Dick Smith to ASA: "See you in Court!"
Howabout. Any idea why a "reasonable approach" was accepted from the military however when David Bell of the Australian Business Aviation Association had meeting after meeting explaining the difficulties some business aircraft would have in complying he was treated like s--t.
His approach was calm and moderate all to no avail.
What's happening now reminds me very much of the "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" days.
Complete un- accountability by those who should know better.
His approach was calm and moderate all to no avail.
What's happening now reminds me very much of the "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" days.
Complete un- accountability by those who should know better.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 30th Nov 2013 at 03:03.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick,
Sorry for the delay, but in retirement the 72lb Border Collie demands much of my time.
Your first question:
An eminently fair question, Dick, but one that you must answer yourself. How come Defence can put forward an argument based on fact and you can't? It's not in the purview of Defence to push your barrow. You must do that yourself.
Your second question:
Dick, see the answer to question number one above.
Sorry for the delay, but in retirement the 72lb Border Collie demands much of my time.
Your first question:
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.
Please answer this question promptly as it’s very important.
Your second question:
Howabout. Any idea why a "reasonable approach" was accepted from the military however when David Bell of the Australian Business Aviation Association had meeting after meeting explaining the difficulties some business aircraft would have in complying he was treated like s--t.
Dick, this "military" argument is akin to the Mil Airspace requirements in this country. A piddling few aircraft taking heaps of airspace compared to Europe/USA/Japan etc etc...
On one hand Mr Howabout says the F18's transiting don't really need >FL290 because the tankering assets don't tow them around above that while on the other hand they want an exemption based on costs! Speaking out of both sides of the mouth I'd say.
What about cost to non-airline industry? David Bell is a very measured individual indeed with much experience by the way...
On one hand Mr Howabout says the F18's transiting don't really need >FL290 because the tankering assets don't tow them around above that while on the other hand they want an exemption based on costs! Speaking out of both sides of the mouth I'd say.
What about cost to non-airline industry? David Bell is a very measured individual indeed with much experience by the way...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi TBM,
Read the thread carefully. The F290 issue as regards transits was addressed by Plazbot, not me.
My comment on F290 went to ADS-B, RVSM, RPT cruise-levels and the logicality of CASA and AsA designating that level as the cut-off for mandatory ADS-B carriage.
As regards 'the exemption,' would you truly approve of your tax-dollars being spent on legacy airframes to retrofit ADS-B and then be retired 2-4 years later? I can imagine the outrage at 'Defence waste.'
Airspace? It's always going to be a bone of contention, TBM, but I suggest you look at what CASA's OAR has done with respect to rationalisation in the last few years. Rationalisation, by the way, that was initiated by Defence.
On your side of the territory, TBM, you'll never be satisfied. You'll keep chanting the mantra like the nodding-dog on the parcel-shelf. It's not worth my time arguing airspace -it's been done to death.
Read the thread carefully. The F290 issue as regards transits was addressed by Plazbot, not me.
My comment on F290 went to ADS-B, RVSM, RPT cruise-levels and the logicality of CASA and AsA designating that level as the cut-off for mandatory ADS-B carriage.
As regards 'the exemption,' would you truly approve of your tax-dollars being spent on legacy airframes to retrofit ADS-B and then be retired 2-4 years later? I can imagine the outrage at 'Defence waste.'
Airspace? It's always going to be a bone of contention, TBM, but I suggest you look at what CASA's OAR has done with respect to rationalisation in the last few years. Rationalisation, by the way, that was initiated by Defence.
On your side of the territory, TBM, you'll never be satisfied. You'll keep chanting the mantra like the nodding-dog on the parcel-shelf. It's not worth my time arguing airspace -it's been done to death.
Can anyone confirm exactly what the requirements for fitment of an ADSB transponder is
I have recently imported an aircraft that is going on to the Aussie register it is piston pressurised limited to 25000.
My reading of the regs is for the next few years I can continue with mode C style provided I don't go above 29000.
Yet I have been told all aircraft new to the Aussie register need to have the ADSB TX fitted as part of their C of A.
I have recently imported an aircraft that is going on to the Aussie register it is piston pressurised limited to 25000.
My reading of the regs is for the next few years I can continue with mode C style provided I don't go above 29000.
