ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Thread Starter
Yes. Three companies have contacted me as well as private messages listing others which are being effected.
All have said to go public will risk action by CASA .
All have said to go public will risk action by CASA .
The Thorny reality of ADSB??
Not wanting to enter into this debate (above my payscale..
), however the following short article from Phearless Phelan (ProAviation) is somewhat related to this subject..
:
Some colourful language in that lot...
), however the following short article from Phearless Phelan (ProAviation) is somewhat related to this subject..:
World first or world’s worst?
ADS-B capability was mandated from 12 December last year for IFR operations in Australia for all aircraft flying at or above flight level 290.
What happens if your system stops working, or if you’re from one of the other nations, where it’s not yet mandatory? A discussion with an average pilot the other day touched on the subject and we got a bit of an earful on how “black letter law” is working out in practice.
Here’s his commentary:
Case 1
I was sitting in the FBO in Perth last Saturday having a coffee before heading to Karratha when a neat -looking N-registered Gulfstream V taxied past. The FBO manager said it was foreign-owned and heading back to the USA, but had to taxi to the international terminal to clear Customs.
I thought ‘that’s Australia for you; you have to start and taxi a $50 million jet full of VIP’s’ – four engine cycles instead of two, a whole lot of extra kero fumes pumped into Perth’s pollution haze as well. Cart your passengers across the whole airport where they have to disembark into the heat or rain, walk across the tarmac and dodge through the bowels of the baggage handling area to front some officious Customs person for their passports to be stamped, then retrace the obstacle course, reboard their aircraft and depart.
Is it just me? Wouldn’t it be simpler, cheaper and more customer-aware to get Customs to come to the FBO? And just think of the lawsuits if some global mining magnate got flattened by a baggage trolley! Do some of these Customs blokes get a buzz from buggering VIPs around?
Wonderful image we projected to those VIP’s; how up to date and sophisticated Australia is…NOT!
But it didn’t end there. We taxied out and met the Gulfstream at the end of the departure runway; he was headed to LA, which is quite a long a long way, especially if you have to do the first few hours at FL280. He departed ahead of us and later we both transferred to area frequency. Then we heard ATC ask him if he had ADSB exemption. UH-OH! I thought. But this guy’s on the ball; he came back with a “yes, it was arranged through your office in Queensland.”
The poor sod hadn’t allowed for CAsA bureaucracy, ATC came back with, “That exemption only covers your arrival into Australia; you need one to depart, therefore you will have to maintain flight level 280 until leaving Australian airspace” (which was about three thousand miles away!)
Poor pilot: “You’re kidding me!” Nope; they were adamant. He now has to consider if he will make tech stop in Australia and run the whole scenario again, or try and reach an offshore one which has graduated beyond the sailing ship days.
Another voice cut across the VHF, “Welcome to Australia mate, the only third world country where you can drink the water!”
Now in my imagination I see a rather pissed-off VIP in the back dialling his sat phone and saying “Tony, that billion dollars I was going to invest in Australia, changed my mind, you people are just too backward!!”
That couldn’t have happened in the time available but maybe there was a flash of common sense somewhere because the ATC guy came back on the radio and said his management had decided to waive the requirement and gave them a climb clearance.
Case two
I’m operating a Cessna Ultra on an emergency medevac from Karratha to Perth with a critical seven year old on the “life port.”
Our primary aircraft, which the company spent a couple of hundred thousand on to make ADSB compliant was unserviceable, so we were using the back-up that’s yet to equipped with ADSB (which will nearly double its value.) So we were stuck at flight level 280 when we entered moderate turbulence. This was very late at night, with not another aircraft within 500 miles of us.
The Doctor was getting a little perturbed that the patient was being upset so I asked for a higher level, which was denied unless I wanted to declare an emergency. Nobody will declare a mercy flight in Australia now, because it opens you up to the whole gamut of CAsA bastardry. There are people who have lost their licences and businesses because CAsA disagreed with their assessment of what constituted a mercy flight.
