ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
If you are an experimental aircraft or LSA then you can now get a garmin GPS position source for ABS-B for less than a grand US.
Garmin Team X Introduces Three New Products and Adds New Capabilities » Garmin Blog
US $ 845 for the box or
US $ 1225 box install kit and antenna.
Garmin Team X Introduces Three New Products and Adds New Capabilities » Garmin Blog
US $ 845 for the box or
US $ 1225 box install kit and antenna.
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
Captain;
You say..."dwelling on the past, what the environment was and what happened 10-20 years ago and talking about what might have been isn't particularly productive".
It is if one can learn from the past.
I have a bridge in Sydney for sale... interested?
You say..."dwelling on the past, what the environment was and what happened 10-20 years ago and talking about what might have been isn't particularly productive".
It is if one can learn from the past.
I have a bridge in Sydney for sale... interested?
According to FAA installation data, 297 U.S. air carrier aircraft and 97 international airlines’ aircraft had been equipped with rule-compliant ADS-B as of the end of May. By contrast there were 10,902 GA aircraft outfitted with the technology at that time as well as 28 U.S. military aircraft.
The above from this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology.
I know that US carriers have been very reluctant to fit ADS-B, because they don't see any benefit for the capital expenditure, but even so, the 297 looks very low.
The GA figure is about 6% of the fleet, but doesn't mean much, given the far more relaxed mandate, compared to Australia.
Re. the Garmin announcement, check to see if it complies with CASA certification requirements, I had a quick look at the spec., I don't think it does.
There is a rather interesting piece of new GA gear from L3 Corp., which is certified, ADS-B out is either 1090ES or UAT, owner choice, but it has dual ADS-B IN for traffic display --- only relevant to the US setup, but still interesting. Price, no idea, not in the advert.
Tootle pip!!
Captain Midnight,
Just as applicable to aviation in Australia in this day and age as ever.
Tootle pip!!
George Santayana:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Tootle pip!!
Originally Posted by Ledslad
The GA figure is about 6% of the fleet, but doesn't mean much, given the far more relaxed mandate, compared to Australia.
Frank/Leady: Gammy thanks you for the eggs.
I did prefix my comment that explanations of what happened in the past that caused where we are today are fine, but some seem to love focussing on past wrongs, now the sky is falling and all's going to Hell, instead of offering constructive suggestions on how to move forward i.e.
Move on, or get out of the way.
I did prefix my comment that explanations of what happened in the past that caused where we are today are fine, but some seem to love focussing on past wrongs, now the sky is falling and all's going to Hell, instead of offering constructive suggestions on how to move forward i.e.
The focus now needs to be on what needs to be done to improve the current environment moving into the future, taking into account the technologies currently available and in place (e.g. Australia's extensive ADS-B coverage above 10,000 and SSR coverage in the "J" curve)), and where we should be heading for the future.
Eldridge Cleaver: “If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.”
How about giving us numbers right up close to the mandate date? Then they will be meaningful.
I may claim to be many things, but a clairvoyant is not one of them.
Undoubtedly, FAA would also like to know, as well. What is reasonably clear is that the fitment rate for the relevant number of aircraft between now and 2020 is probably not attainable, even the capacity of avionics manufacturers to get equipment out is being questioned in Congressional investigations.
The new Garmin GPS 20A meets FAA rules for ADS-B but it is not TSO'd. Therefore I wouldn't think it meets Australia's extra special requirements
I think that is probably right, just as several other superficially attractive cheap 1090ES transponder/GPS combinations do not comply with CASA specifications, often, but not always, because the GPS source does not comply with Australian specifications.
---- instead of offering constructive suggestions on how to move forward i.e.
Clearly, either you haven't read, or if you have, you have not understood many of my "contributions" to this issue. Last time I added them up, there were about nineteen substantive papers to various inter-related subjects on airspace management, with my name on the bottom, contributing on behalf of several bodies over the time, and more recently as an individual.
