ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any suggestion otherwise is pure slander.
They are a profit making user pays service
... get this piece of equipment installed
Dick can't get it installed because the manufacturer of his aircraft, Cessna, has not provided the necessary engineering prerequisites. Dick has no choice.
As for why we are doing this before the US, thats been answered several times in this thread.
I personally believe that staffing levels at ASA are behind the explanation.
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.
the reasoning being that the adsb info must never be different to the information presented to the pilot.
Indeed, there are concrete minded idiots at the helm of these organisations that are pulling these ridiculous strings.
With the one source, the error can remain hidden. So, not only a vastly more expensive option, but one that is less safe. Concrete minded idiots!
Thankfully after many years I inflict ATC in an Airspace where you have to be RNAV5 or better and above 145, IFR. Everyone does what we say with ZERO complaining and none of this rubbish goes on. Bliss. Down to the ground VHF, ADSB ans WAMLAT. Constantly growing traffic volumes in the order of 8-10%. Even the French Navy stick to their assigned (negotiated) levels and areas of operation.
What was the question again?
What was the question again?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are a profit making user pays service
Dick can't get it installed because the manufacturer of his aircraft, Cessna, has not provided the necessary engineering prerequisites. Dick has no choice.
As for why we are doing this before the US, thats been answered several times in this thread.
It has? I have read the entire thread twice. The only "answer" I saw was something about CASA bragging at Montreal. Good answer!
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.
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.
Because the US has blanket radar coverage, we don't. The US is replacing radar with ADSB so the gains are minimal. We are replacing nothing with ADSB so the gains are substantial.
The thread starts with a low act blaming ATC.
Previous thread starts with threat of court case if exemption not forthcoming.
....so far, following a well tread path to gain publicity. Way to go, predictable Dick
Dick, your predicament pure and simple, until the gear is available and fitted you are locked out of that airspace. Legal yesterday is immaterial! What you ask, as has been stressed, is effectively entering SSR airspace without a transponder. This same situation occurs in RVSM airspace across the puddle...Atlantic...Non RVSM bisjets are not allowed and at F280 or lower, do not have the range to make it with one stop...bloody expensive operationally! However, no exemptions. Either refit at a lot of money or trade in at reduced value and get one that does the business....oh, to be a pilot for a multimillionaire banker.
Dick, you used the mandatory fitment of transponders to eliminate a level of service. Effectively, you have been eliminated by that same requirement.
AFAIK there will be a solution this year, the cost I am unsure, but a solution there is. To AKRO, you need to read up on what exactly ES is...start with the ICAO. The requirement is not just Australia ABV F290.
Previous thread starts with threat of court case if exemption not forthcoming.
....so far, following a well tread path to gain publicity. Way to go, predictable Dick
Dick, your predicament pure and simple, until the gear is available and fitted you are locked out of that airspace. Legal yesterday is immaterial! What you ask, as has been stressed, is effectively entering SSR airspace without a transponder. This same situation occurs in RVSM airspace across the puddle...Atlantic...Non RVSM bisjets are not allowed and at F280 or lower, do not have the range to make it with one stop...bloody expensive operationally! However, no exemptions. Either refit at a lot of money or trade in at reduced value and get one that does the business....oh, to be a pilot for a multimillionaire banker.
Dick, you used the mandatory fitment of transponders to eliminate a level of service. Effectively, you have been eliminated by that same requirement.
AFAIK there will be a solution this year, the cost I am unsure, but a solution there is. To AKRO, you need to read up on what exactly ES is...start with the ICAO. The requirement is not just Australia ABV F290.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plazbot,
All we ever hear is how things are done in Australia so very differently and poorly compared to the rest of the developed world, and this is bad... until pilots themselves are expected to comply with same.
Then the sky falls in...
FDG135, what, you mean something like
?
All we ever hear is how things are done in Australia so very differently and poorly compared to the rest of the developed world, and this is bad... until pilots themselves are expected to comply with same.
Then the sky falls in...
FDG135, what, you mean something like
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Already I have heard that one plane was forced into very bad weather
Dick is partly correct, there are several jet manufacturers that have been unable to comply with ADSB modification and certification, Cessna is one of them.
The integration for Honeywell systems has been particularly painful and unsuccessful. Although there has been several aftermarket solutions which are fine for your everyday bugsmasher to allow compliance they are not FAR25 certified nor do the meet some of the requirements for TSO146.
Currently in the US there is FEDERALLY FUNDED FINANCE Programs available at 2% to upgrade your aircraft with ADSB capable equipment.
This encourages the operator to not only comply with the requirements but also fix upgrade their whole nav suite.....
Is it no wonder that there are compliance issues here where there is no support of the industry by the government and regulator in order to achieve compliance.
The integration for Honeywell systems has been particularly painful and unsuccessful. Although there has been several aftermarket solutions which are fine for your everyday bugsmasher to allow compliance they are not FAR25 certified nor do the meet some of the requirements for TSO146.
Currently in the US there is FEDERALLY FUNDED FINANCE Programs available at 2% to upgrade your aircraft with ADSB capable equipment.
This encourages the operator to not only comply with the requirements but also fix upgrade their whole nav suite.....
Is it no wonder that there are compliance issues here where there is no support of the industry by the government and regulator in order to achieve compliance.