Fortunately we flew out of that area of turbulence after a while, but if that child had died, I couldn’t help wondering would Mr McCormick have accepted that his desperate desire to big-note himself at Montreal had contributed to ADS-B’s first fatality?
I somehow doubt it.
ADS-B capability was mandated from 12 December last year for IFR operations in Australia for all aircraft flying at or above flight level 290.
What happens if your system stops working, or if you’re from one of the other nations, where it’s not yet mandatory? A discussion with an average pilot the other day touched on the subject and we got a bit of an earful on how “black letter law” is working out in practice.
Here’s his commentary:
Case 1
I was sitting in the FBO in Perth last Saturday having a coffee before heading to Karratha when a neat -looking N-registered Gulfstream V taxied past. The FBO manager said it was foreign-owned and heading back to the USA, but had to taxi to the international terminal to clear Customs.
I thought ‘that’s Australia for you; you have to start and taxi a $50 million jet full of VIP’s’ – four engine cycles instead of two, a whole lot of extra kero fumes pumped into Perth’s pollution haze as well. Cart your passengers across the whole airport where they have to disembark into the heat or rain, walk across the tarmac and dodge through the bowels of the baggage handling area to front some officious Customs person for their passports to be stamped, then retrace the obstacle course, reboard their aircraft and depart.
Is it just me? Wouldn’t it be simpler, cheaper and more customer-aware to get Customs to come to the FBO? And just think of the lawsuits if some global mining magnate got flattened by a baggage trolley! Do some of these Customs blokes get a buzz from buggering VIPs around?
Wonderful image we projected to those VIP’s; how up to date and sophisticated Australia is…NOT!
But it didn’t end there. We taxied out and met the Gulfstream at the end of the departure runway; he was headed to LA, which is quite a long a long way, especially if you have to do the first few hours at FL280. He departed ahead of us and later we both transferred to area frequency. Then we heard ATC ask him if he had ADSB exemption. UH-OH! I thought. But this guy’s on the ball; he came back with a “yes, it was arranged through your office in Queensland.”
The poor sod hadn’t allowed for CAsA bureaucracy, ATC came back with, “That exemption only covers your arrival into Australia; you need one to depart, therefore you will have to maintain flight level 280 until leaving Australian airspace” (which was about three thousand miles away!)
Poor pilot: “You’re kidding me!” Nope; they were adamant. He now has to consider if he will make tech stop in Australia and run the whole scenario again, or try and reach an offshore one which has graduated beyond the sailing ship days.
Another voice cut across the VHF, “Welcome to Australia mate, the only third world country where you can drink the water!”
Now in my imagination I see a rather pissed-off VIP in the back dialling his sat phone and saying “Tony, that billion dollars I was going to invest in Australia, changed my mind, you people are just too backward!!”
That couldn’t have happened in the time available but maybe there was a flash of common sense somewhere because the ATC guy came back on the radio and said his management had decided to waive the requirement and gave them a climb clearance.
Case two
I’m operating a Cessna Ultra on an emergency medevac from Karratha to Perth with a critical seven year old on the “life port.”
Our primary aircraft, which the company spent a couple of hundred thousand on to make ADSB compliant was unserviceable, so we were using the back-up that’s yet to equipped with ADSB (which will nearly double its value.) So we were stuck at flight level 280 when we entered moderate turbulence. This was very late at night, with not another aircraft within 500 miles of us.
The Doctor was getting a little perturbed that the patient was being upset so I asked for a higher level, which was denied unless I wanted to declare an emergency. Nobody will declare a mercy flight in Australia now, because it opens you up to the whole gamut of CAsA bastardry. There are people who have lost their licences and businesses because CAsA disagreed with their assessment of what constituted a mercy flight.
Fortunately we flew out of that area of turbulence after a while, but if that child had died, I couldn’t help wondering would Mr McCormick have accepted that his desperate desire to big-note himself at Montreal had contributed to ADS-B’s first fatality?
