ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
....and to make it worse. Underfire doesn't even know what Leadsled is talking about
Precisely
Underfire,
As Oz has suggested, go back and read the very extensive threads on this subject.
Tootle pip!!
.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Akro
This didn't take long either.
International reporting on ADS-B in Oz – 2005
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/ar...sbsitf4rpt.pdf
Agenda Item 1 6.2 through 6.5.7
http://legacy.icao.int/icao/en/ro/ap...B_TF3/ip21.pdf
Airservices had issued Request For Proposals for 1500 shipsets of GA Avionics (initial proof of concept fit-outs). Two companies had tendered way back then, no doubt that RFP alone would have accelerated 1090ES GA gear to market.
Australia cancels ADS-B equipment plan for general aviation, reconsiders system's use under 30,000ft - 6/29/2006 - Flight Global
Airservices cancelled the RFP late in the process after a noisy minority had successfully unnerved the Political leadership of Government.
The proposal/Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...leName=jcp.pdf
Cost Benefit Analysis of Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...e=analysis.pdf
The Finance Department eventually rejected the Project ATLAS cross-industry funding, and the rest is history. That was back in 2006-7 Warren Truss was the responsible Minister! Subsequent, the VFR mandate was dropped, and the other dates pushed back, then re-set based on a raft of inputs such as industry input (ASTRA), traffic density, growth, safety infrastructure necessities, and efficiency.
That was 7 years ago!!!
It is unfair really to blame/accuse AsA, CASA, and the Dept given the work done over many years to introduce ADS-B with financial support for GA owners. What a shame the few nay-saying, soapbox seeking drongo's in industry here in Australia denied the rest of our industry exactly what the FAA are now providing the GA industry in the US i.e. financial support for adoption.
That horse has long since bolted! Gates still flapping in the breeze....
This didn't take long either.
International reporting on ADS-B in Oz – 2005
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/ar...sbsitf4rpt.pdf
Agenda Item 1 6.2 through 6.5.7
http://legacy.icao.int/icao/en/ro/ap...B_TF3/ip21.pdf
Airservices had issued Request For Proposals for 1500 shipsets of GA Avionics (initial proof of concept fit-outs). Two companies had tendered way back then, no doubt that RFP alone would have accelerated 1090ES GA gear to market.
Australia cancels ADS-B equipment plan for general aviation, reconsiders system's use under 30,000ft - 6/29/2006 - Flight Global
Airservices cancelled the RFP late in the process after a noisy minority had successfully unnerved the Political leadership of Government.
The proposal/Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...leName=jcp.pdf
Cost Benefit Analysis of Project ATLAS – 2007
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...e=analysis.pdf
The Finance Department eventually rejected the Project ATLAS cross-industry funding, and the rest is history. That was back in 2006-7 Warren Truss was the responsible Minister! Subsequent, the VFR mandate was dropped, and the other dates pushed back, then re-set based on a raft of inputs such as industry input (ASTRA), traffic density, growth, safety infrastructure necessities, and efficiency.
That was 7 years ago!!!
It is unfair really to blame/accuse AsA, CASA, and the Dept given the work done over many years to introduce ADS-B with financial support for GA owners. What a shame the few nay-saying, soapbox seeking drongo's in industry here in Australia denied the rest of our industry exactly what the FAA are now providing the GA industry in the US i.e. financial support for adoption.
That horse has long since bolted! Gates still flapping in the breeze....
Jeez Jabba, tell us what you really mean… 
Ya gotta admit that if the government, the regulator and the ANSP could at least make and stick to a bad decision, or make and stick to a good decision, that’s better than dithering and changing the decision.
BTW: What are the exemptions for ADSB in the USA for e.g. unservicabilities in airline aircraft?
Ya gotta admit that if the government, the regulator and the ANSP could at least make and stick to a bad decision, or make and stick to a good decision, that’s better than dithering and changing the decision.
BTW: What are the exemptions for ADSB in the USA for e.g. unservicabilities in airline aircraft?
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
The financial support for GA had as much hope as 'Buckley's and would have been swallowed lock stock and barrel with 'the no carbon tax mantra' and excesses of the last dysfunctional minority government. It, (the concept), was 'mandatory'. We are talking about Dick being denied access to airspace above FL290. I believe today, not seven years ago B050.
