Dick Smith to ASA: "See you in Court!"
CAO 20.18
Paragraphs 9B.8 to 9B.11 do not apply to an aircraft if:
(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based
on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting
equipment; or
Seems quite clear cut that CASA authorisation is all that's required.
Paragraphs 9B.8 to 9B.11 do not apply to an aircraft if:
(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based
on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting
equipment; or
Seems quite clear cut that CASA authorisation is all that's required.
ASA will charge for GPS use...
mandatory requirement to install ADS-B
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'...
.
No way! It's top secret like the AsA tender for the new combined AsA/military radar system.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'...
Where is the US governments written confirmation that they will compensate GPS users when the GPS signal is 'lost'...
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.
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!
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!
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: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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! 
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: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"the same arguments"..
"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...
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!
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!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aagh yes, Boyd Munro, back in a time when AOPA had testicles
Dicks argument is spot on. ASA are hypocrites and always bow to the whims of government or the big end of town. They are a cash cow for government, and are run as such. ASA's tender processes have often been described as unclear, far from transparent and 'interesting'. You only have to look at Russell's tenure to see that
As for Dick being questioned over his 'safety case' submission to Fort Fumble I have no reason to doubt his integrity. I wouldn't publish it either, some dodgy character may try to cut and paste it for their own purposes!
Let's hope some sensibility will prevail now Hoody is onboard. This could be a test case for him, to see if his logic, common sense and his sensible ideas will be listened to by ASA's top tier.
Dicks argument is spot on. ASA are hypocrites and always bow to the whims of government or the big end of town. They are a cash cow for government, and are run as such. ASA's tender processes have often been described as unclear, far from transparent and 'interesting'. You only have to look at Russell's tenure to see that
As for Dick being questioned over his 'safety case' submission to Fort Fumble I have no reason to doubt his integrity. I wouldn't publish it either, some dodgy character may try to cut and paste it for their own purposes!
Let's hope some sensibility will prevail now Hoody is onboard. This could be a test case for him, to see if his logic, common sense and his sensible ideas will be listened to by ASA's top tier.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 37
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 37
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.