ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
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.....
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.
$25k?? Is that why you can afford outrageous call out fees??
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.
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.
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
Thread Starter
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?
No proper
cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement . Does anyone know why?
No proper
cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement . Does anyone know why?
cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement . Does anyone know why?
WHY?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
No proper cost benefit study was ever done on this requirement .
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
Neither was it needed because the answer is so flippin' obvious.
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.
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,
Still fits
procrastination = mastubation, in the end you are only screwing yourself!
"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?
Why would they have bothered, with a service ceiling of FL250?
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:
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
.....
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.
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.
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
• 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
Akro would be interesting to see what the FAA's CBA figure was when they did the analysis..
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.
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.
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.