Thread Starter
I love it! By putting a few factual comments on this site the amount of personal attacks and misinformation is amazing.
Let me try and address some of the issues.
First of all, Blogsy – a Cessna Sovereign flying from the east coast to Ayers Rock, I am told, spends about $1,000 per hour more for fuel if it is forced down to 290 or even 270 compared to its normal flying altitude of above flight level 400. In fact, by being forced to the lower altitude it also has to land and refuel at, say, a place like Broken Hill and, of course, the climb in low level operations uses even more fuel. The amount of $1,000 per hour has been given to me by a bizjet operator who has been greatly affected economically by this regulation.
-438 – if I had my way, the CTA steps and airspace would follow that of the USA where the Class B and C zones are surrounded with Class E controlled airspace to 1,200 feet AGL. This means in the USA airline aircraft can descend in a very flexible way remaining in controlled airspace. Of course we don’t have the same here because people are obsessed with keeping huge amounts of uncontrolled airspace near airports.
Capt Claret – you state, “an emotive lack of claptrap” and then say “an ATC can’t force a pilot to do anything”. In a recent flight by a business aviation aircraft from the East Coast to Ayers Rock flight planned at flight level 430, the pilot was instructed by the Air Traffic Controller on leaving the radar covered airspace to descend to flight level 290 – or it may have been lower. That sounds to me as if the Air Traffic Controller was forcing the pilot to do something he didn’t necessarily want to do. Yes, I agree that the ATCs are following the instructions. Imagine what a low morale your group would have when you know the management of your organisation is so totally incompetent that it’s forcing extra costs on the aviation industry – and sometimes losing revenue – just so a few boffins can skite that they have led the world in the mandate.
Capt Fathom – there is actually no exemption available at all primarily because CASA lied to the industry by saying that consideration would not be given for exemption applications for flying in the non-radar airspace above flight level 290. This was an illegal demand from CASA, however it completely prevented the industry from putting in a substantial case as they believed CASA was telling the truth.
Alphacentauri – surely you would agree that forcing aircraft that are capable of flying at high flight levels above much of the weather – down into the weather – is not a good idea. I agree there are lots of smaller planes that are forced to fly in the sub-flight level 300 flight levels. However, if you look at the safety statistics you will see the operations of these aircraft results in more accidents than the pressurised turbo jet aircraft which operate at the higher flight levels. The facts are there for everyone to see. Yes, I agree it’s only an incremental increase – or a decrease in safety – but why not go on the positive side when it’s possible?
Duane – you state I should go ahead and get the equipment installed. Well, here is the problem. Cessna have not yet come up with a service bulletin for the CJ3 – they are working on it and it should be within the next few months. Before then, if I install ADS-B it will be some time of ‘Mickey Mouse Band-Aid’ upgrade (or downgrade) using Garmin or similar equipment that then will not be certifiable if I sell the aircraft back to the USA or anywhere else in the world. The same situation exists for many business aviation aircraft. There was no way the United States companies were going to drop everything and start prematurely designing ADS-B upgrades because Australia, with its very small fleet, had decided to lead the world by six years. I can understand the really low morale of people working for Airservices considering the stupidity of their bosses. For example, I did not do that flight to Longreach – my aircraft remained in the hangar and I saved a lot of money including not paying Airservices for the enroute charges. However, when I looked at Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! at the times I would have flown, there was absolutely nothing that would have stopped me from flying above flight level 400 and then descending into Longreach and climbing out. If I had done the flight below flight level 290 I would have been procedurally separated in the non-radar airspace – why couldn’t this happen above flight level 290? In fact, I have been told by responsible Controllers that, “any Controller worth his salt would have been able to cope with the flight”. Imagine working for a commercial organisation – even though it’s a monopoly – where the Bosses are so incredibly incompetent that instead of looking for a way to get the small number of aircraft that have not been able to fit ADS-B up there and flying and earning an income, they actually come up with a result that will either send these smaller operators into bankruptcy because of the extra costs, or end up staying in my situation with the plane sitting in the hangar.
As it was, my meeting with the CEO of the Stockman’s Hall of Fame was resolved by him driving from Longreach to my house at Terrey Hills. This is a great message for aviation, isn’t it!
Let me try and address some of the issues.
First of all, Blogsy – a Cessna Sovereign flying from the east coast to Ayers Rock, I am told, spends about $1,000 per hour more for fuel if it is forced down to 290 or even 270 compared to its normal flying altitude of above flight level 400. In fact, by being forced to the lower altitude it also has to land and refuel at, say, a place like Broken Hill and, of course, the climb in low level operations uses even more fuel. The amount of $1,000 per hour has been given to me by a bizjet operator who has been greatly affected economically by this regulation.
-438 – if I had my way, the CTA steps and airspace would follow that of the USA where the Class B and C zones are surrounded with Class E controlled airspace to 1,200 feet AGL. This means in the USA airline aircraft can descend in a very flexible way remaining in controlled airspace. Of course we don’t have the same here because people are obsessed with keeping huge amounts of uncontrolled airspace near airports.
