ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Thread Starter
I already have ADSB in my Caravan. Came at virtually no extra cost when I upgraded the Garmin equipment
Totally different with my CJ3 - as stated by others Cessna are still working on the upgrade - maybe a few months away.
I may then fit it if I decide to keep the aircraft. Get more fun flying VFR in the Van and not paying
money to AsA who are so hostile to GA.
Totally different with my CJ3 - as stated by others Cessna are still working on the upgrade - maybe a few months away.
I may then fit it if I decide to keep the aircraft. Get more fun flying VFR in the Van and not paying
money to AsA who are so hostile to GA.
Thread Starter
Nautilus Blue – thanks for clearly stating the truth, that is, “its not about safety or whether we can handle non ADSB aircraft, its about providing the best service to the most customers”.
If you look at the attached letter to John McCormick (see HERE) you will see that CASA can’t actually write ADS-B rules that are primarily there for economic purposes. Of course, with the present management of Boards of CASA and Airservices Australia, this doesn’t seem to matter. The reason the Australian Business Aviation Association did not put in a comprehensive submission in relation to the ADS-B mandate is that they were clearly told that concessions would not be considered for the non-radar airspace. As I said in my letter to John McCormick, nothing but sheer bastardry from these people.
It is clear to everyone that the small number of business aviation aircraft that are not yet fitted with ADS-B can be handled in the present system in a totally safe way. The very fact that they are forced to below flight level 290 and then procedurally separated shows that this is so. The mandate has been brought in for economic reason, i.e. so the number of Air Traffic Controllers can be reduced and so the airlines can do more direct tracking and make more profits – nothing wrong with this as long as provision is made for the smaller operators to be able to fly fairly in the airspace until they can get their equipment upgraded at a reasonable price.
If I end up in Court over this – and this is becoming very likely – I know it will be a lay down misčre in relation to a win; that is, CASA didn’t comply with its own regulations and has brought in the regulation primarily for economic reasons. The fact that the smaller business jet companies now have extra costs without any extra income will clearly result in safety being reduced. You only have to look at the Advance and Seaview crashes to know that unprofitable operators become unsafe operators.
And for anyone who wants to know if it’s actually happening in practice, I have spoken to a number of business aircraft charter operators who don’t yet have ADS-B compliant aircraft and who have been heading out into the non-radar airspace and have been forced by the Controller to descend – even as low as flight level 270. So here you have an Air Traffic Controller - who is actually earning his living from the enroute charges paid by these operators - forcing the aircraft to fly at very inefficient flight levels where the operator can’t even cover the charter costs for the flight, let alone run a viable business.
At the same time, Airservices is charging the full enroute amount – i.e. laughing all the way to the bank!
It appears to me that there is a problem with the management in these organisations. We need people who are responsible and ethical and can bring in an ADS-B upgrade in a way which is fair to all – not just the powerful.
And Nitpicker330, you are right – obviously the Manager from Longreach would have been exposed to greater risk, however I’m not on about one flight or my aircraft operations at all. I see we have gone back to the old, “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom” days of unaccountability to an industry that actually provides you blokes with your remuneration.
When the CASA Director is ignored by the people below him, it reminds me totally of what happened thirty years ago when the whole aviation regulator and air traffic control service provider became dysfunctional.
My suggestion is you read Chapter 3, “Brotherly Bureaucratic Love at Darling Harbour” in my Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom publication – see HERE. Particularly note this quote from the chapter:
Yes, it looks as if we have gone back to those terrible old days.
If you look at the attached letter to John McCormick (see HERE) you will see that CASA can’t actually write ADS-B rules that are primarily there for economic purposes. Of course, with the present management of Boards of CASA and Airservices Australia, this doesn’t seem to matter. The reason the Australian Business Aviation Association did not put in a comprehensive submission in relation to the ADS-B mandate is that they were clearly told that concessions would not be considered for the non-radar airspace. As I said in my letter to John McCormick, nothing but sheer bastardry from these people.
It is clear to everyone that the small number of business aviation aircraft that are not yet fitted with ADS-B can be handled in the present system in a totally safe way. The very fact that they are forced to below flight level 290 and then procedurally separated shows that this is so. The mandate has been brought in for economic reason, i.e. so the number of Air Traffic Controllers can be reduced and so the airlines can do more direct tracking and make more profits – nothing wrong with this as long as provision is made for the smaller operators to be able to fly fairly in the airspace until they can get their equipment upgraded at a reasonable price.
If I end up in Court over this – and this is becoming very likely – I know it will be a lay down misčre in relation to a win; that is, CASA didn’t comply with its own regulations and has brought in the regulation primarily for economic reasons. The fact that the smaller business jet companies now have extra costs without any extra income will clearly result in safety being reduced. You only have to look at the Advance and Seaview crashes to know that unprofitable operators become unsafe operators.
And for anyone who wants to know if it’s actually happening in practice, I have spoken to a number of business aircraft charter operators who don’t yet have ADS-B compliant aircraft and who have been heading out into the non-radar airspace and have been forced by the Controller to descend – even as low as flight level 270. So here you have an Air Traffic Controller - who is actually earning his living from the enroute charges paid by these operators - forcing the aircraft to fly at very inefficient flight levels where the operator can’t even cover the charter costs for the flight, let alone run a viable business.