It was a confidence trick aided and abetted by a sycophantic group of control freaks who would have us all micro chipped at birth. I doubt any government could afford to foot the Qantas bill let alone parachutists, ornithopters, ultralights and still keep an eye open all day for someone pranging in the circuit near the 'Coffee Royal' site.
Phased in, it had everybody's support. Isn't that the crux of this thread so far?
QUOTE Airservices cancelled the RFP late in the process after a noisy minority had successfully unnerved the Political leadership of Government. QUOTE.
Geez, I take it you are referring to 'the greens'. You give them too much credit and 'the drongo's' none. I guess 'the drongo's' are wasting their time with The Senate and the Truss Review?
Get a grip Jabba!
PS: How's 'Obamacare' getting on? He may have to print some more money.
It was a confidence trick aided and abetted by a sycophantic group of control freaks who would have us all micro chipped at birth. I doubt any government could afford to foot the Qantas bill let alone parachutists, ornithopters, ultralights and still keep an eye open all day for someone pranging in the circuit near the 'Coffee Royal' site.
Phased in, it had everybody's support. Isn't that the crux of this thread so far?
QUOTE Airservices cancelled the RFP late in the process after a noisy minority had successfully unnerved the Political leadership of Government. QUOTE.
Geez, I take it you are referring to 'the greens'. You give them too much credit and 'the drongo's' none. I guess 'the drongo's' are wasting their time with The Senate and the Truss Review?
Get a grip Jabba!
PS: How's 'Obamacare' getting on? He may have to print some more money.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 1st Feb 2014 at 08:29. Reason: Forgot, spelling or swearing probably.
What are the exemptions for ADSB in the USA
2. My point is at all aircraft have an exemption below 10,000 ft in Class E and it is not required in Class G. Australia is on its own in the world in requiring ADS-B for IFR aircraft in all levels and all airspace types.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what is the motivation for ADS-B? Surveillance? What will surveillance mean, not so they can track you (tin foil hat style), but so they can separate you more efficiently and free up 'procedural tolerances' and route restrictions etc.
If there is airspace where better than procedural standards can be used because you can now 'see' all the aircraft it will lead to significant savings, free up many flight levels, and routing restrictions etc. ADS-B above FL290 in Oz will save the industry bucket loads when it is fully utilised.
How much will it save in the US? Bugger-all as they currently have surveillance. So there isn't the same rush there. They will eventually save by not needing to replace service all the radar heads; but the industry will virtually not benefit from reduced separation standards, routing efficiencies etc. The big debate in the US will be about turning off Primary Radar...
If there is airspace where better than procedural standards can be used because you can now 'see' all the aircraft it will lead to significant savings, free up many flight levels, and routing restrictions etc. ADS-B above FL290 in Oz will save the industry bucket loads when it is fully utilised.
How much will it save in the US? Bugger-all as they currently have surveillance. So there isn't the same rush there. They will eventually save by not needing to replace service all the radar heads; but the industry will virtually not benefit from reduced separation standards, routing efficiencies etc. The big debate in the US will be about turning off Primary Radar...
Coffee Royale....Francis, luv it....but are you referring to the crash or the fake one? Did you know that little incident was the genesis for producing accurate maps for the Australian coastline?
Old Akro, maybe the argument should be couched in terms of understanding the numbers involved. So far, the strawman...the rule is set...but we were allowed to fly in this airspace the day before...rules allow for unserviceable aircraft to transit...controllers have said that they can handle individual non complying aircraft..There are ONLY 38 aircraft that do not comply... exemptions PRIOR to the deadline in another country(gotta love THAT one!)..hoping the argument changes to attacking the rule.
Misquoted data...versions of equipment not pertaining to this argument...airspace arrangements in other countries...security issues within the equipment...availability of equipment...regulations and orders relating to use, fitment and operation standards of equipment...
Outright lies..go and read other threads and work out the positions and who actually are truthful and who are defending a personal position.
Gentlemen, there is moss growing on you!
Old Akro, maybe the argument should be couched in terms of understanding the numbers involved. So far, the strawman...the rule is set...but we were allowed to fly in this airspace the day before...rules allow for unserviceable aircraft to transit...controllers have said that they can handle individual non complying aircraft..There are ONLY 38 aircraft that do not comply... exemptions PRIOR to the deadline in another country(gotta love THAT one!)..hoping the argument changes to attacking the rule.
