Dick Smith to ASA: "See you in Court!"
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
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 37
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, thanks for the reply. at the heart of it I don't disagree with what you're saying, and indeed everything always is much more complicated than it seems at the surface.
I can and do control non ADSB aircraft every day that I work, I'm doing it today and will continue to do it tomorrow. I wasn't trying to argue against your points, I was attempting to put forward an alternate point of view in which our airspace is becoming increasingly busy and non identified aircraft use a significantly increased volume of airspace vs their identified mate.
I'm an enroute controller, and what I and my coworkers do often, I guess, seems a bit like black arts to some (as tower control is to me...), I was hoping to provide a small, non-inflammatory insight into some of the standards we have available to do our job to keep the rest of you in one piece.
Simply an alternate view to the issue...
Kieran
I can and do control non ADSB aircraft every day that I work, I'm doing it today and will continue to do it tomorrow. I wasn't trying to argue against your points, I was attempting to put forward an alternate point of view in which our airspace is becoming increasingly busy and non identified aircraft use a significantly increased volume of airspace vs their identified mate.
I'm an enroute controller, and what I and my coworkers do often, I guess, seems a bit like black arts to some (as tower control is to me...), I was hoping to provide a small, non-inflammatory insight into some of the standards we have available to do our job to keep the rest of you in one piece.
Simply an alternate view to the issue...
Kieran
Plazbot- that probably explains the 290 mandate level- it won't upset the military but to hell with the business aviation community .
Oz. Cessna told me a week ago their Service Bulletin won't be out until next year
Any info you can provide will be helpful.
However I have more interest in assisting those smaller operators that have older aircraft than assisting my own position.. I can afford the extra fuel but I am not keen on being forced down into the weather.
Our ATCs were able to handle non RVSM aircraft. I bet they can safely handle a small number of non ADSB aircraft in the same way.
Oz. Cessna told me a week ago their Service Bulletin won't be out until next year
Any info you can provide will be helpful.
However I have more interest in assisting those smaller operators that have older aircraft than assisting my own position.. I can afford the extra fuel but I am not keen on being forced down into the weather.
Our ATCs were able to handle non RVSM aircraft. I bet they can safely handle a small number of non ADSB aircraft in the same way.
As I had mentioned earlier, yes the avionics manufactures have been dragging their feet in relation to this issue due to the US not mandating ADSB in their airspace until 2020. But what this in turn means is that US operators that take their aircraft outside of the US are going to run into the same issues as you are and this is not limited to the operations in the Australian FIR.
The US appears to be the last first world country (could stand corrected) that is mandating the need for ADSB. A lot of people seem to be thinking Australia is going it alone on this, it is not the case. Yes, Australia is one of the first, but others are joining us on the exact same date.
With this in mind, their should of been enough global pressure (even from inside the US from international operators) on avionics manufacturers to pull their finger out and it sounds like there had been some given that a lot of equipment is being released 1H 2014, it misses the December 2013 deadline but is still 6 years earlier than the US mandate.
The US appears to be the last first world country (could stand corrected) that is mandating the need for ADSB. A lot of people seem to be thinking Australia is going it alone on this, it is not the case. Yes, Australia is one of the first, but others are joining us on the exact same date.
With this in mind, their should of been enough global pressure (even from inside the US from international operators) on avionics manufacturers to pull their finger out and it sounds like there had been some given that a lot of equipment is being released 1H 2014, it misses the December 2013 deadline but is still 6 years earlier than the US mandate.
Is there anyone claiming that the present system does not meet required safety levels? Of course not.
It's all about the Airlines being able to make more money and AsA being able to reduce staff so bonuses are bigger!
I understand huge new sectors will be put in place with lower staffing.
Sounds ok as long as it is fairly done.
It's all about the Airlines being able to make more money and AsA being able to reduce staff so bonuses are bigger!
I understand huge new sectors will be put in place with lower staffing.
Sounds ok as long as it is fairly done.
