Dick Smith to ASA: "See you in Court!"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith to ASA: "See you in Court!"
It seems Dick intends to commence legal action against ASA tomorrow if the aviation industry is not granted exemption to the mandatory requirement to install ADS-B by 12 December.
It is not the money: Apparently the aircraft manufacturers of 38 pressurised business and commercial aircraft in Australia do not yet have ADS-B available as an option on existing air frames.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
It is not the money: Apparently the aircraft manufacturers of 38 pressurised business and commercial aircraft in Australia do not yet have ADS-B available as an option on existing air frames.
Dick Smith lets fly at new air traffic regulation
STEVE CREEDY THE AUSTRALIAN NOVEMBER 26, 2013 12:00AM
AVIATOR and entrepreneur Dick Smith is threatening legal action against Airservices Australia over a new satellite navigation requirement he believes discriminates against business aircraft.
In a potential test case on behalf of business plane operators, lawyers for the former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman have written to Airservices asking for air traffic clearances for a proposed trip from
Sydney to Longreach next month.
The demand challenges new rules due to come into effect on December 12 that mean air traffic controllers will not clear planes to fly above 29,000ft unless they are fitted with satellite-based Automatic Dependent
Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) equipment.
Mr Smith's lawyers told Airservices that unless he received clearance for his trip by 5pm tomorrow they would seek a Federal Court injunction.
ADS-B is replacing radar as a more accurate surveillance method for controlling aircraft and promises a more flexible and efficient use of airspace.
While there are dispensations along the east coast "J curve" covered by radar and over some Oceanic airspace, the 29,000ft rule applies to many of the outback and regional areas popular with business jet users.
A problem for Mr Smith and operators of planes similar to his Cessna Citation jet is that ADS-B equipment will not be available from some aircraft manufacturers until the first or second quarter of next year
Mr Smith says this will seriously disadvantage operators, worrying it will drive some broke, while favouring big airlines.
STEVE CREEDY THE AUSTRALIAN NOVEMBER 26, 2013 12:00AM
AVIATOR and entrepreneur Dick Smith is threatening legal action against Airservices Australia over a new satellite navigation requirement he believes discriminates against business aircraft.
In a potential test case on behalf of business plane operators, lawyers for the former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman have written to Airservices asking for air traffic clearances for a proposed trip from
Sydney to Longreach next month.
The demand challenges new rules due to come into effect on December 12 that mean air traffic controllers will not clear planes to fly above 29,000ft unless they are fitted with satellite-based Automatic Dependent
Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) equipment.
Mr Smith's lawyers told Airservices that unless he received clearance for his trip by 5pm tomorrow they would seek a Federal Court injunction.
ADS-B is replacing radar as a more accurate surveillance method for controlling aircraft and promises a more flexible and efficient use of airspace.
While there are dispensations along the east coast "J curve" covered by radar and over some Oceanic airspace, the 29,000ft rule applies to many of the outback and regional areas popular with business jet users.
A problem for Mr Smith and operators of planes similar to his Cessna Citation jet is that ADS-B equipment will not be available from some aircraft manufacturers until the first or second quarter of next year
Mr Smith says this will seriously disadvantage operators, worrying it will drive some broke, while favouring big airlines.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
How many years ago was notification first given this was coming in?
5 years ago?
And this 2 years ago, note section 2:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...up/a11-h09.pdf
My reading is that this is a CASA mandate, not Airservices, and exemptions must be granted by CASA -
5 years ago?
And this 2 years ago, note section 2:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...up/a11-h09.pdf
My reading is that this is a CASA mandate, not Airservices, and exemptions must be granted by CASA -
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many years ago was notification first given this was coming in?
I really so wonder if the industry will keep up with all new aircraft requiring ADSB kit of some form and it seems RAAUS aircraft are included under the new aircraft part. Perhaps we might be lucky and it is delayed like part 61.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either CASA or AirServices can approve the flight.
Here's the relevant section from CAO 20.18 below, bolding is mine:
EDIT: Actually, disregard. This is a CASA problem. Undecipherable regs...