I somehow doubt it.
Thread Starter
Reads the Sarcs post again. It is outrageous.
I will guarantee you that the bastards who mandated these unique requirements will make the ATC liable to some extent - as per the mid air at Bankstown years ago
And who was it who decided to waive the ADSB requirement in the first example.?
Please post more examples of what is going on
Did anyone see the Ben Sandilands blog on China Southern ? Interesting
I will guarantee you that the bastards who mandated these unique requirements will make the ATC liable to some extent - as per the mid air at Bankstown years ago
And who was it who decided to waive the ADSB requirement in the first example.?
Please post more examples of what is going on
Did anyone see the Ben Sandilands blog on China Southern ? Interesting
If Canadian controllers can cope with non ADSB aircraft in their mandatory ADSB non radar airspace why can't Aussie controllers?
AsA copes alright with military aircraft above FL290, in the "original" rules for operation above FL290, controllers were able, at their discretion, clear non-ADS-B aircraft above FL290, applying "appropriate" separation standards.
I wonder who in CASA is responsible for eliminating that provision, or is it a an AsA "policy" decision??.
Does anybody know with certainty??
Who knows Greg Hood well enough to give him a call and ask??
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Can anyone verify if Phelans story about the G5 is correct?
That is someone in ATC management decided that the non ADSB aircraft could fly in the mandatory airspace?
Does this happen often? Can anyone give some examples!
That is someone in ATC management decided that the non ADSB aircraft could fly in the mandatory airspace?
Does this happen often? Can anyone give some examples!
In regards to Sarcs repost
1.the 7 Ps. Operators mistake
2. If the pic given the stated scenario didn't want to declare a mercy flight or emergency to get a climb out of turbulence for the welfare of his medical passenger because he was scared of what CASA would say...well the problem was in the cockpit. You are a PIC to make a good decision.
And it would be interesting to know why the China Southern story was pulled. Probably because it was wrong.
As for the military having a exemption. I agree that is 100 percent wrong. It's not the first time the military has got an exemption for having things like EGPWS and even weather radar when it was mandatory for fare paying passengers in civil ops.
1.the 7 Ps. Operators mistake
2. If the pic given the stated scenario didn't want to declare a mercy flight or emergency to get a climb out of turbulence for the welfare of his medical passenger because he was scared of what CASA would say...well the problem was in the cockpit. You are a PIC to make a good decision.
And it would be interesting to know why the China Southern story was pulled. Probably because it was wrong.
As for the military having a exemption. I agree that is 100 percent wrong. It's not the first time the military has got an exemption for having things like EGPWS and even weather radar when it was mandatory for fare paying passengers in civil ops.
It's not the first time the military has got an exemption for having things like EGPWS and even weather radar when it was mandatory for fare paying passengers in civil ops.
I can see that point of view, I think the ADF just used it as a excuse because it was all too hard to organise to do it for older aircraft...despite the fact the civil world had to find a way.
I think if you're a grunt down the back of an ADF aircraft, it should be fitted with best safety equipment around. We have seen plenty of military transport aircraft hits hills around the world.
I think if you're a grunt down the back of an ADF aircraft, it should be fitted with best safety equipment around. We have seen plenty of military transport aircraft hits hills around the world.
Yes now 80 percent compliant...not so long ago different story.
It was hard fatal lessons that developed the need for continued improvement in cockpit technology.
The ADF got better at teaching safety and CRM but dropped the ball badly in terms of keeping their older aircraft up to date. Not so relevant now due to the next gen of aircraft I concur but that doesn't excuse the lack of action before hand. If there is a relevant tactical reason not to have stuff fine, but that isn't the reason the military keeps excusing itself from what the government regulates for the civilian world...anyway I'm drifting.
It was hard fatal lessons that developed the need for continued improvement in cockpit technology.