Misquoted data...versions of equipment not pertaining to this argument...airspace arrangements in other countries...security issues within the equipment...availability of equipment...regulations and orders relating to use, fitment and operation standards of equipment...
Outright lies..go and read other threads and work out the positions and who actually are truthful and who are defending a personal position.
Gentlemen, there is moss growing on you!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the most comprehensicve page on ADSB that the FAA has.
Each committee has several working papers going. Intersting to note most of the versions now have a B or 2 designator, ie ADS-B2, Version 2 1090ES, Version 2 UAT, and MASPS was just re-written from 242A to 338
Transmitting and receiving subsystems compliant with DO-260B/ED-102A will use an ADS-B Version Number equal to two (2). In DO-260B/ED-102A the integrity level of the ADS-B source has been redefined and changes made to the definitions of the NIC and NAC parameters. Version 2 1090ES formats now include the transmission of selected altitude, selected heading, and barometric pressure setting in the target state and status messages. Version 2 1090ES formats also include the transmission of the Mode A (4096) code and the Register 3016 content of the TCAS/ACAS resolution advisory data.
and no where is there any encription.
RTCA SC-186 - Home Page – ADS-B Support
Each committee has several working papers going. Intersting to note most of the versions now have a B or 2 designator, ie ADS-B2, Version 2 1090ES, Version 2 UAT, and MASPS was just re-written from 242A to 338
Transmitting and receiving subsystems compliant with DO-260B/ED-102A will use an ADS-B Version Number equal to two (2). In DO-260B/ED-102A the integrity level of the ADS-B source has been redefined and changes made to the definitions of the NIC and NAC parameters. Version 2 1090ES formats now include the transmission of selected altitude, selected heading, and barometric pressure setting in the target state and status messages. Version 2 1090ES formats also include the transmission of the Mode A (4096) code and the Register 3016 content of the TCAS/ACAS resolution advisory data.
and no where is there any encription.
RTCA SC-186 - Home Page – ADS-B Support
Underfire..why do you need encryption when-
1- The message length is 0.0002 seconds long and
2- It contains a unique 23bit identifier.
That 23bit identifier is worldwide unique. To be even seen by TAAATS your identifier has to be coded into the system...and this has exactly what to do with exemptions from mandatory carriage in Australia ABV FL290?
EDIT- Underfire, all the docs attributed, on your link, are dated around 2006...pretty up to date
1- The message length is 0.0002 seconds long and
2- It contains a unique 23bit identifier.
That 23bit identifier is worldwide unique. To be even seen by TAAATS your identifier has to be coded into the system...and this has exactly what to do with exemptions from mandatory carriage in Australia ABV FL290?
EDIT- Underfire, all the docs attributed, on your link, are dated around 2006...pretty up to date
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps if you took the time to read the document, intead of blindly commenting. This IS the latest from the FAA, this is where it is at.
There are many documents under each subcommittee. The committee documents are the working papers, everything is a working paper
Here is the ICAO take on security
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/e...urity_adsb.pdf
There are many documents under each subcommittee. The committee documents are the working papers, everything is a working paper
Here is the ICAO take on security
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/e...urity_adsb.pdf
OK, I'll humour this argument for a bit. Say an intrepid "spoofer" has accessed a large number of codes to attempt to flood the system. That means he sets up within line of sight of a receiver station. He starts transmitting his spoof. Does he only put strings of data surrounding the geographic location of said receiver or does he push further afield by transmitting bogus data for the entire continent? In the case of TAAATS...I wonder if there is a filter to remove data that is outside the coverage area of said receiver...is he silly enough to attempt this within the coverage of both SSR and primary radar of a major aerodrome?
I have read ONE account that is plausible re-spoofing GPS signals therefore spoofing navigation data and, conversely, ADS-B data. However, this was within the confines of a football stadium and with the means of drowning out, parroting and then streaming erroneous GNSS signals** within a limited field of view of the horizon. Theatre wide?, Id say Buckley's on repeating that experiment in the real world...and that is the closest I have ever seen anyone actually getting close...not even in the ballpark, if you pardon the pun.
**The vulnerability? The receiver carries an updated almanac of the GNSS constellation. The receiver cannot tell if all the satellites do a sudden left turn. It just measures the time delay of the signal and computes a position.