It's all about the Airlines being able to make more money and AsA being able to reduce staff so bonuses are bigger!
The current system maybe safe, but what about future proofing it? Many are willing to jump on the bandwagon to bash ASA and CASA when they do something that "should of been done years ago" (and perhaps rightly so in some instances) but when they do something that is proactive they get bashed again. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Has anyone that is so against the roll out of ADSB thought about the future safety benefits it can provide in addition to the ATC seperation standards? Accurate TCAS systems that can be fitted to light aircraft that can give you greatly improved situational awareness when approaching a busy uncontrolled aerodrome. Improved "radar" coverage across our large, sparse country so that if an aircraft was to go down rescue authorities can be given a better idea of where to look (I know ADSB will not provide 100% coverage at low level and that 406MHz beacons also help reduce the search area, but if it was to happen every bit of information helps).
Apart from reducing seperation standards between aircraft so that more aircraft can use their optimum levels, I don't really see how mandating ADSB will "make the airlines more money", unless they own avionic manufacturers.
Some people have alluded that this is being implemented so that ADSB aircraft can simply get direct-to tracking, well to these people I can tell you ADSB aircraft still fly the published preferred routes the majority of the time, and even when given track shortening it doesn't really save a great deal of fuel and time. I doubt after the December deadline comes in that this will change, but if you hear an aircraft departing Perth for Sydney get given the instruction "track direct SY" or similar feel free to let me know.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick, You just can't seem to help yourself when it comes to putting the boot into the military:
The F290 mandate had nothing to do with the military. F290 is the level above which the majority of RPT jet traffic operates. It's also the level above which RVSM now applies. Consequently, it made sense to mandate F290 as the level in respect of ADS-B. Once again, the military had nothing to do with that decision, other than not raise objections.
The only, only exemption that the military requested was that the ADS-B mandate be deferred for military aircraft until 2018. Why? Taxpayer dollars (yours) associated with the prohibitive cost of retrofitting legacy aircraft that were due for retirement in the 2012-2018 time-frame. Other than that, and it's an economically sensible approach in respect of your tax-dollars, the military had zip to do with the decision.
Please stop putting the emotive boot in when you are not in possession of the facts. Or do you just ignore them for the sake of a good punch-line?
Plazbot- that probably explains the 290 mandate level- it won't upset the military but to hell with the business aviation community.
The only, only exemption that the military requested was that the ADS-B mandate be deferred for military aircraft until 2018. Why? Taxpayer dollars (yours) associated with the prohibitive cost of retrofitting legacy aircraft that were due for retirement in the 2012-2018 time-frame. Other than that, and it's an economically sensible approach in respect of your tax-dollars, the military had zip to do with the decision.
Please stop putting the emotive boot in when you are not in possession of the facts. Or do you just ignore them for the sake of a good punch-line?
via Check_Thrust:
The current system maybe safe, but what about future proofing it?...
The current system maybe safe, but what about future proofing it?...
Interesting that the Chinese GPS system has selective availability. What do the most astute government on the planet know that we dont ?
.
Howabout. So the costs to the military were taken into consideration but not the costs to the business aviation community .
Doesn't sound that fair to me .
Why do the military get special consideration? I know. Because they have people in influential positions .
It's so very Australian! And so very Canberra!
Sounds as if I am totally in possession of the facts.
Doesn't sound that fair to me .
Why do the military get special consideration? I know. Because they have people in influential positions .
It's so very Australian! And so very Canberra!
Sounds as if I am totally in possession of the facts.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Dick, and you've got a tin-ear.
You'd be surprised, or maybe not, how little influence the military has unless the position is backed up with facts and is argued cogently.
The military gets 'no special consideration.' It must put its case to the regulator, just like everyone else.
Maybe the military is just better than you in crafting a legitimate argument that's free from emotion.
Dick; as a private individual, you have the luxury of having a spray that's sometimes devoid of fact and based more on emotion - that's your privilege. The military does not have recourse to 'opinion' to push any case.
