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

ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

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

ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

Old 30th Jan 2014, 05:13
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This debate has been very educational when you get past the emotive issues.
There is no doubt in my mind that ADS is a wonderful safety tool, I just cant help wondering why we so desperately needed to do it ahead of the rest of the world, given our traffic density is really quite modest.
I have heard some fairly frightening figures $ wise that it cost Qantas link to comply with its Dash 8 fleet, a figure sure to reflect in the ticket price. Thats the rub really, we once had the RAAF who owned all the airspace and tolerated us civvies using bits and pieces of it, now it would seem Australian airspace is to become exclusively for the use them that can afford it. Of course RPT can spread the enormous costs across an awful lot of tickets, unfortunately GA dosnt have that luxury.
The added penalty CAsA has imposed on the whole industry by jumping the gun comes later down the track, when hapless owners who used Australian EO's try and sell their airplanes overseas, and find that CAsA's world best practice maintenance Reg's dont cut the mustard.
Check thrust's post #217 gives a tantalizing hint that technology is going to overtake the whole ADS debate or debacle whichever way you view it.
I have a very uncomfortable feeling that there will be a whole lot more aerial vehicles swanning about outback OZ nosar no details soon.
Would this have happened if "foster and promote" was in their brief??
.......and meanwhile across the Tasman.....

Last edited by thorn bird; 30th Jan 2014 at 05:28.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 05:14
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
$25k?? Is that why you can afford outrageous call out fees??
Touche.

But I plan ahead to use swipe cards or arrive in hours to try and save money to upgrade my steam panel to something halfway towards the RV-10.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 09:26
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Dick, SL + CAR 21M approval =

Have they not thought of that?
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 09:42
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But I plan ahead to use swipe cards or arrive in hours to try and save money to upgrade my steam panel to something halfway towards the RV-10.
So do I, I was just advocating for those that don't have the coin to pay for all this those that are being forced out of their hobby by onerous and insidious charges.

Did you know that to register an aircraft now you have to:

* Provide certified copy of ID.
* Provide a photograph of the data plate (I f@cking kid you not)
* Provide proof of residence in Australia with a rates notice & bill with your residential address on it.

This despite holding an ASIC with exactly the above details on it, an ARN, a passport, drivers licence & 7000 other police, ASIO & AFP checks.

Every 2 effing years Another wasted 2 hours of my time. F off CASA and leave aviation to aviators
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 21:34
  #225 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Jaba, yes they have. Unfortunately it appears such a mod would not be accepted if I want to sell my aircraft overseas.

No proper
cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement . Does anyone know why?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 23:14
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No proper
cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement . Does anyone know why?
This WAS done in the UNITED STATES. But not in Australia. The cost to industry is routinely considered in the US, but I've NEVER seen it done in Australia.

WHY?
Old Akro is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 23:48
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Because politics are the centre of ALL Australian decision making in federal government, cost benefit only skews the political process and moves it out of the pollies control.
T28D is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 23:49
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Dick, To have the jumpers reversed and the SL modification reversed would hardly be an issue would it?

I am confused as to why Cessna would issue an instruction that would enhance its value here but lesson it overseas???

Does that not seem strange to you?

Anyway for everyone else, here is progress in the march towards far more economical ADSB boxes. With integrated TSO GPS as an option.

http://freeflightsystems.com/images/rangr_adsb.pdf
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 03:58
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I see no reason to mandate anything before the FAA does. OEM and aftermarket will do little without clear guidance from the FAA.

As shown by all of the committees and studies currently underway by the FAA et al, who knows by 2020 what will happen. The MLAT stuff is a good indication of another system trying to get this to work.

It is obvious all of the short comings, so why jump in before it is sorted, especially if the OEM or aftermarket suppliers do not have a product available.
underfire is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 04:00
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
No proper cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement .
Neither was it needed because the answer is so flippin' obvious. I sat 20nm behind one of my colleagues today at 350 out in the boondocks for an hour, not a word from anybody. One of us saving fuel.

In the US with blanket radar coverage then a CBA would be necessary to justify the ground stations verses replacing radars. In Oz, the benefit of providing the coverage in the first place is so obvious you'd have to be stupid not to see it not to mention the safety increase.

This discussion is analogous to someone wanting to ride down a freeway in a horse and cart.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 04:24
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This discussion is analogous to someone wanting to ride down a freeway in a horse and cart.
Pretty accurate summation
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 04:25
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It’s one thing to say that the concept is a ‘no-brainer’.

It’s quite another to say that the implementation arrangements, including the timing and selective exemptions, are justified.

The discussion is mainly about the latter, not the former.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 07:18
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It’s one thing to say that the concept is a ‘no-brainer’.
Exactly, "Concept" No Brainer

Implementation "Brainer"

This all remeinds me of the Russian GBAS.

Again, concept no brainer.
Implementation before all of the issues had been sorted left the Russians with a GBAS system, incl sats, that didnt communicate with the standard once implemented worldwide.
underfire is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 07:26
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes. In Australia, the implementation is left to the brains trust at CASA and Airservices, supervised by the brains trust in government.

Enough said.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 08:20
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Creamie how true, and of course Blogsie considers Australian airspace is for the exclusive use of RPT.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 09:56
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Neither was it needed because the answer is so flippin' obvious.
Bloggs you've got gold bar blinkers. Underneath the rarefied atmosphere of the the high flight levels we are being forced to adhere to the same rules.

A GA IFR aircraft is still mixing with non ADS-B VFR aircraft and non transponder RA(Aus) aircraft. I get no benefit from reduced separation or priority handling.

