ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also assume that International carriers do not have the Aussie ES ADS-B units.
Le Pingouin
Not going to hijack this thread with details. But, for reasons that the ATC was either unable to be aware of weather or was maybe not fully appreciating the difference in weather that a light aircraft can tolerate vs a jet or (dare I say it) even laziness. It does happen. If the pilot responded with a request or requirement, I maintain confidence that the controller would react with diligence. But not all pilots do this. Aside of the instances where I have first hand knowledge, there was a case a bit like this that the ATSB was questioned about in Senate estimates last year.
But, the common enemy in this thread is a regulator which imposes regulations that cannot be complied with because the required equipment is not commercially available.
Not going to hijack this thread with details. But, for reasons that the ATC was either unable to be aware of weather or was maybe not fully appreciating the difference in weather that a light aircraft can tolerate vs a jet or (dare I say it) even laziness. It does happen. If the pilot responded with a request or requirement, I maintain confidence that the controller would react with diligence. But not all pilots do this. Aside of the instances where I have first hand knowledge, there was a case a bit like this that the ATSB was questioned about in Senate estimates last year.
But, the common enemy in this thread is a regulator which imposes regulations that cannot be complied with because the required equipment is not commercially available.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
parallel thought line.
I had wondered why no one produced a solid state stand alone ADSB transponder that could be fitted to an aircraft with not much beyond a radio in the way of electronics.
CASA in their infinitesimal wisdom have made it illegal.
the reasoning being that the adsb info must never be different to the information presented to the pilot.
....but what if there is NO information being presented to the pilot?
their logic, or lack of it, beggars belief at times.
I had wondered why no one produced a solid state stand alone ADSB transponder that could be fitted to an aircraft with not much beyond a radio in the way of electronics.
CASA in their infinitesimal wisdom have made it illegal.
the reasoning being that the adsb info must never be different to the information presented to the pilot.
....but what if there is NO information being presented to the pilot?
their logic, or lack of it, beggars belief at times.
Akro, There has been no change to the separation standards. Previously all aircraft were equal so if Dick entered a piece of airspace first he owned it and other aircraft were moved around him. Because he's non-ADS-B he takes up a much larger volume of airspace and so do the other aircraft we're separating him from. Instead of being able to use 5 miles separation we have to use 20 or 30 or 50 miles or 10 minutes. His lack of ADS-B is shafting those around him who have it.
No-one is treated any differently - no ADS-B no play. Be they N reg bizjet or B reg airliner. All the foreign airliners we get into ML have ADS-B.
As to the weather thing. We have no way of really knowing where the weather is or what you can accept without you telling us what you need. All we get is the same weather radar pic from the BOM that you get here on-line. One aircraft will want 10 miles off track & the next one two minutes later will sail straight through. If I think weather is a consideration I'll ask if a pilot can accept a particular heading, other than that it's up to the pilot to refuse or suggest something acceptable. We simply have no way of knowing what is out there.
No-one is treated any differently - no ADS-B no play. Be they N reg bizjet or B reg airliner. All the foreign airliners we get into ML have ADS-B.
As to the weather thing. We have no way of really knowing where the weather is or what you can accept without you telling us what you need. All we get is the same weather radar pic from the BOM that you get here on-line. One aircraft will want 10 miles off track & the next one two minutes later will sail straight through. If I think weather is a consideration I'll ask if a pilot can accept a particular heading, other than that it's up to the pilot to refuse or suggest something acceptable. We simply have no way of knowing what is out there.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dubbleyew eight, so you're happy to fly without an altimeter I take it?
if my gps is a Garmin Etrex10 receiving both GPS and glonass sat info how does that feed to an adsb transceiver?
You assume wrong. If there is such a thing as an "Aussie ES ADS-B unit
Therefore mode s transponders designed for the US cannot be used as " mode s" transponders here.
This is in part Dick's problem, because the US avioinics manufacturers (which apart from Becker and Trig is basically all of them) are developing US UAT versions before the ES versions. I think at the moment the only options for ES versions are Trig & the late model Garmin 330ES (or an early Garmin 330ES with a software update). King have announced a new modes S transponder which will have an ES version, but its not yet in production. My memory is hazy, but I don't believe the new Garmin GTN 750 has an ES transponder available yet, nor do the Garmin EFIS packages.
So, my presumption is that American based jets aren't likely to have ES version mode s transponders and are therefore unable to operate above F290. This maybe OK from the East, but I have not been in a jet that has traversed Australia below F290. So, they either do have ES mode s transponders, or they too operate under an exemption.