Capt Claret – you state, “an emotive lack of claptrap” and then say “an ATC can’t force a pilot to do anything”. In a recent flight by a business aviation aircraft from the East Coast to Ayers Rock flight planned at flight level 430, the pilot was instructed by the Air Traffic Controller on leaving the radar covered airspace to descend to flight level 290 – or it may have been lower. That sounds to me as if the Air Traffic Controller was forcing the pilot to do something he didn’t necessarily want to do. Yes, I agree that the ATCs are following the instructions. Imagine what a low morale your group would have when you know the management of your organisation is so totally incompetent that it’s forcing extra costs on the aviation industry – and sometimes losing revenue – just so a few boffins can skite that they have led the world in the mandate.
Capt Fathom – there is actually no exemption available at all primarily because CASA lied to the industry by saying that consideration would not be given for exemption applications for flying in the non-radar airspace above flight level 290. This was an illegal demand from CASA, however it completely prevented the industry from putting in a substantial case as they believed CASA was telling the truth.
Alphacentauri – surely you would agree that forcing aircraft that are capable of flying at high flight levels above much of the weather – down into the weather – is not a good idea. I agree there are lots of smaller planes that are forced to fly in the sub-flight level 300 flight levels. However, if you look at the safety statistics you will see the operations of these aircraft results in more accidents than the pressurised turbo jet aircraft which operate at the higher flight levels. The facts are there for everyone to see. Yes, I agree it’s only an incremental increase – or a decrease in safety – but why not go on the positive side when it’s possible?
Duane – you state I should go ahead and get the equipment installed. Well, here is the problem. Cessna have not yet come up with a service bulletin for the CJ3 – they are working on it and it should be within the next few months. Before then, if I install ADS-B it will be some time of ‘Mickey Mouse Band-Aid’ upgrade (or downgrade) using Garmin or similar equipment that then will not be certifiable if I sell the aircraft back to the USA or anywhere else in the world. The same situation exists for many business aviation aircraft. There was no way the United States companies were going to drop everything and start prematurely designing ADS-B upgrades because Australia, with its very small fleet, had decided to lead the world by six years. I can understand the really low morale of people working for Airservices considering the stupidity of their bosses. For example, I did not do that flight to Longreach – my aircraft remained in the hangar and I saved a lot of money including not paying Airservices for the enroute charges. However, when I looked at Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! at the times I would have flown, there was absolutely nothing that would have stopped me from flying above flight level 400 and then descending into Longreach and climbing out. If I had done the flight below flight level 290 I would have been procedurally separated in the non-radar airspace – why couldn’t this happen above flight level 290? In fact, I have been told by responsible Controllers that, “any Controller worth his salt would have been able to cope with the flight”. Imagine working for a commercial organisation – even though it’s a monopoly – where the Bosses are so incredibly incompetent that instead of looking for a way to get the small number of aircraft that have not been able to fit ADS-B up there and flying and earning an income, they actually come up with a result that will either send these smaller operators into bankruptcy because of the extra costs, or end up staying in my situation with the plane sitting in the hangar.
As it was, my meeting with the CEO of the Stockman’s Hall of Fame was resolved by him driving from Longreach to my house at Terrey Hills. This is a great message for aviation, isn’t it!
The Cinderella mandate??
Having now read through this thread in entirety I have got to say that Dick is a crafty old bugger...
The first 30 or so posts contained the usual Dick haters, the Skygod/Towergod commentators/educators blah..blah..blah..
It wasn't till Taily & Old Akro stepped into the fray that we started to get some rational debate happening and that is where the best value comes from a Dick instigated thread...
So from an ignorant knuckledragger a couple of observations and QONs...
le Pingouin
Ok so from 12th December '13 no ADSB no go above FL280 except as per CASA EX113/13 ....yep got my head around that...
And I can kind of understand the disconnect with the US dragging the chain, there is no rush on over there as they pretty much (unlike here) have universal radar coverage, so mandating ADSB is a lower priority for all sectors including the aircraft/avionics manufacturers.
I also understand the huge advantages/efficiency of the ADSB system, especially here in Oz. The cost savings alone for the bigend of town operators/airlines almost totally justify (CBA) the mandating of ADSB, not to mention the environmental savings in carbon emissions.
{Comment: Slightly contradictory to those savings would be the case of a certain A380 flogging across the continent at max speed, presumably very high fuel burn to try and match another government/bureaucratic mandate i.e. the Sydney airport curfew}
So then that leaves us with the "safety case"...alright then a couple of quotes...
Taily:
OA:
And OA's QON:
Then backtracking slightly from NB:
All good stuff by the way..but onwards and out of the weeds...NB mentioned that prior to 12/12/13 that some airlines aircraft had exemptions that were zapped on D-day, well here is one of those exemptions: CASA EX96/13 - Exemption — use of ADS-B in Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft LV-CSF
Hmmm...right too my pumpkin at midnight QONs... In the guts of that explanatory statement it says...
"..The Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft operates on scheduled passenger service into Sydney from Buenos Aires. It is accepted that the safety impact will be negligible because ADS-B is not used by Air Traffic Control for the surveillance of air traffic in the oceanic areas of airspace to the east of Sydney. Surveillance is by Secondary Surveillance Radar in that airspace..."
Q1/ Has the oceanic airspace to the east of Sydney automatically changed as of midnight (pumpkin time) on the 11th December'13?