Hard arguments and hard facts Dick. Sprays don't work in the big sand-pit.
You'd be surprised, or maybe not, how little influence the military has unless the position is backed up with facts and is argued cogently.
The military gets 'no special consideration.' It must put its case to the regulator, just like everyone else.
Maybe the military is just better than you in crafting a legitimate argument that's free from emotion.
Dick; as a private individual, you have the luxury of having a spray that's sometimes devoid of fact and based more on emotion - that's your privilege. The military does not have recourse to 'opinion' to push any case.
Hard arguments and hard facts Dick. Sprays don't work in the big sand-pit.
I remembered reading previous posts from Dick about this topic quite some time ago so I thought I'd do a search just to refresh my memory on it.
Now I don't have time to go through all of them but here are some examples of what he has previously stated:
10th March 2008:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...d-herring.html
14th May 2009:
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...sing-jobs.html
To me it seems Dick simply has a bee in his bonnet over this issue and nothing apart from a complete roll back of ADS-B will make him happy.
As for Flying Binghi, the sky has been falling over GPS in his mind for at least 5 years:
24th June 2008:
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...te-fiasco.html
If an aggressor causes the US to turn off or damages the GPS system I think we will have other things on our mind apart from ADS-B not working.
Anyway, I am off to work in my ADS-B fitted aircraft to fly in complete surveillance coverage with procedural separation available as backup and with IRS and ground based navaids to backup my use of GNSS.
Now I don't have time to go through all of them but here are some examples of what he has previously stated:
10th March 2008:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...d-herring.html
Readers will no doubt remember a while ago I made statements in relation to ADS-B being used by terrorists and also others “spoofing” the system to stop it operating correctly. I made the point that these issues should be addressed before Airservices Australia goes ahead and leads the world on ADS-B.
I have recently seen the following comment on the internationally recognised aviation news resource AVweb, see the link here. Particularly note the comment:
Quote:
“The Department of Defence is concerned ADS-B might work a little too well. It doesn’t want to advertise all its flights and wants a way to fit in the system without letting everyone know its aircraft are there at times, which, of course is the exact opposite of the main selling point of ADS-B. DoD is also concerned that ADS-B can be hijacked by terrorists or enemies and wants to know what is going to be done to prevent “spoofing” the system.”
Isn’t it interesting how Airservices Australia seems to have gone very quiet on their ADS-B proposal?
I have recently seen the following comment on the internationally recognised aviation news resource AVweb, see the link here. Particularly note the comment:
Quote:
“The Department of Defence is concerned ADS-B might work a little too well. It doesn’t want to advertise all its flights and wants a way to fit in the system without letting everyone know its aircraft are there at times, which, of course is the exact opposite of the main selling point of ADS-B. DoD is also concerned that ADS-B can be hijacked by terrorists or enemies and wants to know what is going to be done to prevent “spoofing” the system.”
Isn’t it interesting how Airservices Australia seems to have gone very quiet on their ADS-B proposal?
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...sing-jobs.html
All corporate jet aircraft operating above FL290 in Australia will be required to have ADS-B by 2013 – seven years before the requirement is mandated in the USA. A number of industry people I have spoken to predict that up to 50% of our corporate fleet will be sold back to the USA, rather than spending the $20 million (estimated by CASA) to fit ADS-B. They state that this type of money is simply not available.
Remember, ADS-B is not required below FL290, so no improvement will be made in the so-called “necessary” problem area of the western minefields.
With up to 50% of the fleet being sold back to the USA, many professional pilots will lose their jobs. Some will say they deserve this because these pilots have done absolutely nothing in making it clear to CASA that Australia can’t possibly lead the world in expensive requirements when there is a major recession taking place.
Fortunately it won’t affect me at all. I can easily afford the ADS-B, and I presume the Packers can too.
