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 3rd Feb 2014, 05:41
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
....I think I have better things to do, but anyway.....

Like so many things in life, that slide is technically correct, but potentially misleading in the context in which it has been posted. It would be more correct and less misleading if it showed that Australia (and other countries in Asia Pacific region) support DO 260, DO 260A and DO 260B - all three standards (Boeing's "versions 1, 2, 3") simultaneously.

There are plenty of compliant aircraft in each category right now. Through some very good engineering by Airservices Australia, all three standards work here - and are approved by CASA for airworthiness and ATC separation - now, today. Boeing may not yet have a DO 260B US compliant solution for its customers, hence the vertical line on the right running from "Boeing Retrofit" at the bottom.

As usual, discovering anything that anyone with half a brain could get from Google is one thing, care interpreting accurately what it means is entirely another! I call it "Critical Thinking".... a bit like when you read a POH!

There are many non-Boeing types flying, including Airbus, Bombardier, Lear, Beech, Gulfstream, Lockheed, Vans RV's and even Cessna that are already compliant with the Australian rule and have no dependency on Boeing's retrofit solution. Some of these have DO 260A solutions that can be readily upgraded to DO 260B at a later date.

The Australian decision tree is very simple:
1. Does the aircraft fly at or above FL290?
2. If no, no action necessary until 2017.
3. If yes, is there airframe manufacturer data (SL, SB) for ADS-B?
4. If no, pursue an Australian EO.
5. If yes, is the design DO 260B, 260A or 260?
6. If more than one is available, choose the highest spec.
7. If DO 260A or DO 260 and the aircraft flies within US airspace, be prepared to upgrade to DO 260B before 2020.
8. If DO 260, ensure that the aircraft navigator outputs HPL.
9. If DO 260B, just install it and the aircraft will comply with the US 2020 rule NOW.
10. Whichever one you install, the aircraft will comply with the Australian rule with no further upgrades.

Also worth knowing is that the jump from DO 260A to DO 260B will not be significant. In many cases, it will be just software and/or paperwork.

The differences between DO 260, 260A and 260B were well covered in a regional ICAO paper back in 2012 - http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/20...%20DO-260B.pdf

Back to the original posters gripe:
Even if the aircraft never goes to the US, it still makes sense to upgrade it now to meet the rules in other Asia Pacific countries. Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam require 1090ES ADS-B within the next 12 months, either in their whole FIRs, or on certain airways, at and above FL290.
If you do the simple SL work now and are therefore ADS-B compliant, wouldn’t the jet be worth that much more and then some when you offer it for sale in the US?!?

Food for thought.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 07:20
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
So if there’s no ‘bandwidth’ issue or ‘orphan system’ issue with 1090ES ADS-B, there is no technical, regulatory or practical constraint or downside (other than cost) in installing the system in an Australian aircraft.

Dick: Do your engineers know what they are talking about?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 07:47
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,701
From Today's Avweb site ..(USA)...

'Financing at competitive rates to reduce cost to retrofitting...'

Avionics Makers Partner With NextGen Fund to Help Finance GA Modernization

Aspen Avionics and FreeFlight Systems have announced partnerships with the $1.5 billion NextGen Equipage Fund’s financing program to help general aviation aircraft owners obtain inexpensive financing to meet the ADS-B and other mandated avionics retrofits. With over 150,000 aircraft affected, the NextGen Fund will provide financing at competitive rates backed by loan guarantees and will use proven credit management practices that reduce cost and other barriers to retrofitting the general aviation fleet.

Aspen Avionics said that its Memorandum of Understanding with the NextGen Fund provides the framework for Aspen and the NextGen GA Fund to work together to promote the rollout of NextGen to the general aviation community. Together, Aspen and the Fund will help aircraft owners acquire affordable, innovative avionics solutions through attractive financial incentives. FreeFlight Systems said that its high-performance, American-made, FAA-certified avionics are designed for retrofit in general aviation aircraft to meet ADS-B and other NextGen equipage requirements worldwide. FreeFlight Systems is making its avionics available for purchase under the NextGen Equipage Fund’s financing program. This will enable general aviation owners to equip for NextGen without large upfront costs. Loan payments would be deferred until specific NexGen services are delivered to the aircraft operators by the FAA.