If, collectively, we had any brains, we should do a complete re-analysis of the Australian ADS-B mandate, a proper risk analysis and a cost/benefit justification for any subsequent mandate.
If that had been done in the first place (as Government policy of the day mandated - that mandate, "imposed" by a Labor Government, was ignored) we would not be where we are right now.
The vast cost shifting, inherent in this program, to an already financially marginal GA (a macro financial situation imposed on GA, largely not of GA's making) should be revisited, and if the RRAT Standing Committee of the Senate have their way, it may well be.
For those of you who would rejoice in many fewer GA aircraft in the air (Bloggsie and his mates) it is this short term thinking that has got Australian aviation, as a whole, to where it is today, compared to even little NZ.
When Donald Horn titled his seminal work "The Lucky Country", he was being quite ironic, describing a country with huge potential, with a population (including political classes from the left to right) of none too bright people, who were probably never going achieve that potential.
If you look at the Australian aviation sector, he was so correct, it is uncanny --- and very sad. The aviation sector has lucked out.
Tootle pip!!
I wasn't having a shot specific to you Leady, and I'm aware of your input and involvement over the years. Having been in the industry nigh on 40 years myself, we've probably been at the same forums from time to time.
So some issues for the way forward, in no particular order:
So some issues for the way forward, in no particular order:
- CASA to evaluate cheap 1090ES transponder/GPS combinations WRT compliance with current specifications, and consider revising specifications where appropriate, to facilitate a cost-effective means of GA fitment of ADS-B;
- CASA to consider a complete re-analysis of the Australian ADS-B mandate, a proper risk analysis and a cost/benefit justification for any subsequent mandate;
- CASA and Airservices to work with the industry WRT revaluating the ADS-B implementation mandate, to a date appropriate and workable for GA;
- CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards increasing the number of ADS-B ground stations, to increase low level coverage;
- CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards the lowering of Class E airspace where surveillance (SSR or ADS-B) exists or is required, thereby increasing the benefits of ADS-B to industry;
- more?
Midnight,
I agree with that whole list, and only make the following comments:
Any justification of the ADS-B mandate beyond FAA/Eurocontrol proposals for operations below 10,000/250kt IAS will not genuinely be able to be justified, the AsA/CASA mandate must be wound back.
With the extension of E airspace, the right of RAOz Pilot Certificate Holders to operate in E must be granted, subject to meeting the current transponder requirement. It was a certain Assistant Director, back in about 2003, who kyboshed what had already been agreed by CASA, that E would be open to AUF/RAOz pilots.
As far as I can see, many of the unacceptable cheap systems available only have a C129 GPS. Given Australia's traffic levels, a case should be made for these units to be used. For those that have a C145/146 GPS chip, any reason for non-approval needs very careful scrutiny, against the background of the very low traffic levels in Australia, and the proven collision risk probabilities above 10,000' being several orders of magnitude less the ICAO standard, effectively a statistical zero --- vanishingly small.
Nobody should forget that it is the Mode C Transponder that the ACAS/TCAS of a suitably equipped aircraft will see, not ADS-B Out.
Tootle pip!!
I agree with that whole list, and only make the following comments:
Any justification of the ADS-B mandate beyond FAA/Eurocontrol proposals for operations below 10,000/250kt IAS will not genuinely be able to be justified, the AsA/CASA mandate must be wound back.
With the extension of E airspace, the right of RAOz Pilot Certificate Holders to operate in E must be granted, subject to meeting the current transponder requirement. It was a certain Assistant Director, back in about 2003, who kyboshed what had already been agreed by CASA, that E would be open to AUF/RAOz pilots.
As far as I can see, many of the unacceptable cheap systems available only have a C129 GPS. Given Australia's traffic levels, a case should be made for these units to be used. For those that have a C145/146 GPS chip, any reason for non-approval needs very careful scrutiny, against the background of the very low traffic levels in Australia, and the proven collision risk probabilities above 10,000' being several orders of magnitude less the ICAO standard, effectively a statistical zero --- vanishingly small.