At a guess there are maybe 3,000 IFR aircraft (1/3 the GA fleet). At $25k each that $75 million.

Let me repeat that slowly for you. S.e.v.e.n.t.y F.i.v.e M.i.l.l.i.o.n D.o.l.l.a.r.s.

The GST alone on this is $7.5m. Plus the 2% duty on the import of the hardware is probably another $180k.


This is 50% more money than the government has just refused to pay to maintain a fruit processing industry in Australia. And this cost impost on GA has been done without a whiff of analysis.

The FAA did this analysis and saw no cost benefit in mandating ADS-B. So did Canada. So did the EU.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 10:26
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,560
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
If this drift is going to continue then how about some posts from previous threads that still say the same as this thread...I particularly liked one from Jabawocky,

procrastination = mastubation, in the end you are only screwing yourself!
Still fits
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 11:33
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Short final 05
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"I have heard some fairly frightening figures $ wise that it cost Qantas link to comply with its Dash 8 fleet, a figure sure to reflect in the ticket price."...

Why would they have bothered, with a service ceiling of FL250?
TwoFiftyBelowTen is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 19:43
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
250B10 probably 'cause (from your friendly, anonymous, helpful FF HQ IT/t.w.i.t.t.e.r guy...)...

Performance-based navigation: are you equipped to fly?

The evolution of performance-based navigation in Australia continues with the introduction of new equipment mandates for all instrument flight rules aircraft from 6 February 2014. Since 12 December 2013, all aircraft operating in Australian airspace have needed approved and serviceable automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) equipment installed in order to fly at or above flight level 290. CASA has provided a limited exemption to this requirement for aircraft operating in designated areas of airspace until December 2015.

The next round of equipment mandates come into effect from 6 February 2014, when all instrument flight rules aircraft new to the Australian register must be equipped with ADS-B and TSO C145, C146 or C196 global navigation satellite system (GNSS) equipment. Existing aircraft that are modified on or after this date must also be equipped with compliant GNSS equipment, as well as an ADS-B capable transponder if the aircraft operates in class A, C or E airspace or in class G airspace above 10,000ft. If you are planning to buy an aircraft from the USA and operate it in Australia, you need to ensure the aircraft has the right GNSS equipment and that the ADS-B installed uses Mode S transponder with Extended Squitter (commonly referred to as 1090 MHz Extended Squitter). Aircraft from the USA with ADS-B through the Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) system will not work in Australia and are not compliant with the new rules.

By 4 February 2016, GNSS will become mandatory for all aircraft operating under instrument flight rules and by 2 February 2017 all aircraft operating under instrument flight rules in Australia must be equipped with approved ADS-B. CASA will be holding more information sessions about performance-based navigation in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Essendon during February and March.

Find out session dates and locations or read more about the implementation of performance-based navigation in Australia, equipment mandates and the limited ADS-B exemption.

OA:
A GA IFR aircraft is still mixing with non ADS-B VFR aircraft and non transponder RA(Aus) aircraft. I get no benefit from reduced separation or priority handling.

At a guess there are maybe 3,000 IFR aircraft (1/3 the GA fleet). At $25k each that $75 million.

Let me repeat that slowly for you. S.e.v.e.n.t.y F.i.v.e M.i.l.l.i.o.n D.o.l.l.a.r.s.

The GST alone on this is $7.5m. Plus the 2% duty on the import of the hardware is probably another $180k.


This is 50% more money than the government has just refused to pay to maintain a fruit processing industry in Australia. And this cost impost on GA has been done without a whiff of analysis.

The FAA did this analysis and saw no cost benefit in mandating ADS-B. So did Canada. So did the EU.
Akro would be interesting to see what the FAA's CBA figure was when they did the analysis..

Even though not mandated till '20 (at least) it is obviously still a hot topic in the States...EAA, FAA Review Full Agenda at Summit

Among the issues discussed during the summit's two days were:
• Allowing electric propulsion for ultralights and light-sport aircraft, and clearing regulatory hurdles that prevent today's electric motor technology from emerging
• Current conflicts in regulations that limits the availability to provide flight training for ultralights and other low-mass, high-drag aircraft, so those areas of aviation can become more vibrant and safe
• An option for use of an additional qualified pilot during homebuilt flight testing, which would add an additional opportunity to enhance safety and best practices in those initial flying hours
• Incompatibility issues for ADS-B and NextGen technology, where pilots are spending significant dollars for future mandated equipment but cannot ensure that it is supplying the correct data
• Warbird operating limitations that potentially hinder how warbird owners can use their aircraft or add significant cost and complexity to their maintenance and operation
.....
Sarcs is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 20:48
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Akro would be interesting to see what the FAA's CBA figure was when they did the analysis..
It took me 3 minutes to find. I timed it.

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implement...Report2008.pdf

page 22

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implement...l%20letter.pdf

page 31

note:
The mid to low-end GA aircraft owner faces a marginal business case based on current equipage
costs. Based on the benefits of FIS–B and Situational Awareness applications, the payback
period is 6 to 12 years for ADS–B In equipage. It will cost aircraft operators an estimated
$6,000 to $12,000 per aircraft for a panel mount display, including installation costs, to
implement ADS–B In (this does not include ADS–B Out); the business case would be marginal
because hull values of many existing GA aircraft may not justify this additional investment.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010...2010-12645.pdf

Page 26

If you spent time going back through docket numbers I'm sure there will be more detail. Unlike AsA, the FAA is quite transparent.
Old Akro is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.