Q2/ If the mentioned aircraft was transiting (I know theoretically impossible because of the YSSY curfew) through that airspace at 23:59:30 EDST on 11/12, would it at 00:00:01 on 12/12 automatically turn into a greater risk to the once accepted safety risk?? Or am I (besides a few screws) missing something??
Q3/ Presumably the two aircraft mentioned in... AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013... were suitably ADSB configured, so what added safety benefit did the ADSB system give to the SA of those ATC controllers in that case?? TIA..Sarcs
The first 30 or so posts contained the usual Dick haters, the Skygod/Towergod commentators/educators blah..blah..blah..It wasn't till Taily & Old Akro stepped into the fray that we started to get some rational debate happening and that is where the best value comes from a Dick instigated thread...
So from an ignorant knuckledragger a couple of observations and QONs...
le Pingouin
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.
And I can kind of understand the disconnect with the US dragging the chain, there is no rush on over there as they pretty much (unlike here) have universal radar coverage, so mandating ADSB is a lower priority for all sectors including the aircraft/avionics manufacturers.
I also understand the huge advantages/efficiency of the ADSB system, especially here in Oz. The cost savings alone for the bigend of town operators/airlines almost totally justify (CBA) the mandating of ADSB, not to mention the environmental savings in carbon emissions.
{Comment: Slightly contradictory to those savings would be the case of a certain A380 flogging across the continent at max speed, presumably very high fuel burn to try and match another government/bureaucratic mandate i.e. the Sydney airport curfew}
So then that leaves us with the "safety case"...alright then a couple of quotes...
Taily:
I seem to recall from an earlier thread that Dick was denied an exemption by CASA (for I think a flight to Western Queensland?) and was looking to a Court challenge.
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.
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.
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."]AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013.
[/URL]
[/URL]
So my question - and it was a genuine question - is whether the separation requirements for non ADSB aircraft (ie the 100nm you tabled) is more arduous now than before the Dec 12 ADSB requirement. If the answer is yeas, then Dick and others are being penalised because they are unable to comply with the regulation requirement due only to lack of equipment.
If the answer is no, then I struggle to see why he couldn't do the same flight on Dec 11 as Dec 12.
If the answer is no, then I struggle to see why he couldn't do the same flight on Dec 11 as Dec 12.
Yes, some of the airlines aircraft are "ADSB Exempt". So is Dicks Citation. It allows the aircraft to fly above F280 in ADSB Exempt Airspace (very roughly the J Curve and the oggin).
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.
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.
..NB mentioned that prior to 12/12/13 that some airlines aircraft had exemptions that were zapped on D-day, well here is one of those exemptions: CASA EX96/13 - Exemption — use of ADS-B in Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft LV-CSFHmmm...right too my pumpkin at midnight QONs... In the guts of that explanatory statement it says...
"..The Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft operates on scheduled passenger service into Sydney from Buenos Aires. It is accepted that the safety impact will be negligible because ADS-B is not used by Air Traffic Control for the surveillance of air traffic in the oceanic areas of airspace to the east of Sydney. Surveillance is by Secondary Surveillance Radar in that airspace..."
Q1/ Has the oceanic airspace to the east of Sydney automatically changed as of midnight (pumpkin time) on the 11th December'13?
Q2/ If the mentioned aircraft was transiting (I know theoretically impossible because of the YSSY curfew) through that airspace at 23:59:30 EDST on 11/12, would it at 00:00:01 on 12/12 automatically turn into a greater risk to the once accepted safety risk?? Or am I (besides a few screws) missing something??
Q3/ Presumably the two aircraft mentioned in... AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013... were suitably ADSB configured, so what added safety benefit did the ADSB system give to the SA of those ATC controllers in that case?? TIA..Sarcs
How about
But none of them address why we should do it 6 (?) years before the US AND before the required equipment is commercially available.
I would remind you that based on the data that just happens to be on Avweb at the moment, our fleet is something less than 10% of the world fleet. Isn't it the height of arrogance to expect that US based avionics manufacturers will develop the different ES form of transponder required by Australia before they develop the UAT one for their home market - which is maybe 2/3 of the world market??
The ONLY reason that has been put forward about why we are mandating so far before the US is the one about AsA execs being able to boast about in in Montreal.
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver – it’s clear you have very little commercial sense whatsoever. Surely a competent manager in Airservices would be looking at a way of getting income from any source as long as it could be done in a legal and safe way. Air Traffic Controllers have told me that, “any Controller worth his salt” would be able to handle the very small number of non-compliant aircraft in the airspace above flight level 290. The fact is the Controllers are not given the chance. I bet if an accident occurs because an aircraft was forced into horrendous weather at the lower flight levels that the newspapers will blame the Air Traffic Controller by stating words to the effect, “the Air Traffic Controller issued an instruction that forced the plane to descend from flight level 410 to flight level 270 – right in the middle of the worst weather conditions”. Of course, the management at Airservices who have forced this situation will all run for cover and say “it’s nothing to do with us! It was a CASA requirement”. If I was a professional Controller I wouldn’t want to know that planes were sitting in hangars instead of flying and earning an income for the company I worked for and that hopefully will be able to pay me an increasing salary in the future. This is not going to happen by forcing aircraft out of the sky or forcing them to fly at flight levels where the costs are so high that the actual charter price would result in the company losing money.