I had wondered why no one produced a solid state stand alone ADSB transponder that could be fitted to an aircraft with not much beyond a radio in the way of electronics.
This will be an expensive conversion for those who require it.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
acro has it.
the transceiver is about $3000.
the rest of the stuff approaching $15,000.
the only way it will happen for most of private GA is if the transponder does it all internally and solid state.
when we land at Albury, there is only 1 runway. same for Kalgoorlie, Newman etc etc.
the transceiver is about $3000.
the rest of the stuff approaching $15,000.
the only way it will happen for most of private GA is if the transponder does it all internally and solid state.
when we land at Albury, there is only 1 runway. same for Kalgoorlie, Newman etc etc.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro - I'm not doubting that the units are different. Your assumption was that international carriers didn't have an ADSB that worked in Austtralia. What I'm saying is all the internationals I've seen, based in Europe the ME and Asia do. In fact before the mandate there were more overseas aircraft with ADSB than Australian.
Do any US carriers into Australia fly outside the J Curve and ocean? If not, like the Springbok I mentioned, they would not suffer any penalty for not having it anyway.
Just thinking out load here, and call me a heretic, but if Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Australia have a difference with the US, just maybe its the US thats out of step?
Do any US carriers into Australia fly outside the J Curve and ocean? If not, like the Springbok I mentioned, they would not suffer any penalty for not having it anyway.
Just thinking out load here, and call me a heretic, but if Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Australia have a difference with the US, just maybe its the US thats out of step?
Just thinking out load here, and call me a heretic, but if Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Australia have a difference with the US, just maybe its the US thats out of step?
According to Bendix King, there are somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 general aviation fixed-wing aircraft in the world. About one-third of these aircraft have hull values less than $50,000, while another one-third of them have hull values between $50,000 and $100,000.
But, the real issue (which is where Dick started) is why we would implement something so far ahead of the world's biggest market when the (US based) manufacturers have not yet developed products for their own domestic requirement let alone our different one.
And for W8 my guess to replace our Garmin 300 & King Nav / Com will be:
Txp $3500 (currently typically USD$3300, but will come down)
GTN 650 $10k (430's will be gone by the time we do it, but the new King & Avidyne units might be a cheaper option by then)
Encoder $1k
New CDI $2k
Engineering orders $1k
Install $5k
Total $23,500.
In the US, the government has a fund to soften this blow to aircraft owners
NextGen GA Fund Will Finance Avionics Upgrades - AVweb flash Article.
There is some logic to this as what is really happening is that the cost of our infrastructure is moving from a government expense to an aircraft owner expense.
I have until 2 Feb 2017 to do this and probably will, but I can see a lot of guys giving up IFR and sticking to VFR. In a recent interview about its new GPS units, King said that the average owner of a GA aircraft in the US is a 57 year old male. You can see these guys voting with their feet and moving to RAA. Others will just buy a boat.
Exactly how different do we need to be? Hard hard do we want to make it for GA? Does driving aircraft from IFR to VFR overall improve safety or reduce it?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you have missed the point Akro, the 50nm standard is used all the time at all levels. What they have done is say that they do not wish to use non-surveillance standards in RVSM airspace anymore. Most airliners fly in RVSM airspace and changing the rules such that most of the traffic can now be more efficiently flowed. This is a huge win for people trying to save/make a buck on a very large scale.
Bizjets who do not have this sort of thing attached surely cannot legitimately cry foul that they dont need/want it on, the jet itself is worth millions, if you want to save a buck go fly Tiger airways.
The problem was that the 1 aircraft in the airspace was ruining the entire sector for everyone as procedural separation standards had to be applied between every aircraft, and the non compliant aircraft. That could effect 10+ aircraft but to be realistic it probably effects 5 at most but that 5 would be effected indefinately if they were on the same route.
As usual, I would say that Dick is once again blowing this all out of proportion. Bizjets flying in RVSM airspace probably is about 1-2% of total control burden on average, I dont have a problem with the greater good for the most people in this circumstance.
With regards to weather.....
If you ask for something and I can give it to you...I will. If you ask me for something rediculous (I need 50 miles right of track straight into the teeth of every single arrival into Sydney) I will ask for something more realistic (normally a heading or something that I can base separation on) If you want to divert into active restricted area I wont let you (you can go on your own but the risk of you being shot down inadverdantly by the NAVY is your risk not mine So if you must go in there Ill be terminating your control service and wish you the best of luck) however I have a Radar...