The ADF got better at teaching safety and CRM but dropped the ball badly in terms of keeping their older aircraft up to date. Not so relevant now due to the next gen of aircraft I concur but that doesn't excuse the lack of action before hand. If there is a relevant tactical reason not to have stuff fine, but that isn't the reason the military keeps excusing itself from what the government regulates for the civilian world...anyway I'm drifting.
It’s just plain dumb.
cbradio:
Don't know if the original was wrong...
Maybe Ben had a thought bubble then decided to check the facts?? Either way here is the revised version..
Hang on! Can we just go back a bit and get a clarification on the "disappearance" of Ben's story.
Why was it wrong?
Why was it wrong?
Maybe Ben had a thought bubble then decided to check the facts?? Either way here is the revised version..
Australia forces Chinese A330 to fly across continent at low altitude
When a very senior Qantas captain was asked for an opinion about Australia’s air traffic control forcing a 300 passenger foreign jet to fly across the country at an altitude of less than 29,000 feet he said “That would be insane.”
“It would be one of the most dangerous things you could ask of an airliner, and it certainly wouldn’t happen here, ever.”
But it did. And how and why it did demands a high level inquiry into institutional stupidity and recklessness in AirServices Australia.
This is how it happened, on the evidence admitted in official on the record contacts with CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the office of the responsible Minister, Warren Truss.
Last Sunday 23 March someone in AirServices Australia, the air navigation provider, required a China Southern A330-200 to fly all the way across Australia at an abnormally low altitude, because it had a faulty transponder, called an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast or ADS-B device which this country requires for flight in private jets and airliners operating above 29,000 feet.
As noted in a story in The Australian during the week:
The high-altitude transponder on Flight CZ302, Sydney to Guangzhou, which lets aircraft be tracked above 29,000ft, failed on the flight into Sydney on Saturday and could not be fixed before the plane returned to Guangzhou on Sunday.
Under Australian air traffic rules introduced last year, all aircraft flying above 29,000ft must be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast equipment.
Flight CZ302 was given permission to return to China but was ordered to fly at 28,000ft while in Australian air space and had to weave around bad weather rather than fly over it. When the flight reached Indonesian air space, it climbed above 29,000ft. The federal government has confirmed the events but denied there was any safety issue for the flight.
Under Australia’s regulations China Southern was entitled to fly out of this country without a working ADS-B device if it did so within 72 hours, having made prior notification to AirServices Australia of its unserviceability (which it had) and sought approval to avail itself of the exemption provided for in the rules, which it hadn’t.
This is where institutional stupidity and recklessness, if not bloody mindedness enters the picture.
A modern, large, fast airliner rocketing across Australia at altitudes used by smaller, slower, turbo-props and even piston engined aircraft, who of themselves might not be visible to its own TCAS collision avoidance equipment, and might not aware of its passage, in skies full of tropical wet season storms and turbulence, and often beyond the reach of ATC radar, is something too ridiculous and dangerous to take seriously in Australia.
Yet China Southern CZ302 was given such conditional approval to depart. Technically this appears to have been within the rules, but in practical terms, this was not an action that could have ever been deemed safe or prudent.
The appropriate course of action would have been for AirServices Australia to notify CASA of the situation of a large jet airliner with an inoperative ADS-B unit proposing to depart from Australia through air space normally populated by smaller, slower and potentially ‘invisible’ aircraft in stormy skies.
There is no doubt among pilots spoken to for advice on this story that the paperwork would have been adjusted pronto, and that CZ302 would have flown, as intended, through the smoother, higher and decidedly safer higher altitude skies between Sydney and Guangzhou.
It does seem that the airline should have been more ‘on the ball’.
But bloody minded stupidity that put its flight at unacceptable risk also put other Australian aircraft at risk.
Why a supposedly professionally trained and knowledgeable person in authority thought that mixing an A330-200 with the much slower and lower flying aircraft that inhabit the airspace it had to fly through was a safe and proper course of action defies explanation.