Here's the relevant section from CAO 20.18 below, bolding is mine:
Originally Posted by CAO 20.18
9B.8 On and after 12 December 2013, any aircraft that is operated at or above FL 290 must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
[...]
9B.12 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
(b) the equipment is unserviceable for a flight, and each of the following applies:
(i) the flight takes place within 3 days of the discovery of the unserviceability;
(ii) at least 1 of the following applies for the flight:
(A) flight with unserviceable equipment has been approved by CASA, in writing, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies;
(B) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 have been complied with;
(iii) ATC clears the flight before it commences despite the unserviceability.
[...]
9B.12 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
(b) the equipment is unserviceable for a flight, and each of the following applies:
(i) the flight takes place within 3 days of the discovery of the unserviceability;
(ii) at least 1 of the following applies for the flight:
(A) flight with unserviceable equipment has been approved by CASA, in writing, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies;
(B) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 have been complied with;
(iii) ATC clears the flight before it commences despite the unserviceability.
EDIT: Actually, disregard. This is a CASA problem. Undecipherable regs...
Last edited by bankrunner; 26th Nov 2013 at 08:00. Reason: more highlighting
CASA only as the other bits involves an unserviceability not a total lack of equipment. The only part that applies is:
"(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"
Ah, I see you realised the error of your ways
"(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"
Ah, I see you realised the error of your ways
Last edited by le Pingouin; 26th Nov 2013 at 08:44.
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
the real joke here is that after all these years there is still not an adsb transponder available that can be installed in light aircraft.
the trig transponder seems the closest but it requires a garmin glass cockpit for gps position and altitude information to give it full adsb capability.
answer the question CASA.
what unit would you like us to install in a Corby Starlet?????
the trig transponder seems the closest but it requires a garmin glass cockpit for gps position and altitude information to give it full adsb capability.
answer the question CASA.
what unit would you like us to install in a Corby Starlet?????
(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
To quote from the article
Mr Smith says this will seriously disadvantage operators, worrying it will drive some broke, while favouring big airlines.
Unless Dick Smith intends to fly solely within the Australian FIR he may have to take his challenge to the authorities in Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia as well given that they are also implementing ADSB requirements (whether it be on some specific routes or the entire airspace varies for each) on the same date.
ADS-B Coming Soon To Asian Airspace | Aviation International News
I can believe that some manufacturers probably have been dragging their feet in regards to designing or implementing equipment for their aircraft given that for some reason the US are not mandating ADSB until 2020 (probably because they have good radar coverage across the entire country) so this has led them (the manufacturers) to be complacent on this issue. But this means the issue is with them, not ASA, CASA or any other aviation authority that is implementing ADSB requirements. If this affects you, in my opinion you should have been making as much noise as possible to the manufacture leading up to this event (I acknowledge Dick Smith and others may have been doing this) not crying foul at an administration that has given all plenty of notice.
IFR aircraft (not VFR to my knowledge) operating below FL290 are not required to have ADSB fitted until Jan 2017 so plenty of notice there to research, source and fit appropriate equipment to those aircraft. I have flown King Airs (not Pro-Line equipped) and Caravans that have ADSB fitted and the equipment used to do this in my opinion is not outside the realms of any light IFR aircraft (Garmin GNS430W and Garmin GTX 330 with ES).
ADS-B Coming Soon To Asian Airspace | Aviation International News
I can believe that some manufacturers probably have been dragging their feet in regards to designing or implementing equipment for their aircraft given that for some reason the US are not mandating ADSB until 2020 (probably because they have good radar coverage across the entire country) so this has led them (the manufacturers) to be complacent on this issue. But this means the issue is with them, not ASA, CASA or any other aviation authority that is implementing ADSB requirements. If this affects you, in my opinion you should have been making as much noise as possible to the manufacture leading up to this event (I acknowledge Dick Smith and others may have been doing this) not crying foul at an administration that has given all plenty of notice.
IFR aircraft (not VFR to my knowledge) operating below FL290 are not required to have ADSB fitted until Jan 2017 so plenty of notice there to research, source and fit appropriate equipment to those aircraft. I have flown King Airs (not Pro-Line equipped) and Caravans that have ADSB fitted and the equipment used to do this in my opinion is not outside the realms of any light IFR aircraft (Garmin GNS430W and Garmin GTX 330 with ES).