Nobody should forget that it is the Mode C Transponder that the ACAS/TCAS of a suitably equipped aircraft will see, not ADS-B Out.
Tootle pip!!
As far as I can see, many of the unacceptable cheap systems available only have a C129 GPS. Given Australia's traffic levels, a case should be made for these units to be used.
Maybe the use of such units could be confined to Class G (and maybe E below (say) 8500)?
Updated list below.
All:
If you agree to any or all of these I suggest you drop a line to your industry association (AOPA, AFAP, SAAA, RA-AUS etc.) for them to prepare and file a submission to CASA.
Now it the time; just discussing here won't do anything. If you don't ask, you don't get.
All:
If you agree to any or all of these I suggest you drop a line to your industry association (AOPA, AFAP, SAAA, RA-AUS etc.) for them to prepare and file a submission to CASA.
Now it the time; just discussing here won't do anything. If you don't ask, you don't get.
- CASA to evaluate cheap 1090ES transponder/GPS combinations WRT compliance with current specifications, and consider revising specifications where appropriate, to facilitate a cost-effective means of GA fitment of ADS-B;
- CASA to consider a complete re-analysis of the Australian ADS-B mandate, a proper risk analysis and a cost/benefit justification for any subsequent mandate;
- CASA and Airservices to work with the industry WRT revaluating the ADS-B implementation mandate, to a date appropriate and workable for GA;
- CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards increasing the number of ADS-B ground stations, to increase low level coverage;
- CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards the lowering of Class E airspace where surveillance (SSR or ADS-B) exists or is required, thereby increasing the benefits of ADS-B to industry;
- CASA to consider approving RAOz Pilot Certificate Holders to operate in Class E airspace, subject to meeting the current transponder requirement.
Captain Midnight said
I really can't see how the "big end of town" would support this, no safety benefit for them in the airspace they fly in (EK et al) and at what cost? An alternate strategy, lobby Government to receive reduced dividend (from Airservices) for the next five years and this money to directly put into ADSB to better low level surveillance around regional airports.
BTW, Title of the thread is offensive.
CASA and Airservices to work with the industry towards increasing the number of ADS-B ground stations, to increase low level coverage;
BTW, Title of the thread is offensive.
Last edited by sunnySA; 20th Jul 2015 at 11:07. Reason: .
RA-AUS Pilots already have access to E airspace
Would you expand on that, please, I can't see any reference in Issue 7 of the RAOz Operations Manual that the controlled airspace endorsements for an RAOz Pilot Certificate holder have made it into the manual.
Tootle pip!!
Dynon just announced a $590 GPS that complies with FAA ads-b out rules, but is not TSO'd. I wonder if CASAwill have a rush of common sense and allow its use? Also the Dynon radio?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fundamental issue is that present ATS is Obsolete
Don't believe the Dynon $590 ADS-B KOSH ad "ruse". When you add up all the needed parts to make it actually work, plus installation, it is still many many $thousands. Worst of all, FAA's entire ADS-B concept is still seriously flawed, and even if the Dynon was free, FAA's ADS-B doesn't stand a prayer of actually being implemented anything like it is currently being proposed (required).
The fundamental Issue here is that both VFR and IFR are entirely obsolete, and FAA's ADS-B keys to a seriously failing Nextgen concept. The entire US ATS foundation is based on the long obsolete flawed premise of "see and be seen" related to 91.113(b), which has failed time and time again, from the Grand Canyon midair, to AL853 (Sept '69) to Aeromexico 498 at Cerritos, to PSA182 in San Diego.
Further, seeing hundreds of thousands of new tiny UAVs flying into a sunset, for anybody, from F-16s to B777s, to even low end GA, is virtually hopeless. We now can economically and safely do EFR (Electronic Flight Rules) globally, but IF AND ONLY IF WE reformulate ATS from first principles, use dynamic RNP 3D and 4D trajectory based separation, exchange the correct "state vector" data, (and NOT FAA's ridiculous overspecified overexpensive seriously flawed version of ADS-B with UAT and ADS-R), and finally do C-N-S properly (but NOT NextGen, which really should be called PastGen). ALL vehicles need to see each other without ATS help.