Cheers
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 07:51
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
So if there’s no ‘bandwidth’ issue or ‘orphan system’ issue with 1090ES ADS-B, there is no technical, regulatory or practical constraint or downside (other than cost) in installing the system in an Australian aircraft
There is the fact that ASA/CASA don't own the GPS system. Nor do they control the GPS system. Also they have no written guarantee that the GPS system will be available for use at a future time. Apart from that its all happy smokes..










.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 08:09
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,283
Griffo, is your beast fast enough for ADSB? the receiver might think it's a Morris Minor!
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 10:10
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Oh Binghi...really? US logistics run on GPS...road freight, mail, rail, you name it. They couldn't shut it down now if they wanted to..
Hempy is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 10:10
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Queensland
Age: 35
Posts: 71
There is the fact that ASA/CASA don't own the GPS system. Nor do they control the GPS system. Also they have no written guarantee that the GPS system will be available for use at a future time.
*sigh* you are still flogging that same tired argument....
Check_Thrust is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 15:44
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,684
Until the ABC stops AM broadcasts ;-)
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2014, 23:26
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Nobody can doubt the peculiar atmosphere in Australia caused DME (A). I can't help thinking of the parallels with Australian only ADSB early introduction.


My little aeroplane is aerobatic in The US but as our air has less grip, as I'm led to believe, it's not aerobatic here. Actually there are lots loosing a grip these days. Somebody may be able to explain this to me?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 01:08
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 54
Posts: 36
PS: An in depth 0.5 second search revealed the below nor very recent info.
Yes, and this is the very heart of the AUS mandating V0 while the FAA is mandating V2... (and Airbus/ Boeing ac are currently supplied with V1)




Edit: resized the image

Last edited by underfire; 4th Feb 2014 at 20:08.
underfire is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 04:06
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 769
apparently if the font is big it is more credible !!!!!!
T28D is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 04:43
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,750
apparently if the font is big it is more credible !!!!!!
It's an image, and the correct size for Prune.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 06:23
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
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
Jaba - These are dead links. I tried searching ADSB & analysis without success.

Interestingly, this 2011 CASA paper does not show ADSB as mandatory for IFR aircraft below 10,000ft.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...d/dp1102as.pdf

Nor does this 2010 paper from CASA

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1006AS

See annex D

I'm interested when and how it was decided that we would be the only country in the world to mandate ADSB for GA aircraft under 10,000 ft.

Yesterday climbing out in marginal VFR weather (on an IFR plan) I was separated from a VFR aircraft who did not have functioning mode C by virtue of the controller asking the other aircraft's altitude. On the second of February 2017 after I have spent my $25k the same situation will still exist.

So, why am I being forced to spend the money for the upgrade when there is no demonstrable benefit for my safety or efficiency of operation?

Tony Abbott & Joe Hockey said it yesterday. Its the end of the age of entitlement. Public servants in airconditioned offices in Canberra should not be entitled to cause me expense without transparent justification.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 08:25
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,283
Count yourself lucky the VFR was talking to ATC. 90% of them don't.
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 09:21
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
Akro me old....

They do work (just re-checked them)

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

Click and download via a PC not a mobile device. And be patient, they are being dug out of their electronic archives! (buried under too much youtube and PPRuNe)

Re; your below from DP 1102AS – Sept 2011
Interestingly, this 2011 CASA paper does not show ADSB as mandatory for IFR aircraft below 10,000ft.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...d/dp1102as.pdf
It says:
8. ADS-B OUT
8.4 Therefore, CASA has reviewed and revised the four phased proposals in DP 1006AS. The new proposals are outlined below:
CASA’s position
Existing and new IFR capable aircraft: On the basis of the suggestions and support received from industry, CASA has decided on a compliance date of 1 January 2017 for existing IFR capable aircraft that are placed on the Australian aircraft register before 1 January 2014. That compliance timing provides for a period of more than 5 years for completion of the installations. For new IFR capable aircraft placed on the Australian aircraft register on/after 1 January 2014 a mandatory forward fit requirement will apply from that date.
(Proposal 7)
CASA intends to proceed directly to NPRM on this position.
All IFR Akro