Folks,
For you who are ever ready to criticise Dick, he did present a safety case to CASA, who agreed and approved.
It is Airservices that is being bloody minded.
In most modern aircraft with an integrated glass cockpit, adding ADS-B Out is a major re-certification exercise, with software as well as hardware involved. A number of operators, at very considerable expense, have what Airservices euphemistically call "third party solutions" --- third party STCs, but this is not applicable for all aircraft.
As Dick has pointed out, Airservices has the capability to provide alternative separation standards, (such as when your ADS-B goes on the fritz in flight) but chooses not to do so.
Tootle pip!!
For you who are ever ready to criticise Dick, he did present a safety case to CASA, who agreed and approved.
It is Airservices that is being bloody minded.
In most modern aircraft with an integrated glass cockpit, adding ADS-B Out is a major re-certification exercise, with software as well as hardware involved. A number of operators, at very considerable expense, have what Airservices euphemistically call "third party solutions" --- third party STCs, but this is not applicable for all aircraft.
As Dick has pointed out, Airservices has the capability to provide alternative separation standards, (such as when your ADS-B goes on the fritz in flight) but chooses not to do so.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know that you won't get flight above F290 without ADSB, have ASA said that? Will it be like when RVSM came in, you get flight in that band but not priority? If RVSM aircraft want the level you're at, too bad, you move.
That's the whole point. I was informed that concessions would be allowed in a similar way to the RVSM concessions.
That is what the CASA Director wanted but it appears that AsA have refused to " allow" such a concession. I am told they have no legislative basis for such a refusal..
Most importantly the military have refused to comply due to cost reasons and the airlines will be allowed to fly non ADSB for up to three days while the equipment is repaired.
So it is clear that the airspace can be safely operated with non ADSB equipped aircraft in a similar way to the RVSM concessions .
I am happy to take any delays from being provided with the full procedural separation that happens at the present time. No one has said the present system does not give adequate safety levels.
It is basically shear bastardry from a monopoly profit making business that wants to please the Airlines that provide 95% of its profits and to hell with the small charter operators that have to install temporary band aid expensive solutions
That is what the CASA Director wanted but it appears that AsA have refused to " allow" such a concession. I am told they have no legislative basis for such a refusal..
Most importantly the military have refused to comply due to cost reasons and the airlines will be allowed to fly non ADSB for up to three days while the equipment is repaired.
So it is clear that the airspace can be safely operated with non ADSB equipped aircraft in a similar way to the RVSM concessions .
I am happy to take any delays from being provided with the full procedural separation that happens at the present time. No one has said the present system does not give adequate safety levels.
It is basically shear bastardry from a monopoly profit making business that wants to please the Airlines that provide 95% of its profits and to hell with the small charter operators that have to install temporary band aid expensive solutions
he did present a safety case to CASA, who agreed and approved.
No way! It's top secret like the AsA tender for the new combined AsA/military radar system.
Safety will actually be reduced with the mandate as non ADSB aircraft will be forced to operate in the bad WX below 290
Experienced controllers will be presented in court and clearly
show that non ADSB aircraft can operate safely using the existing procedural standards
Safety will actually be reduced with the mandate as non ADSB aircraft will be forced to operate in the bad WX below 290
Experienced controllers will be presented in court and clearly
show that non ADSB aircraft can operate safely using the existing procedural standards
That is what the CASA Director wanted but it appears that AsA have refused to " allow" such a concession. I am told they have no legislative basis for such a refusal..
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So will military aircraft be issued clearances by AsA in civil airspace at >FL290 despite many platforms having no Mode 5/S IFF until 2018 at the earliest? (based on the IOC dates for JP90 and AIR5432 on DMO's website.)
Or is it safe for the ADF to operate without ADS-B, but somehow not safe for civil operators?
Or is it safe for the ADF to operate without ADS-B, but somehow not safe for civil operators?
Last edited by bankrunner; 26th Nov 2013 at 23:00. Reason: minor wording changes for clarification