Yet I have been told all aircraft new to the Aussie register need to have the ADSB TX fitted as part of their C of A.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dec 2013: All operations at and above FL290
Feb 2014: Aircraft operated under the IFR first registered in Australia after 6 Feb 2014.
Feb 2016: In large parts of Western Australia (Airspace classes A, B, C and E).
(This is co-incident with the mandatory requirement to fit GNSS to all IFR aircraft for navigation in Australian airspace.)
Feb 2017: All IFR operations at all flight levels
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...IRSERVICES.pdf
If you need a GTX330ES let me know. I might have one for a reasonable price in the new year after a substantial upgrade.
Feb 2014: Aircraft operated under the IFR first registered in Australia after 6 Feb 2014.
Feb 2016: In large parts of Western Australia (Airspace classes A, B, C and E).
(This is co-incident with the mandatory requirement to fit GNSS to all IFR aircraft for navigation in Australian airspace.)
Feb 2017: All IFR operations at all flight levels
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...IRSERVICES.pdf
If you need a GTX330ES let me know. I might have one for a reasonable price in the new year after a substantial upgrade.
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
Xin Hua reports new airspace in international waters. No mention of ADSB at all, simply a requirement to report. Are they that far behind?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mail-man,
Please do not misconstrue my comments as being unsympathetic to GA. Far from it: despite wearing the blue, I attended more RAPACs, CASA and AsA meetings than I can remember and heard loud and clear the issues of concern. Most were/are legitimate IMHO.
To get back to your question - what makes the military so special? In the context of the current argument on ADS-B, nothing other than fleet size and the fact (without belaboring the point again) that spending tax-payer dollars on the legacy fleet could not be justified in respect of the Defence budget.
This is a compartmentalised argument, Mail-man. It's probably not the best term, but my job was to do the best in the interests of my employer (the tax-payer), within my 'compartment' and help ensure that funds were not unnecessarily wasted when sensible compromise was available.
My job was not to champion GA; regardless of my sympathies. That is an altogether separate 'compartment,' and GA had to/must pursue it's case from within its own resources on its own patch.
But that's all ancient history - I'm just glad to be out of it.
Please do not misconstrue my comments as being unsympathetic to GA. Far from it: despite wearing the blue, I attended more RAPACs, CASA and AsA meetings than I can remember and heard loud and clear the issues of concern. Most were/are legitimate IMHO.
To get back to your question - what makes the military so special? In the context of the current argument on ADS-B, nothing other than fleet size and the fact (without belaboring the point again) that spending tax-payer dollars on the legacy fleet could not be justified in respect of the Defence budget.
This is a compartmentalised argument, Mail-man. It's probably not the best term, but my job was to do the best in the interests of my employer (the tax-payer), within my 'compartment' and help ensure that funds were not unnecessarily wasted when sensible compromise was available.
My job was not to champion GA; regardless of my sympathies. That is an altogether separate 'compartment,' and GA had to/must pursue it's case from within its own resources on its own patch.
But that's all ancient history - I'm just glad to be out of it.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adhering to the US mandate would've been better for everyone. It would've given Defence plenty of time to upgrade their aircraft, it would have ensured that the avionics industry was ready to supply slightly less ridiculously priced equipment for the small end of the GA market (I'm not looking forward to paying $10,000 to put a 1090ES transponder and TSO'd GPS into my $30,000 day VFR C152 so I can fly it to Canberra occasionally), and would have ensured that manufacturers of airframes with very tightly integrated avionics (such as Dick's CJ3) would have had upgrades available.
Australia decided to go it alone before the rest of the world for little apparent reason other than to give CASA staff something to brag about to their mates in Montreal. A small handful of relatively minor regional players, such as Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam just happened to follow.
Europe and the USA are the two largest markets for aircraft, and in particular GA aircraft. Europe's mandate is 1 August 2013 for new aircraft, and and 12 July 2017 for retrofits, and only applies to aircraft >5700kg or max cruise >250kts TAS (aircraft not meeting those criteria only need basic Mode S capability.) The USA's mandate is of course 2020.
Given that the vast majority of bizjets would be flying in either of those two jurisdictions or other jurisdictions with no ADS-B mandate at all, most of Cessna's customers would undoubtedly be happy enough with Cessna's current upgrade availability for next year.