The below (DP 1006AS - 14 Dec 2010) predates the above
Nor does this 2010 paper from CASA

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1006AS

See annex D
Being an earlier document it does in part, bottom Left “31/12/13 Forward fitment: ADS-B OUT new installations in existing aircraft and all new registrations”

DP 1102AS (the first of your referred links) was the follow up to the earlier DP 1006AS!

6-7 years lead time running up to 2017!
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 09:35
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
ooops forgot to answer this bit (jaba ya dill)
Why the change??? (don’t shoot the messenger) =jaba

DP 1102AS
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...d/dp1102as.pdf

Primary Means NAV
5.3 The basic justification for a mandate and the compliance timing is that it obviates the need for AsA to replace a large number of its navigation aids (mostly non-directional beacons and distance measuring equipment installations) which are rapidly approaching or already at end-of-life. AsA has estimated the cost saving of contraction to a backup navaid network to be about $120 million. In addition, advanced navigation applications such as Required Navigation Performance (RNP) navigation, User Preferred Routes, Flexi-Tracks and Area Navigation based Standard Instrument Departures and Standard Terminal Approach Routes are available using the GNSS.

5.4 For the foreseeable future some 180 existing terrestrial navigation aids are to be retained as the contingency means of providing alternative navigation for aircraft that retain ground-based navigation aid capability. The remaining (some 250) navaids are mostly at end-of-life, do not have spares support by manufacturers and are difficult and expensive to maintain and cannot be effectively supported beyond the end of 2015. AsA has informed CASA that, subject to the establishment of the GNSS mandate, it will commence decommissioning of the non-backup navaids from 1 January 2016. GNSS navigation provides safe navigation and greatly improved operational efficiencies in comparison with area navigation using ground navigation aids. CASA is satisfied that during the transition to satellite navigation the back-up terrestrial network will provide a level of alternative navigation in the extremely unlikely unavailability of GNSS. The cost/benefit of the GNSS mandate is clear cut in overall terms.
ADS-B OUT Component
8.5 As stated above, CASA does not intend to mandate for ADS-B OUT carriage by VFR aircraft in Class G airspace at this time. However CASA will maintain the existing requirement for the carriage of a transponder for aircraft operating above A100 in Class G airspace. This long established requirement mandated by CASA Legal Instrument is for the purpose of traffic detection by TCAS II equipped passenger transport aircraft. It does not necessarily require the target aircraft to have a Mode S or ADS-B OUT capable transponder, a Mode A/C transponder remains satisfactory for that purpose.
8.6 CASA will review and remain abreast of developments over the next 3 to 5 years and reconsider the case for a total fleet ADS-B OUT environment beyond year 2020 to support ADS-B IN based air-air surveillance for future air transport operations aircraft.
Hope that helps
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 09:53
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 58
Posts: 310
PBN

Isn't this all about PBN? If you want access to airspace then you need the appropriate kit, be that radio, transponder, altimeter (RVSM), ADSB.
Isn't this all being driven by the ASTRA Council and the big end of town?

ASTRA Council
The ASTRA Council represents a broad cross section of the aviation industry, and is responsible for the development and reporting of industry policy in relation to ATM matters, and for the running of ASTRA.
ASTRA has established a charter that aims to define the role, structure and necessary business rules to enable Council members to fulfil the Government’s and industry’s expectations to provide formal advice on air traffic management directions for the future.
The Council reports to industry through its members. The Council members are individually responsible for reporting and representing their constituents’ views.