Guys who dont have a radar now need to base separation not on standard routes (which is easy and pre calculated) but now that have to Mcgyver up some standard based on the clearance you have been issued (50nm L or R of track isnt unheard of enroute) rather than your actual position. And that is the problem, someone without surveillance coverage instantly wants 50nm left of track, and if you are running close to your standard laterally, they cannot give you your request without having a procedural breakdown in separation. Basically, you cant have it right away, it takes time for us to let you have your standard, and we might have to move a bunch of aircraft for you to get your diversion.
With this new change, we are actually keeping you away from 90% of the traffic by keeping people out of RVSM airspace where less aircraft are, the change wont effect as many aircraft and at the end of the day you will likely get diversions delivered more efficiently.
Bizjets who do not have this sort of thing attached surely cannot legitimately cry foul that they dont need/want it on, the jet itself is worth millions, if you want to save a buck go fly Tiger airways.
The problem was that the 1 aircraft in the airspace was ruining the entire sector for everyone as procedural separation standards had to be applied between every aircraft, and the non compliant aircraft. That could effect 10+ aircraft but to be realistic it probably effects 5 at most but that 5 would be effected indefinately if they were on the same route.
As usual, I would say that Dick is once again blowing this all out of proportion. Bizjets flying in RVSM airspace probably is about 1-2% of total control burden on average, I dont have a problem with the greater good for the most people in this circumstance.
With regards to weather.....
If you ask for something and I can give it to you...I will. If you ask me for something rediculous (I need 50 miles right of track straight into the teeth of every single arrival into Sydney) I will ask for something more realistic (normally a heading or something that I can base separation on) If you want to divert into active restricted area I wont let you (you can go on your own but the risk of you being shot down inadverdantly by the NAVY is your risk not mine So if you must go in there Ill be terminating your control service and wish you the best of luck) however I have a Radar...
Guys who dont have a radar now need to base separation not on standard routes (which is easy and pre calculated) but now that have to Mcgyver up some standard based on the clearance you have been issued (50nm L or R of track isnt unheard of enroute) rather than your actual position. And that is the problem, someone without surveillance coverage instantly wants 50nm left of track, and if you are running close to your standard laterally, they cannot give you your request without having a procedural breakdown in separation. Basically, you cant have it right away, it takes time for us to let you have your standard, and we might have to move a bunch of aircraft for you to get your diversion.
With this new change, we are actually keeping you away from 90% of the traffic by keeping people out of RVSM airspace where less aircraft are, the change wont effect as many aircraft and at the end of the day you will likely get diversions delivered more efficiently.
I apologise if my last post seemed I was making an accusation. That was not my intent.
But a bold, some would say controversial, statement has been made in the name of safety. The only evidence provided to support it is an anonymous incident. I'm sorry but if a pilot is forced by atc into weather that compromised the safety of the flight, then the pilot should have reported the incident. I know of no such report or incident.
I don't doubt, that something similar to Dicks example happened. I do doubt it was as bad as has been implied
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
But a bold, some would say controversial, statement has been made in the name of safety. The only evidence provided to support it is an anonymous incident. I'm sorry but if a pilot is forced by atc into weather that compromised the safety of the flight, then the pilot should have reported the incident. I know of no such report or incident.
I don't doubt, that something similar to Dicks example happened. I do doubt it was as bad as has been implied
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weather business is garbage. Whilst ATC have an 'appreciation' of the weather' in their airspace, they aren't actually up there..If an ATC vectors an aircraft towards weather the expectation is for the PIC to pipe up and say so. Not one rated controller in this country would, on receipt of that advice, continue that vector. If ATC descend aircraft into cloud that they are told about, its because any other option would cost you time and there is no other vertical choice separation wise. Any suggestion otherwise is pure slander.
ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Hate to be picky, but ADS-B is mandated above F280, not F290. And RVSM is F290-F410 inclusive. ADS-B is mandated at all levels above F280. All these foreign aircraft that have applied for and been granted an exemption that are SE Asia based cannot transit Oz ADS-B airspace say SIN-SYD at even F530, nothing above F280 until within the radar coverage East Coast J-curve. I think that here they could have made a compromise... ADS-B should have only been mandated in the RVSM band. With the exception of the occasional (at this stage) B787, the GVs, Global Expresses and Falcon 2000s have above F410 pretty much to themselves, and don't get in anyone's way
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some logic to this as what is really happening is that the cost of our infrastructure is moving from a government expense to an aircraft owner expense.
As for why we are doing this before the US, thats been answered several times in this thread.