For example, the recent F16/C150 midair event isn't the F-16 pilot's fault, it isn't the C150 pilot's fault, it isn't the Air Traffic Separation specialist's fault (I feel bad for all of them, and they all deserve our sympathy and support).
Instead, IT IS primarily the FAA's FAULT, and our fault, for completely failing to force the needed ATS evolution over the past 4 decades, and OUR failing to hold FAA adequately accountable for sustaining this broken, antiquated, seriously flawed system (that spurred FAA's seriously flawed ADS-B). We will someday see this sad F16/C150 event all over again, if we don't now learn, dump FAA's ADS-B, and take the needed more basic action of fundamental ATS redesign from first principles, taking into account the capability of modern technology, just like the phone system did over five decades ago.
To start, FAA needs to be broken up this fall in the budget hearings, and re-constituted with a completely separate ATS that is PROPERLY modernized, and much more closely held accountable for its design, costs, benefits, and performance, ...directly to the airspace users, and NOT to FAA's contractors, consultants, avionics companies trying to economically benefit from mandates, and politically appointed or career FAA officials with marginal or no serious aviation experience.
But for now, don’t waste a dime on any Dynon, Garmin, L3, or anybody else’s version of FAA’s flawed misapplied ADS-B concept.
The fundamental Issue here is that both VFR and IFR are entirely obsolete, and FAA's ADS-B keys to a seriously failing Nextgen concept. The entire US ATS foundation is based on the long obsolete flawed premise of "see and be seen" related to 91.113(b), which has failed time and time again, from the Grand Canyon midair, to AL853 (Sept '69) to Aeromexico 498 at Cerritos, to PSA182 in San Diego.
Further, seeing hundreds of thousands of new tiny UAVs flying into a sunset, for anybody, from F-16s to B777s, to even low end GA, is virtually hopeless. We now can economically and safely do EFR (Electronic Flight Rules) globally, but IF AND ONLY IF WE reformulate ATS from first principles, use dynamic RNP 3D and 4D trajectory based separation, exchange the correct "state vector" data, (and NOT FAA's ridiculous overspecified overexpensive seriously flawed version of ADS-B with UAT and ADS-R), and finally do C-N-S properly (but NOT NextGen, which really should be called PastGen). ALL vehicles need to see each other without ATS help.
For example, the recent F16/C150 midair event isn't the F-16 pilot's fault, it isn't the C150 pilot's fault, it isn't the Air Traffic Separation specialist's fault (I feel bad for all of them, and they all deserve our sympathy and support).
Instead, IT IS primarily the FAA's FAULT, and our fault, for completely failing to force the needed ATS evolution over the past 4 decades, and OUR failing to hold FAA adequately accountable for sustaining this broken, antiquated, seriously flawed system (that spurred FAA's seriously flawed ADS-B). We will someday see this sad F16/C150 event all over again, if we don't now learn, dump FAA's ADS-B, and take the needed more basic action of fundamental ATS redesign from first principles, taking into account the capability of modern technology, just like the phone system did over five decades ago.
To start, FAA needs to be broken up this fall in the budget hearings, and re-constituted with a completely separate ATS that is PROPERLY modernized, and much more closely held accountable for its design, costs, benefits, and performance, ...directly to the airspace users, and NOT to FAA's contractors, consultants, avionics companies trying to economically benefit from mandates, and politically appointed or career FAA officials with marginal or no serious aviation experience.
But for now, don’t waste a dime on any Dynon, Garmin, L3, or anybody else’s version of FAA’s flawed misapplied ADS-B concept.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting then, the local campaign to copy and implement the U.S. system 
Don't tell Ean Higgins.
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post9042144
Don't tell Ean Higgins.
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post9042144