Industry Associations
Airports Association of Australia (AAA)
Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia (AAAA)
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Australian Business Aircraft Association (ABAA)
Australian Sport Aviation Confederation (ASAC)
Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA)
Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus)
Board of Airline Representatives of Australia (BARA)
Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia (RFACA)

Individual Companies
Qantas Group
Virgin

Service Providers
Airservices Australia

Permanent Observers
In addition, a number of Permanent Observers have standing invitations to attend meetings of the ASTRA Council, providing expertise and assistance with coordination of ATM related matters within the industry:
Australian Airline Pilots' Association (AusALPA)
Civil Air Traffic Control Australia (CivilAir)
Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (GAPAN)
Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Transport (DoIT)
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Australian Maritime Safety Agency (AMSA)
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Australian Defence Force (ADF)
Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)
Jeppesen Australia
New Zealand Airways Corporation

The ASTRA Council produces an Australian ATM Strategic Plan, providing a common coordinated national strategy to support the ATM community to make investment and other decisions with confidence.

ASTRA plans over the long term and anticipates the development and application of technology and operational practices for the next 20+ years, consistent with ICAO’s Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept but applied to the Australian operational context.

The ASTRA Council aims to provide leadership and direction on the future capabilities and technologies required to deliver an ATM system, that will meet the following needs:
• is responsive to airspace users
• safe and accommodates demand
• is globally interoperable
• environmentally sustainable and
• satisfies national interests including defence and security.

Project planning for the funding, acquisition, introduction and development of Australia’s ATM system is the responsibility of the service providers and user organisations.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 10:29
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
One last post, WRT the VFR traffic and Ranga's post
Count yourself lucky the VFR was talking to ATC. 90% of them don't.
hmmmm there was almost a deal for you until scuttled by a few who frequent this place

Or you could have had it on ya iPad for $100 (ADSB-In) if you wanted too Sadly lost.....horse bolted, gate swinging in the breeze.

I am over it with this thread, not much I can add now. Except to say that even my ADSB DO260B compliant jigger is about to get a very big upgrade by mid year. Unlike some I see value in updating and reinvesting in GA. (Includes newer txpder and GPS/NAV/COM). Ya want a good deal on some gear? PM me.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 20:28
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
Isn't this all about PBN? If you want access to airspace then you need the appropriate kit, be that radio, transponder, altimeter (RVSM), ADSB.
My whole point is that AsA are alone in the world in requiring ADS-B for OCTA airspace under 10,000ft. All IFR aircraft will be required to undergo what will frequently be a $25,000 upgrade regardless of the airspace they use. VFR aircraft in the same airspace are not required to do the upgrade. Safety is only as good as the weakest link.

Unlike some I see value in updating and reinvesting in GA
Jaba, I don't actually disagree. But I'm angry at the intellectually sloppy way in which CASA / AsA is implementing this. It looks to me like 406 Mhz ELT's and Part 61 licences all over again.

AND except for the odd transit through a terminal area, I will receive NO safety or efficiency benefit. Because the IFR flights I do are primarily in class G airspace, ATC have zero ability to provide better separation or traffic advice because VFR, RA(Aus) and gliding traffic will not be similarly equipped.

Last year about halfway to Mildura while I was in cloud and solid IMC I was given a traffic warning of a VFR aircraft flying a non ICAO level opposite direction at the same level - 8,000 ft & class G from memory. (how it was VFR, I have no idea). This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.

Also last year in Class E airspace somewhere west of Ballarat while I was cruising in VMC on an IFR plan at 9,000 ft I had a nearish miss (alerted by ATC) with a homebuilt RV with a non functioning (or turned off) transponder once again flying opposite direction at a non ICAO level. This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.

Probably the closest call I have had was some years ago during a MECIR renewal near Latrobe Valley. We were on an IFR plan and starting the descent for the GPSS RNAV. The weather was VFR, but we were in an out of cloud a bit on the descent. We were on an IFR plan and in contact with ATC. Due to some bad luck with timing and a frequency change both the chopper and us we missed each others calls and for reasons unknown we never received an alert from the controller. We passed within metres of the VFR chopper (and yes, the incident was reported). This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.