The next time an airline aircraft is flying from Cairns to Ayers Rock and the ADS-B fails, I bet they are still allowed to descend into Ayers Rock and depart again to get the unit serviced. If they can be handled in the relevant airspace, why can’t a small number of business aviation aircraft? Oh, I know! The business aviation operators are individually weak and bullies always exploit weakness!
The next time an airline aircraft is flying from Cairns to Ayers Rock and the ADS-B fails, I bet they are still allowed to descend into Ayers Rock and depart again to get the unit serviced. If they can be handled in the relevant airspace, why can’t a small number of business aviation aircraft? Oh, I know! The business aviation operators are individually weak and bullies always exploit weakness!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Just because any controller worth their salt could handle you in a couple of potentially isolated incidents doesnt mean that the rule should be broken. I am sure that i could probably take a few aircraft where i work on occasion that dont have functioning transponders, but i dont, because quite simply the requirement to fly in class C airspace is a functioning mode C transponder. Remember that word...requirement.
Now if i let an aircraft in without a transponder and then that subsequently delayed an airlines arrival/departure would I be in the right or the wrong, because this situation is Identical to yours.
This isnt a bad rule because it hurts 1% (probably less) of fliers in those areas, it is a good rule because it helps out the 99% who are compliant, for the 99% of compliant flights this makes RVSM airspace more efficient and safer.
Dick, Australia is never going to have 100% radar coverage, heck it wont even get 50%, ADS-B has better coverage, is simple to maintain and install and gives as good a coverage and is reliable. Surveillance coverage means better safety of aircraft. Australia is implementing the system before the rest of the world because we HAVE TO. Whilst the problem isnt unique to Australia, it certainly is one of our biggest issues (big space, coastalised population) and short of building radar sights every 60 or so miles, this is a far cheaper and better option for Australia, hence we are bringing it in before the US.
Dick, I know you have been around the world, and in particular, loved how Aviation works in the US. I am sure with a population over 300 Million and spread out as much as the US is, we wouldnt need to do what we are, however....we are what we are, and that doesnt mean we have to solve problems like the US does. Our problems cannot be solved by mimicking how the US operates, we cant support it, it is unsustainable.
Getting ADS-B early is by far....by a country mile the best solution we have to getting safer more efficient skies in Australia. If you dont want to get delayed sell your current aircraft, get one that is ADS-B compliant and move on...you can afford it, and if you cant, I know Qantas, Tiger, Virgin all have compliant aircraft if you want to save a buck.
Sarcs:
ADS-B doesnt get used over water because it still requires antennas etc, these cant really be placed 100 miles out to sea etc, so everybody plays by the same procedural rules there, whether you are ADS-B compliant or not. My experience with the jets from south america is that they probably wouldnt even get to RVSM airspace inside of surveillance (radar) coverage anyway (they climb terribly, often 12-13000 ft with 60 track miles on departure) So based on this evidence I am sure you can see why the rules dont apply to them in this particular case.
Just because any controller worth their salt could handle you in a couple of potentially isolated incidents doesnt mean that the rule should be broken. I am sure that i could probably take a few aircraft where i work on occasion that dont have functioning transponders, but i dont, because quite simply the requirement to fly in class C airspace is a functioning mode C transponder. Remember that word...requirement.
Now if i let an aircraft in without a transponder and then that subsequently delayed an airlines arrival/departure would I be in the right or the wrong, because this situation is Identical to yours.
This isnt a bad rule because it hurts 1% (probably less) of fliers in those areas, it is a good rule because it helps out the 99% who are compliant, for the 99% of compliant flights this makes RVSM airspace more efficient and safer.
Dick, Australia is never going to have 100% radar coverage, heck it wont even get 50%, ADS-B has better coverage, is simple to maintain and install and gives as good a coverage and is reliable. Surveillance coverage means better safety of aircraft. Australia is implementing the system before the rest of the world because we HAVE TO. Whilst the problem isnt unique to Australia, it certainly is one of our biggest issues (big space, coastalised population) and short of building radar sights every 60 or so miles, this is a far cheaper and better option for Australia, hence we are bringing it in before the US.
Dick, I know you have been around the world, and in particular, loved how Aviation works in the US. I am sure with a population over 300 Million and spread out as much as the US is, we wouldnt need to do what we are, however....we are what we are, and that doesnt mean we have to solve problems like the US does. Our problems cannot be solved by mimicking how the US operates, we cant support it, it is unsustainable.
Getting ADS-B early is by far....by a country mile the best solution we have to getting safer more efficient skies in Australia. If you dont want to get delayed sell your current aircraft, get one that is ADS-B compliant and move on...you can afford it, and if you cant, I know Qantas, Tiger, Virgin all have compliant aircraft if you want to save a buck.
Sarcs:
ADS-B doesnt get used over water because it still requires antennas etc, these cant really be placed 100 miles out to sea etc, so everybody plays by the same procedural rules there, whether you are ADS-B compliant or not. My experience with the jets from south america is that they probably wouldnt even get to RVSM airspace inside of surveillance (radar) coverage anyway (they climb terribly, often 12-13000 ft with 60 track miles on departure) So based on this evidence I am sure you can see why the rules dont apply to them in this particular case.