Originally Posted by Check_Thrust
Yes, Australia is one of the first, but others are joining us on the exact same date.
Europe and the USA are the two largest markets for aircraft, and in particular GA aircraft. Europe's mandate is 1 August 2013 for new aircraft, and and 12 July 2017 for retrofits, and only applies to aircraft >5700kg or max cruise >250kts TAS (aircraft not meeting those criteria only need basic Mode S capability.) The USA's mandate is of course 2020.
Given that the vast majority of bizjets would be flying in either of those two jurisdictions or other jurisdictions with no ADS-B mandate at all, most of Cessna's customers would undoubtedly be happy enough with Cessna's current upgrade availability for next year.
Last edited by bankrunner; 30th Nov 2013 at 08:06.
(I'm not looking forward to paying $10,000 to put a 1090ES transponder and TSO'd GPS into my $30,000 day VFR C152 so I can fly it to Canberra occasionally)
via Check_Thrust #56:
As for Flying Binghi, the sky has been falling over GPS in his mind for at least 5 years...
As for Flying Binghi, the sky has been falling over GPS in his mind for at least 5 years...
Seems you've missed the news Check_Thrust. The prediction has near come true. Been a couple of terrorist GPS drone test missions done recently and they nearly got the bomb drones away. Better luck next time ah suppose...
"The Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah has flown intelligence-gathering drones into Israeli territory on two separate occasions in the past year: The Israeli Air Force shot down a drone it said was operated by Hezbollah in April; and in October 2012, another Hezbollah UAV was downed over southern Israel ...
... Palestinian security forces recently uncovered a terror cell in the West Bank plotting to launch unmanned aerial vehicles laden with explosives..."
PA forces thwart Hamas attack drone plot in West Bank | The Times of Israel
via Check_Thrust #56:
...I think we will have other things on our mind apart from ADS-B not working."
...I think we will have other things on our mind apart from ADS-B not working."
.
I understand the after Desert Storm the US military started using civil GPS units, which is why the turned off the "dither". I think that GNSS is here to stay as a robust system.
Furthermore, there are now 3 GPS systems. The US GNSS, The Russian GLONAS, European Gallileo as well as Indian & Asian networks under development.
I don't think there is a lot of concern about lack of availability. However, there is a well developed ability to jam GPS signals in local areas. I think this is what you can expect in areas of conflict.
Furthermore, there are now 3 GPS systems. The US GNSS, The Russian GLONAS, European Gallileo as well as Indian & Asian networks under development.
I don't think there is a lot of concern about lack of availability. However, there is a well developed ability to jam GPS signals in local areas. I think this is what you can expect in areas of conflict.
Seems you've missed the news Check_Thrust. The prediction has near come true.
I never said that terrorist groups can't or wouldn't use GNSS to their own means, it is quite a logical conclusion that they would try, just as groups have utilised mobile phone technology to detonate explosive devices, but are you suggesting that the world should shutdown every mobile phone network as well?
To note as well, I did not bring up the topic about 'Bingy's Buzz Bombs' nor did I criticise your previous opinions on the possibility that they may be made or used. I do not believe though that they would be used extensively enough to warrant a full scale implementation of Selective Availability or even for the system to be turned off (but who knows, I may be be proved wrong in the future as the future is a long stretch of time).
At the present point in time there are two fully functional worldwide GNSS networks, GPS (USA) and GLONASS (Russia). By 2020 it is expected that in addition to GPS and GLONASS that there will be additional two worldwide navigation systems, Compass (China) and Galileo (EU). It is expected that in the future GNSS devices will be able to utilise signals from multiple satellite networks to derive a position, not just the GPS network. It is already happening with the Garmin GLO as one example that can utilise both GPS and GLONASS to derive a position fix. (I have seen it stated that some believe that Garmin have only done this to avoid Russian tariffs that are imposed on GNSS products that do not utilise the GLONASS network, and I don't blame Russia for imposing such tariffs given the obvious cost behind setting up GLONASS, but it at the end of it all one would expect that future GNSS units will use all available networks for their own benefit and reliability).
