who you believe may have “dragged their feet for many years”. In fact, it’s not as simple as that. The major manufacturer of aircraft in the world is, of course, the United States and they have announced they are bringing in an ADS-B mandate from 2020. Of course, the big manufacturers are all designing equipment for that date. When Australia decided to go ahead and introduce the mandate about seven years ahead, the problems started to occur. For example, following is an email that was sent to the CEO of the Australian Business Aviation Association (ABAA) in relation to how $100,000 has had to be spent and that equipment will then be pulled out of the aircraft:

Thank you for this and please pass on my thanks to Dick, it is nice to see someone with his
influence standing up for our industry which unfortunately as Dick says is scared of retribution
from the bureaucracy in Canberra.

In our case we are just about to finish the installation of an ADSB system into our
Corporate aircraft at a cost of $100000.00 dollars. This system is a temporary upgrade to meet the
requirements being forced upon us on the 12th Dec by Air Service Australia as an integrated
system is not being produced by Universal Avionics until the second or third quarter of 2014 .
We have had to go down this route to remain compliant as our aircraft is utilised for charter
and private ops which are not confined to “the J curve” & take us all over Australia and NZ.
Without it the cost of operating at 29000ft is prohibitive to our operation and seriously limits
the range of our aircraft.

Should we decide to export the aircraft back into the USA, we will have to remove this system
as it will not be compliant with the US requirements when they are introduced. The stand
alone systems that CASA and ASA have approved to rush this requirement through will not
meet the FAA standards and should we even wish to take the aircraft into US airspace with this
system we will not be allowed to as the FAA system will require an integrated system. I might
add that CASA originally rejected the stand alone installation due to the fact that the blind GPS
is in no way reflective of the GPS being used to navigate the aircraft. Therefore the possibility
exists that the blind GPS could be inaccurately reporting the position of the aircraft without
the crew knowing. An integrated system utilises the GPS signal being used to navigate the
aircraft therefore any navigation error is accurately reported by the ADSB system. CASA
conveniently changed this requirement to allow a blind GPS & stand alone installation. The
FAA are currently saying they will not allow this and is the basis that the aircraft will not be
able to fly in US airspace until an integrated system is installed.
In my case, with my Citation CJ3, I have been told I can fit some equipment for about $40,000 – which will be a ‘Band-Aid’ attachment to the bottom of the panel and then will not be accepted if I sell my aircraft back to the USA. However, in the first or second quarter of 2014 the proper service bulletin will be released by Cessna to put the correct equipment in using the Collins Pro-Line 21 format. Naturally, I would wish to wait for that.

The key question is, “is it possible for controllers to safely cope with a very small number of non-ADS-B aircraft in the airspace after 12 December 2013?” The fact is that the mandate is only above flight level 290 where there is very low risk of collision yet below flight level 290 no ADS-B mandate exists and, in fact, in most cases pilots have to self-separate as they are not provided with an air traffic control separation service at all.

I have been informed by my friends at Airservices that the main driver for this premature ADS-B introduction is the fact that the airlines will be able to do optimum tracking, depending on the winds for the day, and save considerable amounts of money. That’s good, however no-one seems to have thought of the small and barely viable business aviation community – especially the charter operators who are, I consider, “salt of the earth” people we should be encouraging, not putting out of business.

The very fact that the military are going to be allowed to fly in the airspace above 290 without ADS-B and that the airlines can operate for up to three days with a faulty unit shows that controllers must still be able to use procedural separation and provide a very safe service on the few occasions it is required.
Dick Smith is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.