So to prove a point you made the Stockmans hall of fame Manager drive down for the meeting instead of you flying up below FL290 in your exec Jet.
So you expose him to the considerably increased risk of dying on the roads because you can't fly high enough!!
You mean bugger.
Trade the CJ3 for a King Air.......problem solved and you'd save money.
So you expose him to the considerably increased risk of dying on the roads because you can't fly high enough!!
You mean bugger.
Trade the CJ3 for a King Air.......problem solved and you'd save money.
Thread Starter
Old Akro – you are correct. If Bill Gates arrives here in his flying palace and wants to fly to Ayers Rock, he will be forced down to below flight level 290 spending a small fortune in extra fuel to fly there. And that will happen even if there is not one aircraft above flight level 400 on the entire route and there is also no aircraft that could affect his climb or descent. This is because instead of allowing Air Traffic Controllers to professionally decide whether they can give the service or not, that has been taken out of their hands by the people at Airservices (not CASA in this case) because they really just don’t know what’s going on when it comes to running a commercial business.
Old Akro, all of the US manufacturers are planning to issue service bulletins for ADS-B that will work in Australia (i.e. Mode S Squitta) however they haven’t yet completed these service bulletins. CASA initially refused to allow anyone to put in a stand-alone ADS-B unit as they sensibly didn’t want a position being transmitted that wasn’t coming from the flight management system in the aircraft. However, CASA has changed their view on this and I understand there are some business aviation aircraft flying around with a separate transponder and GPS installed. Of course, all of this will have to be removed when the proper service bulletin comes out and something like $60,000 to $80,000 will have been completely wasted. The quote I received for upgrading my CJ3 – a very modern aircraft equipped with Collins Proline – was something like $60,000, however it was to be an Australian unique modification and not accepted if I sold the aircraft anywhere else in the world. Now I can afford to ‘waste’ $60,000 but I would much rather donate it to an important cause, not just to waste it completely.
Duane – you say that I am blowing it all out of proportion. In fact, I am saving money by not flying the Citation in non-radar airspace. I will use my Cessna Caravan and fly VFR, see a lot more scenery and not pay a cent to Airservices – ha ha ha! Yes, some would claim that the safety of flight is not as high, but I have made this personal decision – I am not a passenger in a charter bizjet which is forced to fly at low levels because it’s not ADS-B equipped and I haven’t been informed of this. I say again, imagine being in the Management of Airservices and being so incompetent in business that you haven’t worked out a way of capturing for enroute charges the twenty or so business aviation aircraft that haven’t yet been made compliant – or, alternatively, supporting a system that is going to force some of your customers into financial difficulties so they may not be able to pay the enoute charges! Ha ha again!
I point out that in my applications I have always said I am happy to be given “second fiddle”, i.e. whilst on a flight to Longreach to remain at the higher flight level until other traffic is at least the procedural distance away before my descent. In fact, in practice this will probably never, ever happen as for more than 20 years I have been flying jets in the non-radar airspace where the Air Traffic Controllers have used procedural separation and I have never once been held on descent or climb. How can it be claimed by the Airservices management that using procedural separation above flight level 290 is a safety issue when they then force aircraft below flight level 290 and – wait for it – procedurally separate them?
Isn’t it incredible that the military have been given an exemption of the ADS-B requirement in non-radar airspace above flight level 290 because they stated it was going to cost too much to upgrade their Legacy aircraft!!! So they can fly around as much as they want whilst the business aviation charter community is forced to pay to either keep their aircraft in the hangar or pay ridiculous amounts for extra fuel and non-required landings.
The airlines are allowed to fly for up to three days with an ADS-B fault. Also, if one of the ADS-B repeater stations in the outback goes off air – say, from a lightning strike – it’s obvious that the Air Traffic Controllers will then have to procedurally separate all of the aircraft. Why, then, would Airservices management object to allowing a small number of business aircraft that have not yet been able to become compliant to still fly in the system?
Nautilus Blue – you state, “What we're saying is that's bad luck and not fair but the overwhelming majority of aircraft can and have, and they get the benefits. The needs of the many and all that.” Nautilus, I will say again that the Australian Business Aviation Association on behalf of the aircraft owners who have not been able to get the equipment fitted – not for cost reasons but because the service bulletins aren’t available – are happy to be treated as “second fiddle”, i.e. non-ADS-B equipped aircraft will be allowed to climb normally in the radar airspace with the existing exemption then be given a flight level (if available) in the non-radar airspace. If an ADS-B aircraft requires a flight level that a non-ADS-B aircraft is already using, a Controller can simply get the non-ADS-B aircraft to descend below flight level 290. My point is that these dopes have brought in a blanket rule when there would be many cases where non-ADS-B aircraft can be fitted into the system safely. It would be simple to put in a requirement for extra holding fuel to be taken if a descent has to be delayed. This, in my view, will rarely happen – I suggest you look at Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! and see the number of aircraft that are around places like Birdsville, Coober Pedy and Ayers Rock – not many - and it wouldn’t require much expertise to arrange for a non-ADS-B aircraft to be descended procedurally without delaying or affecting ADS-B fitted aircraft in any way.
