ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
There is still the exemption process until that happens
Not very helpful for any operator really, be it private, corporate or charter!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Aimlessly wandering
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo
Well said Capt Claret. Unless ATC is going to suddenly materialise on a flight deck and wrest control of the aircraft from the pilot in command, then there is no way to force crew to enter any situation they deem unsafe. Let alone one that might "rip the wings off".
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astralo, you can thank Class E Airspace and Dicks love of everything VFR for the 'base'. It wasn't about safety, it was about doing it on the cheap (for said VFR's anyway)
Moderator
There is still the exemption process until that happens.
I suspect the primary issue here is that Australia has imposed an ADSB requirement ahead of most of the rest of the world, before all manufacturers have developed compliant Service Bulletins for ADSB installations in existing aircraft? I don't think it is not a matter of cost, rather having available an approved installation method?
Exemptions are unavailable: one day a number of Australian corporate and private aircraft are safe to operate above FL290, but the next day they becomes a threat to airline safety?
Still not entering the debate. Only observations.
When the well-laden 737-800 I fly won't burn an extra $1000 per hour of fuel if kept down at FL290 (or FL250 for that matter) i call bullsiht on your claim Dick. You're doing your argument no favours resorting to specious reasoning.
but the next day they becomes a threat to airline safety?
The problem is not that it is unsafe to let Dick in, the problem is now it is impractical and less efficient to let Dick in...as an example 10min longitudinal separation is approx 50-80nm...with ads-b it is now only 5nm (corect me if I am wrong). So now ATC have to find/make a 50-80nm hole to fit him in. Who do they penalise to do this? Someone has to cop a speed/alt/tracking hit to fit him in. Would the airlines think this was fair?
Already I have heard that one plane was forced into very bad weather.
Dick raises legitimate issues which deserve discussion rather than attacking Dick.
It is true that we are implementing ADS-B well ahead of the US (where the equipment is designed & made). Why?
It is also true that Australian has opted for a different system than the US which exacerbates that equipment availability issue.
It is true that many aircraft (from memory Dick's Citation is one), do not currently have a technical solution to fit ADS-B. I'd suggest that those with a chip on their shoulder about Dick being able to afford to run a Citation should read some of the previous threads first. Are we really trying to implement a system that is technically not yet possible for all aircraft?
I have heard (I do not know first hand) that some of the airlines are not ADS-B equipped and are operating with exemptions. It would be interesting to explore this. If CASA are selectively granting exemptions, then we are back to CASA at its best and we owe it to ourselves to highlight this.
The issue should not be that Dick (and others) can fly below FL290 and should put up with a workaround. The question should be why we are not able to facilitate the optimal operation of these aircraft?
And for Alfacentauri, you are unquestionably correct that not ATC would force an aircraft into very bad weather, however, I have witnessed them force aircraft into non-optimal weather for the sake of operational expediency. My question would be: are we making FL 280 & FL 290 unnecessarily crowded and does this diminish the safety in those levels? Without meaning to be alarmist, there is still an active ATSB investigation about ATC "losing" an airbus near Adelaide. Isn't it safer to have as many altitudes available as possible? Investigation: AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013.
It is true that we are implementing ADS-B well ahead of the US (where the equipment is designed & made). Why?
It is also true that Australian has opted for a different system than the US which exacerbates that equipment availability issue.
It is true that many aircraft (from memory Dick's Citation is one), do not currently have a technical solution to fit ADS-B. I'd suggest that those with a chip on their shoulder about Dick being able to afford to run a Citation should read some of the previous threads first. Are we really trying to implement a system that is technically not yet possible for all aircraft?
I have heard (I do not know first hand) that some of the airlines are not ADS-B equipped and are operating with exemptions. It would be interesting to explore this. If CASA are selectively granting exemptions, then we are back to CASA at its best and we owe it to ourselves to highlight this.
The issue should not be that Dick (and others) can fly below FL290 and should put up with a workaround. The question should be why we are not able to facilitate the optimal operation of these aircraft?
And for Alfacentauri, you are unquestionably correct that not ATC would force an aircraft into very bad weather, however, I have witnessed them force aircraft into non-optimal weather for the sake of operational expediency. My question would be: are we making FL 280 & FL 290 unnecessarily crowded and does this diminish the safety in those levels? Without meaning to be alarmist, there is still an active ATSB investigation about ATC "losing" an airbus near Adelaide. Isn't it safer to have as many altitudes available as possible? Investigation: AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick..