I would love to know what genuine measurable safety issue is being addressed. I recently flew the CJ3 out to Birdsville, and above FL290 there is basically no one there. This must be so because Airservices regularly went to TIBA without any real objection from CASA. Of course Airservices have announced that they are going to replace the radars as required, so the ADS-B requirement cannot be designed to address the J-curve.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe ADS-B is fantastic. However I find it interesting that Australia is planning to lead other major aviation countries, such as the USA, with these mandatory requirements.
It can only be happening because the people at CASA making the decisions have no understanding of commercial reality at all. The cargo cult attitude that existed in the 60s is back, firm and strong.
It appears that Qantas agreed with this early mandate because they thought it would only affect the business aviation community and wouldn’t cost Qantas a cent – i.e. that they would have got rid of their 767s by then.
Now with the downturn, there is a chance that Qantas will still have the 767s and it will cost an absolute fortune to fit ADS-B – resulting in even fewer people being employed as their company profitability is affected even more.
Remember, ADS-B is not required below FL290, so no improvement will be made in the so-called “necessary” problem area of the western minefields.
With up to 50% of the fleet being sold back to the USA, many professional pilots will lose their jobs. Some will say they deserve this because these pilots have done absolutely nothing in making it clear to CASA that Australia can’t possibly lead the world in expensive requirements when there is a major recession taking place.
Fortunately it won’t affect me at all. I can easily afford the ADS-B, and I presume the Packers can too.
I would love to know what genuine measurable safety issue is being addressed. I recently flew the CJ3 out to Birdsville, and above FL290 there is basically no one there. This must be so because Airservices regularly went to TIBA without any real objection from CASA. Of course Airservices have announced that they are going to replace the radars as required, so the ADS-B requirement cannot be designed to address the J-curve.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe ADS-B is fantastic. However I find it interesting that Australia is planning to lead other major aviation countries, such as the USA, with these mandatory requirements.
It can only be happening because the people at CASA making the decisions have no understanding of commercial reality at all. The cargo cult attitude that existed in the 60s is back, firm and strong.
It appears that Qantas agreed with this early mandate because they thought it would only affect the business aviation community and wouldn’t cost Qantas a cent – i.e. that they would have got rid of their 767s by then.
Now with the downturn, there is a chance that Qantas will still have the 767s and it will cost an absolute fortune to fit ADS-B – resulting in even fewer people being employed as their company profitability is affected even more.
As for Flying Binghi, the sky has been falling over GPS in his mind for at least 5 years:
24th June 2008:
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...te-fiasco.html
What happens to ADS-B when the civy GPS gets turned off ?
Anyway, I am off to work in my ADS-B fitted aircraft to fly in complete surveillance coverage with procedural separation available as backup and with IRS and ground based navaids to backup my use of GNSS.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The books are 'loose' when it comes to priorities on operating levels/route clearances, but my particular favourite is 'significant economic benefeit'..
p.s the argument that the military are worried about 'terrorists' seeing where they are off to seems a little silly...surely Due Regard covers tx off.
p.s the argument that the military are worried about 'terrorists' seeing where they are off to seems a little silly...surely Due Regard covers tx off.
Howabout
In post 51 you state,
So, Howabout, how come an “economically sensible approach” was not allowed for the business aviation community?
Please answer this question promptly as it’s very important.
In post 51 you state,
The only, only exemption that the military requested was that the ADS-B mandate be deferred for military aircraft until 2018. Why? Taxpayer dollars (yours) associated with the prohibitive cost of retrofitting legacy aircraft that were due for retirement in the 2012-2018 time-frame. Other than that, and it's an economically sensible approach in respect of your tax-dollars, the military had zip to do with the decision.
Please answer this question promptly as it’s very important.
The only, only exemption that the military requested was that the ADS-B mandate be deferred for military aircraft until 2018. Why? Taxpayer dollars (yours) associated with the prohibitive cost of retrofitting legacy aircraft that were due for retirement in the 2012-2018 time-frame. Other than that, and it's an economically sensible approach in respect of your tax-dollars, the military had zip to do with the decision.
