ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is in the works for the FAA, not Boeing. By the time it gets settled, who knows. Again, READ the FAA website, the latest and greatest is all right there.
Where will airspeed and all of the other variables come from? The requirements for connections to the ac GPS? What about the IRS?
Do you think that an ATC or other system built on the broadcast of the position , speed, and altitude will not have to have redundancy built in?
It will not be simple, nor should it be. It will be just like other flight systems on the ac... multiple, redundant sources.
Where will airspeed and all of the other variables come from? The requirements for connections to the ac GPS? What about the IRS?
Do you think that an ATC or other system built on the broadcast of the position , speed, and altitude will not have to have redundancy built in?
It will not be simple, nor should it be. It will be just like other flight systems on the ac... multiple, redundant sources.
Ask the expert leadsled.
Maybe underfire doesn't know himself.
Maybe he thinks he is being helpful in letting us know that UAT and 1090ES don't talk to each other, but he might have added in that VDL-4 ( quite extensively used in US and Scandinavia --- the first ATC certified use of ADS-B was the VDL-4 system)
Actually, he (or is it she) isn't telling us anything we haven't known for many years, 15 at least.
Tootle pip!!
PS: An in depth 0.5 second search revealed the below nor very recent info.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...60444564,d.dGI
Last edited by LeadSled; 2nd Feb 2014 at 13:16.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
....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.
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.
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?
Dick: Do your engineers know what they are talking about?
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
'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
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.
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
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS: An in depth 0.5 second search revealed the below nor very recent info.
Edit: resized the image
Last edited by underfire; 4th Feb 2014 at 20:08.
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
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
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.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost benefit analysis - ADS-B
OA:
I did find the file which was recently posted on:
Cost benefit analysis ATLAS Project 2007 - ADS-B
I have not yet found the other file Jaba referred to
I did find the file which was recently posted on:
Cost benefit analysis ATLAS Project 2007 - ADS-B
I have not yet found the other file Jaba referred to
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
It says:
All IFR Akro
The below (DP 1006AS - 14 Dec 2010) predates the above
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!
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
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...d/dp1102as.pdf
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.
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.
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
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1006AS
See annex D
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!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
ADS-B OUT Component
Hope that helps
(jaba ya dill)Why the change??? (don’t shoot the messenger)
=jabaDP 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.