Now, come 2020 with four fully functional GNSS networks, run by four different governments it is unlikely (note I have said unlikely, not won't) that a situation would occur that would result in any or all of the networks to be either switched off or have Selective Availability imposed. What benefit would doing either have? If any major country was to cause aggression with another, there would be no benefit in making their network unavailable to the other because the opposing side will have their own network to utilise anyway.
Quote:
via Check_Thrust #56:
...I think we will have other things on our mind apart from ADS-B not working."
via Check_Thrust #56:
...I think we will have other things on our mind apart from ADS-B not working."
If there is enough aggression towards a nation that controls a GNSS network that then results in that nation to either turn off their network or to impose Selective Availability do you not think that the first thing on your mind would be, "Heck, the world is in a seriously screwed situation if there is going to be a war" and "although I can't do anything to stop it, how will this affect me and my family".
Now apart from that dramatised scenario above, if GNSS was switched off, we would not be the only industry affected by it. Marine, rail (believe it or not), road transport (not talking Joe Blogs that uses his car satnav to go to the corner shop), mining and law enforcement agencies (and no doubt many other groups as well) across the globe would all be affected. Although these industries have operated in the past without GNSS and they can do so again if need be, it would obviously be a large inconvenience for it to happen and not necessarily in a governing states best interest for it to happen.
CDMA phone networks (although no longer used in Australia there are still over 50 countries including the USA that have and utilise CDMA networks) rely on the timing provided (not position fixing) by the GPS network in regards to how it encodes, sends and decodes telephone transmissions, so if GPS was turned off it would have major effects on telecommunications as well. (If you were one of the many Australians that owned a CDMA phone did you live in fear that your phone call would cut out and your phone rendered useless if the US decided to make GPS unavailable?)
In addition to all this from an aviation perspective for the USA alone there are over 3000 LPV approaches of which over 1500 serve airports without an ILS, so again, if the USA was to tinker with their GPS network it would have big effects on themselves as well.
Again, I will restate that although it is possible that each GNSS network could be tinkered with to prevent civilian use of the systems but I believe that it is extremely unlikely that it would happen given all the implications that would occur. Also given that there will be four networks available, for something to happen that would affect all four networks it would have to be a very major global event (and yes, I am aware that there have been major worldwide confrontations before), however with each major government power having their own network it wouldn't really provide a strategic advantage to make their own network unavailable (I know I am repeating this point).
So to say that Australia and other nations (including the US, although not mandatory until 2020) should not implement the use of ADS-B on the bases of "What happens to ADS-B when the civy GPS gets turned off ?" is in my opinion, silly (and you are entitled to your own opinion that conflicts with mine). If ADS-B was to fail due to the GPS network being turned off in current times, or multiple GNSS networks being turned off in future times, air traffic controllers the world over will still be able to revert to procedural based separation where there is no SSR coverage (although I am sure it would cause many headaches in areas of crowded airspace). To prevent making air transport easier and more efficient for everyone involved on the bases of what might happen due to a very remote possibility is again just silly.
Hmm... were going to start a new subject thread though as this ones gone quiet may as well continue to post here...
Terrorists using GPS is unfortunately logical, and already happening.
Check_Thrust, your obviously new to the discussion because the mobile phone detonator argument has been bought up in pprune before re GPS guided terror drones. The phone bomb scenarios/events are typically a bomb is placed with a mobile phone detonator and then later detonated by another phone. This requires terrorists to be in country and a lot of recognisance and logistical effort to set up. Whilst these sort of attacks happen around the world here in Oz the chances of terrorists being captured pre attack or post attack are very high so repeatability of attack likely nil. A very high cost attack with the high probability of traceback to the terror group leaders makes even the contemplation of this form of attack low. Would we shut down the mobile phone network for a possible one-off attack? doubtful.
On the other hand, GPS guided terror weapons can be launched out side of Australian territory. At most, all thats needed to be done in country is vertical and lateral destination co-ordinates for the GPS. If needed a year or two before the attack a tourist takes some pictures or somebody just drives by.
A scenario i presented some years ago...
A GPS guided terrorist drone, or drones, just wanders in over the Oz coastline and proceeds to a target. Likely unseen until the target is hit. Where did it come from and who sent it ? Whens the next one coming and from where ?