Old Akro, all of the US manufacturers are planning to issue service bulletins for ADS-B that will work in Australia (i.e. Mode S Squitta) however they haven’t yet completed these service bulletins. CASA initially refused to allow anyone to put in a stand-alone ADS-B unit as they sensibly didn’t want a position being transmitted that wasn’t coming from the flight management system in the aircraft. However, CASA has changed their view on this and I understand there are some business aviation aircraft flying around with a separate transponder and GPS installed. Of course, all of this will have to be removed when the proper service bulletin comes out and something like $60,000 to $80,000 will have been completely wasted. The quote I received for upgrading my CJ3 – a very modern aircraft equipped with Collins Proline – was something like $60,000, however it was to be an Australian unique modification and not accepted if I sold the aircraft anywhere else in the world. Now I can afford to ‘waste’ $60,000 but I would much rather donate it to an important cause, not just to waste it completely.
Duane – you say that I am blowing it all out of proportion. In fact, I am saving money by not flying the Citation in non-radar airspace. I will use my Cessna Caravan and fly VFR, see a lot more scenery and not pay a cent to Airservices – ha ha ha! Yes, some would claim that the safety of flight is not as high, but I have made this personal decision – I am not a passenger in a charter bizjet which is forced to fly at low levels because it’s not ADS-B equipped and I haven’t been informed of this. I say again, imagine being in the Management of Airservices and being so incompetent in business that you haven’t worked out a way of capturing for enroute charges the twenty or so business aviation aircraft that haven’t yet been made compliant – or, alternatively, supporting a system that is going to force some of your customers into financial difficulties so they may not be able to pay the enoute charges! Ha ha again!
I point out that in my applications I have always said I am happy to be given “second fiddle”, i.e. whilst on a flight to Longreach to remain at the higher flight level until other traffic is at least the procedural distance away before my descent. In fact, in practice this will probably never, ever happen as for more than 20 years I have been flying jets in the non-radar airspace where the Air Traffic Controllers have used procedural separation and I have never once been held on descent or climb. How can it be claimed by the Airservices management that using procedural separation above flight level 290 is a safety issue when they then force aircraft below flight level 290 and – wait for it – procedurally separate them?
Isn’t it incredible that the military have been given an exemption of the ADS-B requirement in non-radar airspace above flight level 290 because they stated it was going to cost too much to upgrade their Legacy aircraft!!! So they can fly around as much as they want whilst the business aviation charter community is forced to pay to either keep their aircraft in the hangar or pay ridiculous amounts for extra fuel and non-required landings.
The airlines are allowed to fly for up to three days with an ADS-B fault. Also, if one of the ADS-B repeater stations in the outback goes off air – say, from a lightning strike – it’s obvious that the Air Traffic Controllers will then have to procedurally separate all of the aircraft. Why, then, would Airservices management object to allowing a small number of business aircraft that have not yet been able to become compliant to still fly in the system?
Nautilus Blue – you state, “What we're saying is that's bad luck and not fair but the overwhelming majority of aircraft can and have, and they get the benefits. The needs of the many and all that.” Nautilus, I will say again that the Australian Business Aviation Association on behalf of the aircraft owners who have not been able to get the equipment fitted – not for cost reasons but because the service bulletins aren’t available – are happy to be treated as “second fiddle”, i.e. non-ADS-B equipped aircraft will be allowed to climb normally in the radar airspace with the existing exemption then be given a flight level (if available) in the non-radar airspace. If an ADS-B aircraft requires a flight level that a non-ADS-B aircraft is already using, a Controller can simply get the non-ADS-B aircraft to descend below flight level 290. My point is that these dopes have brought in a blanket rule when there would be many cases where non-ADS-B aircraft can be fitted into the system safely. It would be simple to put in a requirement for extra holding fuel to be taken if a descent has to be delayed. This, in my view, will rarely happen – I suggest you look at Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! and see the number of aircraft that are around places like Birdsville, Coober Pedy and Ayers Rock – not many - and it wouldn’t require much expertise to arrange for a non-ADS-B aircraft to be descended procedurally without delaying or affecting ADS-B fitted aircraft in any way.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 17th Jan 2014 at 00:08.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Dick, because you havent been held at an intermediate level on climb or descent thats basis for you to fly in RVSM airspace...
So a potential problem should become an actual problem before it gets fixed?
So a potential problem should become an actual problem before it gets fixed?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro I think its time to agree to disagree. We now have a surveillance system equivalent to what that the US and Europe has has for many decades. The airlines, domestic and international, and ASA have the equipment in place to provide a significantly better ATS in Australia right now, so we are using it. Aircraft built by Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Fokker, BAe, Pilatus, Hawker, Cessna and others are currently receiving the benefits, and unfortunately they outweigh the costs to some operators of some models of some manufacturers aircraft.
Sarcs - no exemptions were zapped, they still apply. The terminology chosen for ADSB Exempt airspace and ADSB exemptions is unfortunately confusing. An aircraft with an ADSB exemption can fly in ADSB Exempt airspace (ocean and J curve) above F280 but not in ADSB airspace. I think what they should have said was anybody can fly in ADSB Exempt airspace above F280, thus removing the confusion surrounding and ADSB Exemption, which is not what it sounds like. So
Non ADSB aircraft can fly in this airspace now, so nothing changed on D-Day.