It’s just plain dumb.
When a very senior Qantas captain was asked for an opinion about Australia’s air traffic control forcing a 300 passenger foreign jet to fly across the country at an altitude of less than 29,000 feet he said “That would be insane.”
“It would be one of the most dangerous things you could ask of an airliner, and it certainly wouldn’t happen here, ever.”
But it did. And how and why it did demands a high level inquiry into institutional stupidity and recklessness in AirServices Australia.
This is how it happened, on the evidence admitted in official on the record contacts with CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the office of the responsible Minister, Warren Truss.
Last Sunday 23 March someone in AirServices Australia, the air navigation provider, required a China Southern A330-200 to fly all the way across Australia at an abnormally low altitude, because it had a faulty transponder, called an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast or ADS-B device which this country requires for flight in private jets and airliners operating above 29,000 feet.
As noted in a story in The Australian during the week:
The high-altitude transponder on Flight CZ302, Sydney to Guangzhou, which lets aircraft be tracked above 29,000ft, failed on the flight into Sydney on Saturday and could not be fixed before the plane returned to Guangzhou on Sunday.
Under Australian air traffic rules introduced last year, all aircraft flying above 29,000ft must be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast equipment.
Flight CZ302 was given permission to return to China but was ordered to fly at 28,000ft while in Australian air space and had to weave around bad weather rather than fly over it. When the flight reached Indonesian air space, it climbed above 29,000ft. The federal government has confirmed the events but denied there was any safety issue for the flight.
Under Australia’s regulations China Southern was entitled to fly out of this country without a working ADS-B device if it did so within 72 hours, having made prior notification to AirServices Australia of its unserviceability (which it had) and sought approval to avail itself of the exemption provided for in the rules, which it hadn’t.
This is where institutional stupidity and recklessness, if not bloody mindedness enters the picture.
A modern, large, fast airliner rocketing across Australia at altitudes used by smaller, slower, turbo-props and even piston engined aircraft, who of themselves might not be visible to its own TCAS collision avoidance equipment, and might not aware of its passage, in skies full of tropical wet season storms and turbulence, and often beyond the reach of ATC radar, is something too ridiculous and dangerous to take seriously in Australia.
Yet China Southern CZ302 was given such conditional approval to depart. Technically this appears to have been within the rules, but in practical terms, this was not an action that could have ever been deemed safe or prudent.
The appropriate course of action would have been for AirServices Australia to notify CASA of the situation of a large jet airliner with an inoperative ADS-B unit proposing to depart from Australia through air space normally populated by smaller, slower and potentially ‘invisible’ aircraft in stormy skies.
There is no doubt among pilots spoken to for advice on this story that the paperwork would have been adjusted pronto, and that CZ302 would have flown, as intended, through the smoother, higher and decidedly safer higher altitude skies between Sydney and Guangzhou.
It does seem that the airline should have been more ‘on the ball’.
But bloody minded stupidity that put its flight at unacceptable risk also put other Australian aircraft at risk.
Why a supposedly professionally trained and knowledgeable person in authority thought that mixing an A330-200 with the much slower and lower flying aircraft that inhabit the airspace it had to fly through was a safe and proper course of action defies explanation.
It’s just plain dumb.
Thread Starter
Is my memory correct re the Norfolk Island ditching.
Was the aircraft forced to operate at a lower level because not RVSM compliant - therefore using more fuel - therefore could not get to an alternate?
Couldn't the same thing happen re forcing non ADSB compliant aircraft to lower levels and using more fuel?
Especially if the crew have not planned for the lower level operations before departure.
How long before an accident or serious incident?
Was the aircraft forced to operate at a lower level because not RVSM compliant - therefore using more fuel - therefore could not get to an alternate?
Couldn't the same thing happen re forcing non ADSB compliant aircraft to lower levels and using more fuel?
Especially if the crew have not planned for the lower level operations before departure.
How long before an accident or serious incident?