The biggest aviation country in the world is the USA. Most corporate aircraft are made there and operate there. Why should CASA/ASA mandate a piece of equipment that does not fit their model? This reminds me of the CVR introduction etc where the Oz installation was different to the FAA mandate = more costs and a re-mod when the aircraft went back there. By the way, how many jets do we make in Australia these days??
Dick is right when he asserts that those making these decisions do not really understand the financial and operational realities. This helps to keep aviation from growing in my opinion..
Dick's test case for Truss's aviation policy..??
The Abbott government's mantra is to reduce cost to business by cutting redtape. This was again reiterated in Truss's announcement of the coalition's aviation policy prior to the election and again highlighted in the Minister's announcement of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review.
Three days ago the FF Phearless Leader had this to say in support of the ASRR:
But here is the clincher 
...the DAS goes on to say:
So there is your answer Dick the guru of all things that fly has considered the matter, done their CBA, worked a deal with the boys'n'gals in blue and bugger the rest of you!
And they're really, really pleased with their achievements:
Three days ago the FF Phearless Leader had this to say in support of the ASRR:
Another important area to be considered by the review is the burden and costs of regulation. Mr Truss told Parliament: “The Government has a clear policy of reducing the cost of regulation to business, and this goal will be part of the review. If there are ways to improve our safety outcomes and reduce the regulatory burden and the costs imposed on industry, then we can create a win-win outcome for the Australian economy overall.”
...the DAS goes on to say:
CASA already takes the costs of regulation into account when developing and implementing safety standards and we welcome this aspect of the review. While achieving the best possible safety outcomes must always come first, CASA understands regulation must not be an unnecessary drag on aviation activity.
And they're really, really pleased with their achievements:
Milestone in Australian aviation in December 2013
The twelfth of December 2013 is an important date in the advancement of Australian aviation. That’s the start of the requirement for aircraft operating above flight level 290 to carry approved and serviceable automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast equipment. Aircraft without approved automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast equipment will not be cleared by air traffic control for flight at or above flight level 290, subject to a special exemption. Any aircraft not able to operate at or above flight level 290 will miss out on the benefits of operating at optimum cruising levels, such as fuel efficiencies. Aircraft without automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast will also miss out on benefits such as improved safety, air traffic control priority in some situations, continuous rather than stepped climbs and descents, greater ability to obtain requested routes or levels and the easier location of aircraft during search and rescue. CASA has provided a limited exemption to the new automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast requirements due to the operators of some business jets having difficulty obtaining and installing the equipment. A two year exemption period is available on application for airspace covered by the so called east coast radar J curve – airspace from 200 nautical miles north of Cairns to 220 nautical miles west of Adelaide – as well as some oceanic areas of Australian airspace. Operators must apply for an exemption at least 14 days before a flight takes place.
Find out more about automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast requirements.
The twelfth of December 2013 is an important date in the advancement of Australian aviation. That’s the start of the requirement for aircraft operating above flight level 290 to carry approved and serviceable automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast equipment. Aircraft without approved automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast equipment will not be cleared by air traffic control for flight at or above flight level 290, subject to a special exemption. Any aircraft not able to operate at or above flight level 290 will miss out on the benefits of operating at optimum cruising levels, such as fuel efficiencies. Aircraft without automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast will also miss out on benefits such as improved safety, air traffic control priority in some situations, continuous rather than stepped climbs and descents, greater ability to obtain requested routes or levels and the easier location of aircraft during search and rescue. CASA has provided a limited exemption to the new automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast requirements due to the operators of some business jets having difficulty obtaining and installing the equipment. A two year exemption period is available on application for airspace covered by the so called east coast radar J curve – airspace from 200 nautical miles north of Cairns to 220 nautical miles west of Adelaide – as well as some oceanic areas of Australian airspace. Operators must apply for an exemption at least 14 days before a flight takes place.
Find out more about automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast requirements.