The aircraft were in ADSB Exempt airspace. Two non ADSB aircraft could fly in the same airspace today ay any level. The aircraft were on SSR so ADSB is irrelevant.
Dick - its not about safety or whether we can handle non ADSB aircraft, its about providing the best service to the most customers. Non ADSB aircraft take up more space. There are occasions certainly were it wouldn't matter, but I get the impression that the powers that be wanted one consistent rule rather than lots of exceptions. (For example, the area around PH has SSR and no ADSB but is not included in the ADSB exempt airspace, presumably to keep it simple.) The three day period for broken equipment does I agree smack of the airlines wanting to have their cake and eat it to. The military thing is just as hard to defend.
Sarcs - no exemptions were zapped, they still apply. The terminology chosen for ADSB Exempt airspace and ADSB exemptions is unfortunately confusing. An aircraft with an ADSB exemption can fly in ADSB Exempt airspace (ocean and J curve) above F280 but not in ADSB airspace. I think what they should have said was anybody can fly in ADSB Exempt airspace above F280, thus removing the confusion surrounding and ADSB Exemption, which is not what it sounds like. So
Q1/ Has the oceanic airspace to the east of Sydney automatically changed as of midnight (pumpkin time) on the 11th December'13?
Q3/ Presumably the two aircraft mentioned in... AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013... were suitably ADSB configured, so what added safety benefit did the ADSB system give to the SA of those ATC controllers in that case??
Dick - its not about safety or whether we can handle non ADSB aircraft, its about providing the best service to the most customers. Non ADSB aircraft take up more space. There are occasions certainly were it wouldn't matter, but I get the impression that the powers that be wanted one consistent rule rather than lots of exceptions. (For example, the area around PH has SSR and no ADSB but is not included in the ADSB exempt airspace, presumably to keep it simple.) The three day period for broken equipment does I agree smack of the airlines wanting to have their cake and eat it to. The military thing is just as hard to defend.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA initially refused to allow anyone to put in a stand-alone ADS-B unit as they sensibly didn’t want a position being transmitted that wasn’t coming from the flight management system in the aircraft.
And, it would allow much more rapid and cheaper solutions to this issue.
Aircraft built by Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Fokker, BAe, Pilatus, Hawker, Cessna and others are currently receiving the benefits,
And I'be be betting not Fokker, BAe, Pilatus or Hawker because I would expect that they will all be in the same catch 22 service bulletin quagmire that Dick is in.
In fact, I suspect that regardless of aircraft type, anyone with Collins Proline, or Garmin EFIS is in the same boat.
No one is disputing that ADS-B is a good thing. Its the implementation timing and the transitional arrangements that are being criticised.
If I wanted to be ADS-B compliant today, I would have 1 model choice from 1 manufacturer for a C146a GPS (ie GTN 650 - GNS430 has uncertain supply and GTN 750 doesn't yet have a compatible ES transponder) and 1 model choice from 1 manufacturer for a mode S ES transponder (I don't think the Trig unit fits a standard 6.33 inch GA rack). In 12 months that will at least triple as new products from Avidyne & Bendix / King become available.
Today, Dick has zero options to be ADS-B compliant. Within 1 year, he will have a factory sanctioned option.
As I read it, Dick is asking for better transitional arrangements while there is no technical solution for him to be compliant with the new airspace regulations which have been introduced with an arbitrary timing that has been set without regard to the availability of equipment required to comply. Frankly, it doesn't seem unreasonable and it sounds like there are precedents elsewhere in the world to do it.
Cost is an issue that I (and a long queue of others) will bleat about. But at the end of the day, I'll put in new avioincs that will represent 20% of the hull value of my twin so that I can fly in an airspace system that it seems has been myopically designed around the airlines (or the greater good as you call it).
Frankly, I'd be more enthusiastic about spending money on ADS-B if we were implementing an ADS-B IN system so I could get the benefit of traffic data like the US is doing.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this whole thing started because Cessna aircraft cannot yet receive the benefits.
And I'be be betting not Fokker, BAe, Pilatus or Hawker because I would expect that they will all be in the same catch 22 service bulletin quagmire that Dick is in.
And I'be be betting not Fokker, BAe, Pilatus or Hawker because I would expect that they will all be in the same catch 22 service bulletin quagmire that Dick is in.
I can assure you there are many F100, Ba146, PC12 and at least one HS125 and Citation
My (imperfect) understanding is that the old steam gauge ones are like a GA aircraft. They will have a GA type avionics rack that will take a Garmin 430W 530W / GTN650 / GTN750 or even an old 480. Couple this with a Garmin 330ES transponder that you fit in place of the original flat pack transponder and its all done.
The newer glass panel aircraft are a completely different kettle of fish and clearly (from Dick's description) require type specific service bulletins. My guess would be (and its only a guess) is that any cabin class aircraft (turboprop or jet) that has glass panel displays will be in the same boat as Dick.
A number of companies are working on discrete ADS-B boxes that can be remotely mounted, but I don't think any are commercially available yet. There are also companies working on C146a GPS sources that will remotely mount specifically to give data to the transponder (so you don't need new GPS display units) but I think these maybe 2 - 3 years away.
And if our regulators didn't know all of this before they set the implementation timetable, they should be slapped.