ADS-B is effectively an additional tax on me flying IFR.


I did find the AsA report "justifying" the costs and I think its laughable.

1. If you add up the costs to industry (presented in a way that scatters them through the document) then you pretty much get the $120m that AsA is saving. Therefore, this is just a way of transferring public expenditure to private aircraft owners.

2. One of my favourite bits is that they have used the 5.5% reported fuel savings they got from airlines and applied it to the GA fleet.

3. There is no distinction between C129a GPS units and C146a units. There is no discussion (or costs included) from the upgrade of C129a GPS units to C146a units required for ADS-B fitment.

4. There is general discussion about the feasibility of using C129a GPS units coupled to Mode S ES transponders to reduce installation cost (used in an abstract manner to mitigate the overall cost), yet this now seems to have been dropped completely from the debate.

5. The IFR fleet size used in the cost calculation of PBN equipment is different than that used for ADS-B upgrade. One of the figures is wrong.

6. There is no genuine discussion of alternatives. Top of this list would be a discussion of the option of implementing ADS-B in a similar manner as Europe or Canada (both using ES without the benefit of UAT) and both of which excluded GA.

7.Unlike the US, there has been no recognition or discussion regarding either the cost of upgrade compared with hull value or the ability of the industry to pay.

8. Unlike the US there has been no discussion about the feasibility or safety benefits of adopting ADS-B IN to allow the provision of traffic information.

9. The whole of the paper focuses on the reduced costs that AsA will incur from the implementation but (unlike the US version) presents virtually no discussion on the impact to industry.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2014, 21:05
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 205
Why do we lead on this??

From todays Avionics News:

Tuesday, February 4, 2014
ADS-B In 'Not Likely' by 2020, IG Says
Woodrow Bellamy III
[Avionics Today February 4, 2014] Avionics that enable pilots to receive real-time information about their position and the airborne location of other aircraft, or Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In, will "not likely be ready" for mandate by 2020 under the FAA's NextGen program, according to a new audit monitoring the program's progress issued by the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

The FAA is mandating that all aircraft flying within the National Airspace System (NAS) are equipped with avionics that outwardly report the real-time position for tracking by air traffic controllers, or ADS-B Out. However, the agency is behind schedule on initiating rulemaking activities requiring the use of ADS-B In, which the OIG claims is a key provision "intended to accelerate NextGen technologies."

Within the latest report, the auditors also note that the FAA missed a February 2013 deadline required by the FAA's 2012 Reauthorization Act to establish rulemaking for issuing ADS-B In guidelines and regulations. OIG also believes it is uncertain when these provisions can be implemented and what the cost will be.

"As a result, FAA will not likely be ready to mandate the use of the technology by 2020, as required by the act," OIG says.

Delays in issuing ADS-B In guidelines and regulations are due in part to the agency's need to finalize requirements for displaying traffic information in aircraft cockpits. Also contributing to the delay is the need for the FAA to modify the systems that controllers rely on to manage traffic, develop and deploy new procedures for separating aircraft using satellite-based technology and assess potential system security vulnerabilities, the report states.

"Moreover, as we reported last year, users are concerned about investing in aircraft avionics for ADS-B and other NextGen initiatives because [the] FAA has not clearly defined what benefits will be achieved and when," OIG says.

FAA officials told the auditors that budgetary issues have had a significant impact on its modernization efforts with NextGen, and that they're still reeling from some of the provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011. Further complicating that was the sequester and 2013 government shutdown, which caused the FAA to further fall behind schedule on several of its modernization efforts.

Despite criticism of the agency's progress with ADS-B In, the FAA is expected to complete the ground infrastructure required to facilitate the use of ADS-B Out this year. Since there is still no mandate requiring ADS-B In, airlines and operators will continue to focus on the 2020 mandate for ADS-B Out.
- See more at: Avionics Magazine :: ADS-B In 'Not Likely' by 2020, IG Says
TBM-Legend is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.