I have read ONE account that is plausible re-spoofing GPS signals therefore spoofing navigation data and, conversely, ADS-B data. However, this was within the confines of a football stadium and with the means of drowning out, parroting and then streaming erroneous GNSS signals** within a limited field of view of the horizon. Theatre wide?, Id say Buckley's on repeating that experiment in the real world...and that is the closest I have ever seen anyone actually getting close...not even in the ballpark, if you pardon the pun.
**The vulnerability? The receiver carries an updated almanac of the GNSS constellation. The receiver cannot tell if all the satellites do a sudden left turn. It just measures the time delay of the signal and computes a position.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a difference between integrity and security.
This is an important slide from Boeing 2012. Note that while the current state of ADSB is version 2, and that is what the US is mandating for 2020, AUS is mandating Version 0 with no upgrade requirements.
What should also be noted is that a ADSB and UAT aircraft cannot 'see' each other. A dual mode ADSB/UAT system?
This is an important slide from Boeing 2012. Note that while the current state of ADSB is version 2, and that is what the US is mandating for 2020, AUS is mandating Version 0 with no upgrade requirements.
What should also be noted is that a ADSB and UAT aircraft cannot 'see' each other. A dual mode ADSB/UAT system?
If there is airspace where better than procedural standards can be used because you can now 'see' all the aircraft it will lead to significant savings, free up many flight levels, and routing restrictions etc.
So, I am forced to pay for an upgrade that will give me zero benefit.
Australia is the only country in the world requiring all IFR GA aircraft to fit ADS-B.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zero benefit? VFR is VFR, see and be seen in Class G (cheers Dick!) You are forgetting IMC conditions, when the only other aircraft you are mixing it with are other IFR a/c in IMC. Would you like directed traffic information based simply on pilot estimates, or do you think you might get a 'benefit' out of a DTI service from ATC who can actually 'see' both you and the conflicting aircraft and pass advice accordingly?
This thread should have been titled 'ADS/B Mandate - Axe to Grind', but we all know Dick's penchant for the ersatz dramatic attention seeking one liners..besides, no one else would have posted.
This thread should have been titled 'ADS/B Mandate - Axe to Grind', but we all know Dick's penchant for the ersatz dramatic attention seeking one liners..besides, no one else would have posted.
How often are IM Conditions so widespread that no VFR are flying (below the rarified atmosphere of FL290?).
For the technical experts, how hard/costly will it be to upgrade from a version 0 system (meeting the DO-260 standard) to a version 2 system (meeting the 260B standard)?
As I recall, one of the reasons for people resisting the proposed subsidy ‘carrot’ was that their aircraft would end up with an ‘orphan’ system.
For the technical experts, how hard/costly will it be to upgrade from a version 0 system (meeting the DO-260 standard) to a version 2 system (meeting the 260B standard)?
As I recall, one of the reasons for people resisting the proposed subsidy ‘carrot’ was that their aircraft would end up with an ‘orphan’ system.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, where are all of the alleged 'experts' on this board?
Creampuff, there is not a simple answer to that. Version 2 1090ES is still in the works, as are the associated parameters.and it is likely that by 2020 it will be version 5 or renamed.
Ver 2 UAT is also in the works. As noted in previous posts, 1090ES and UAT ac cannot 'see' each other. Consider that when the FAA states alt for 1090ES/UAT. I have not heard of a combo 1090ES/UAT system out there, so that should tell you where all of this is going.
What to look for is the parameters and equippage associated with V0 vs V2 et al.
The US mandating V2 (so far) is significant. The ac must have the equippage and redundency to provide the paramters required.
Creampuff, there is not a simple answer to that. Version 2 1090ES is still in the works, as are the associated parameters.and it is likely that by 2020 it will be version 5 or renamed.
Ver 2 UAT is also in the works. As noted in previous posts, 1090ES and UAT ac cannot 'see' each other. Consider that when the FAA states alt for 1090ES/UAT. I have not heard of a combo 1090ES/UAT system out there, so that should tell you where all of this is going.
What to look for is the parameters and equippage associated with V0 vs V2 et al.
The US mandating V2 (so far) is significant. The ac must have the equippage and redundency to provide the paramters required.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Version 2 1090ES is still in the works
I think Much Ado about nothing here.