The GPS guided bomb drone doesn't need to be large, a hand grenade sized bomb payload delivered to a few square metres of airspace would be very effective from a terrorists point of view. Repeatability of attack guaranteed with public concern being very high.
Nuff fer now...
.
via Check_Thrust:
...I never said that terrorist groups can't or wouldn't use GNSS to their own means, it is quite a logical conclusion that they would try, just as groups have utilised mobile phone technology to detonate explosive devices, but are you suggesting that the world should shutdown every mobile phone network as well?...
...I never said that terrorist groups can't or wouldn't use GNSS to their own means, it is quite a logical conclusion that they would try, just as groups have utilised mobile phone technology to detonate explosive devices, but are you suggesting that the world should shutdown every mobile phone network as well?...
Check_Thrust, your obviously new to the discussion because the mobile phone detonator argument has been bought up in pprune before re GPS guided terror drones. The phone bomb scenarios/events are typically a bomb is placed with a mobile phone detonator and then later detonated by another phone. This requires terrorists to be in country and a lot of recognisance and logistical effort to set up. Whilst these sort of attacks happen around the world here in Oz the chances of terrorists being captured pre attack or post attack are very high so repeatability of attack likely nil. A very high cost attack with the high probability of traceback to the terror group leaders makes even the contemplation of this form of attack low. Would we shut down the mobile phone network for a possible one-off attack? doubtful.
On the other hand, GPS guided terror weapons can be launched out side of Australian territory. At most, all thats needed to be done in country is vertical and lateral destination co-ordinates for the GPS. If needed a year or two before the attack a tourist takes some pictures or somebody just drives by.
A scenario i presented some years ago...
A GPS guided terrorist drone, or drones, just wanders in over the Oz coastline and proceeds to a target. Likely unseen until the target is hit. Where did it come from and who sent it ? Whens the next one coming and from where ?
The GPS guided bomb drone doesn't need to be large, a hand grenade sized bomb payload delivered to a few square metres of airspace would be very effective from a terrorists point of view. Repeatability of attack guaranteed with public concern being very high.
Nuff fer now...
.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Military
Everyone might as well forget about the military and any discussion here to, as they, by dint of the Defence Act (whatever year), do not have to abide by any civilian rule or regulation.
For example RAAF pilots do not have to hold or comply with civilian pilot licences/rules/regulations.
RAN Captains/Navigators do not have to hold Master Mariners tickets.
Army personnel driving military vehicles are not required to hold civilian driving licences.
Nor do military personnel have to hold gun licences to carry, shoot or have weapons.
Just so long as they are undertaking their normal military occupation they are not required to hold civilian equivalancies.
The military outfit their aircraft to civilian standards but are under no obligation to do so, if they need the cubic space/weight for military purposes that equipment will be out and on the shelf so quick your head may spin.
If some jet jockey has to go from YWLM to YPDN in a F/A-18 and plans at block F300-F400/M0.97 with only a Mk1 eyeball for navigation he/she is allowed to and ASA/CASA/Mr Joe Public cannot gain say him/her, controllers have to accept it and keep other traffic out of the way. (Remember F111 planned from YAMB to YAMB via YMLT and a few points just SW of YMLT and that was all the info given)(Got some nice happy snaps though)
For example RAAF pilots do not have to hold or comply with civilian pilot licences/rules/regulations.
RAN Captains/Navigators do not have to hold Master Mariners tickets.
Army personnel driving military vehicles are not required to hold civilian driving licences.
Nor do military personnel have to hold gun licences to carry, shoot or have weapons.
Just so long as they are undertaking their normal military occupation they are not required to hold civilian equivalancies.
The military outfit their aircraft to civilian standards but are under no obligation to do so, if they need the cubic space/weight for military purposes that equipment will be out and on the shelf so quick your head may spin.
If some jet jockey has to go from YWLM to YPDN in a F/A-18 and plans at block F300-F400/M0.97 with only a Mk1 eyeball for navigation he/she is allowed to and ASA/CASA/Mr Joe Public cannot gain say him/her, controllers have to accept it and keep other traffic out of the way. (Remember F111 planned from YAMB to YAMB via YMLT and a few points just SW of YMLT and that was all the info given)(Got some nice happy snaps though)