Big Country...little radar coverage. You have tried (and made an absolute dogs breakfast) to get US type of airspace implemented in Australia, the critical shortfall in your plan was that we dont have a fraction of the radar coverage in Oz as the US have over the pond.
Simple solution: ADS-B installed in aircraft to make up the shortfall in ATC surveillance.
If you want to be separated from other aircraft efficiently, get this piece of equipment installed, from the costs you are talking about it will only take a few trips at correct flight levels to recover the costs.
As an ATC, I will tell you right now, I dont give a flying rats ass if aircraft are flying at their non planned levels if it is a requirement for me to have the aircraft separated, ADS-B equipped or not. I dont care if it costs them $1000 bucks an hour in fuel, as long as it doesnt cost them their lives.
If you are not flying under surveillance ATC separation standards become rediculously large (5 miles radar/ADS-B to upto 50nm co altitude) as it is impractical to launch aircraft out of terminals on the same route (into non surveillance airspace) 50nm apart....vertical separation needs to be applied.
Dick...get your aircraft equipped with the best technology available to ensure you get to your destination on time and on budget.
This is not ATC's problem. This is not CASA's problem, this is your problem, and a lot of it is of your own making because of you banging on about airspace.
Big Country...little radar coverage. You have tried (and made an absolute dogs breakfast) to get US type of airspace implemented in Australia, the critical shortfall in your plan was that we dont have a fraction of the radar coverage in Oz as the US have over the pond.
Simple solution: ADS-B installed in aircraft to make up the shortfall in ATC surveillance.
If you want to be separated from other aircraft efficiently, get this piece of equipment installed, from the costs you are talking about it will only take a few trips at correct flight levels to recover the costs.
As an ATC, I will tell you right now, I dont give a flying rats ass if aircraft are flying at their non planned levels if it is a requirement for me to have the aircraft separated, ADS-B equipped or not. I dont care if it costs them $1000 bucks an hour in fuel, as long as it doesnt cost them their lives.
If you are not flying under surveillance ATC separation standards become rediculously large (5 miles radar/ADS-B to upto 50nm co altitude) as it is impractical to launch aircraft out of terminals on the same route (into non surveillance airspace) 50nm apart....vertical separation needs to be applied.
Dick...get your aircraft equipped with the best technology available to ensure you get to your destination on time and on budget.
This is not ATC's problem. This is not CASA's problem, this is your problem, and a lot of it is of your own making because of you banging on about airspace.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro,
Sure, the non compliant aircraft can have his planned level. Now I will just put these 2 complient aircraft over 100nm apart so that he can have his planned level....
getting the picture?
Sure, the non compliant aircraft can have his planned level. Now I will just put these 2 complient aircraft over 100nm apart so that he can have his planned level....
getting the picture?
CASA granted Dick an exemption. With an exemption you can fly above F280 around the J-curve and off the coast from SW WA around to NE NT. Outside those areas you still have to operate F280 or lower, exempt or not.
CASA EX113/13 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace
There are very few aircraft regularly flying that aren't compliant and F280 is far from being crowded.
Would "operational expediency" mean "for separation"?
CASA EX113/13 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace
There are very few aircraft regularly flying that aren't compliant and F280 is far from being crowded.
Would "operational expediency" mean "for separation"?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is true that we are implementing ADS-B well ahead of the US (where the equipment is designed & made). Why?
I have heard (I do not know first hand) that some of the airlines are not ADS-B equipped and are operating with exemptions. It would be interesting to explore this. If CASA are selectively granting exemptions, then we are back to CASA at its best and we owe it to ourselves to highlight this.
It basically come down the the "greater good". ADSB only delivers its full potential if its exclusive. What the biz jets lose is less than everybody else gains.
are we making FL 280 & FL 290 unnecessarily crowded
I do wonder if the powers that be have decided on a hard mandate so we avoid the situation of RVSM. Over 10 years later we have non RVSM aircraft using three times the airspace that otherwise would.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that the 50nm standard gets used all the time Akro, daily and hourly.
If you are reffering to an incident on a specific date, unless you can link the ATSB report, I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you are reffering to an incident on a specific date, unless you can link the ATSB report, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I would say that the 50nm standard gets used all the time Akro, daily and hourly.
If the answer is no, then I struggle to see why he couldn't do the same flight on Dec 11 as Dec 12.
The other thing I don't understand is how overseas aircraft are treated. I presume all the bizjets with N tail numbers in hangars around Essendon do not have ADS-B and I also assume that International carriers do not have the Aussie ES ADS-B units. How are these handled and is it any different to how Dick is being directed to operate.