At the same time, Airservices is charging the full enroute amount – i.e. laughing all the way to the bank!
It appears to me that there is a problem with the management in these organisations. We need people who are responsible and ethical and can bring in an ADS-B upgrade in a way which is fair to all – not just the powerful.
And Nitpicker330, you are right – obviously the Manager from Longreach would have been exposed to greater risk, however I’m not on about one flight or my aircraft operations at all. I see we have gone back to the old, “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom” days of unaccountability to an industry that actually provides you blokes with your remuneration.
When the CASA Director is ignored by the people below him, it reminds me totally of what happened thirty years ago when the whole aviation regulator and air traffic control service provider became dysfunctional.
My suggestion is you read Chapter 3, “Brotherly Bureaucratic Love at Darling Harbour” in my Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom publication – see HERE. Particularly note this quote from the chapter:
This is an example of what I was to find again and again … a total lack of accountability for anything. They acted, and still do, with contemptuous disregard for the very people they were being paid to serve – including the people who were going broke and losing their jobs.
Dick,
Isn't the issue here with CASA, not AsA? Isn't AsA just following the rules as written? (Genuine question)
As you and many have stated it can be done, was being done before Dec, so the capability is there. If the rules prohibit it, then should not the finger be pointed at the rule makers?
I just think its a little unfair to be blaming the ATC side of things for this one. Or is the point that you want AsA to lobby CASA for a rule change?
A
Isn't the issue here with CASA, not AsA? Isn't AsA just following the rules as written? (Genuine question)
As you and many have stated it can be done, was being done before Dec, so the capability is there. If the rules prohibit it, then should not the finger be pointed at the rule makers?
I just think its a little unfair to be blaming the ATC side of things for this one. Or is the point that you want AsA to lobby CASA for a rule change?
A
Thread Starter
Alpha, the boss of CASA put in writing that he would support exemptions similar to the RVSM exemptions
The worker collectives in each Organization decided to take no notice of his views- after all he is only the Director of Aviation Safety
Just like the "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom Days"
But it's the ASA people who are the dopes because they are losing income and profits for no good reason.
The worker collectives in each Organization decided to take no notice of his views- after all he is only the Director of Aviation Safety
Just like the "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom Days"
But it's the ASA people who are the dopes because they are losing income and profits for no good reason.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not going to join this argument as I think most of the salients point have been made.
I will contribute that if a "roll back" of the rules is to occur it needs to happen soon.
I have been an ATC for 20 years and gained my initial rating in the West Australian procedural airspace. Our tools then were flight progress strips, whiz wheels and china graphs on maps. The airspace was often worked by 2 controllers, one talking and one drawing and calculating. It was pretty much at its limit. Then TAAATS came along. Despite it short comings, it made the procedural controllers life much easier by doing a lot of the calculations automatically and simplified coordination massively. Over the years further enhancements to the system (LATC tool) and sep standards (RVSM and GPS 7CEP) has allowed the controller to handle more aircraft.
Now if you were to remove one of these functionalites that controllers rely on, significant training would need to occur. I will give an example TAAATS has an Estimated Time of Passing tool. You select two aircraft and it automatically calculates the ETOP. The process takes about 2 seconds. Previously a manual ETOP calculation may take a minute or more depending on how good you are. When I got my initial ATC license I could do these calculations quickly and accurately everytime. Ask me to do one today I would take 2 mins. Ask a controller rated post TAAATS to do one they would have to get the book out and look it up. Now the ETOP is a wonderful thing. It removed the chance the controller making a mistake and has probably prevented many incidents. Now if you took that tool away, there would need to be significant retraining to teach us how to do it quickly and accurately again. Now if you remove ADSB from the new generation of controllers who have never separated procedurally before, then significant training would need to occur.
I have already seen the difference in controllers who were rated pre ADSB and ones rated post ADSB. While they are not unsafe, there mindset is entirely different and it won't be long before the procedural separation skills are lost even from the pre ADSB rated controllers.
To put it in piloting terms, imagine we removed RNAV/GPS tomorrow. There is a whole generation of pilots who have only flown with GPS and they would struggle without retraining.
PS Dick:- I have restricted your climb in procedural airspace. PM if you want details.
I will contribute that if a "roll back" of the rules is to occur it needs to happen soon.
I have been an ATC for 20 years and gained my initial rating in the West Australian procedural airspace. Our tools then were flight progress strips, whiz wheels and china graphs on maps. The airspace was often worked by 2 controllers, one talking and one drawing and calculating. It was pretty much at its limit. Then TAAATS came along. Despite it short comings, it made the procedural controllers life much easier by doing a lot of the calculations automatically and simplified coordination massively. Over the years further enhancements to the system (LATC tool) and sep standards (RVSM and GPS 7CEP) has allowed the controller to handle more aircraft.
Now if you were to remove one of these functionalites that controllers rely on, significant training would need to occur. I will give an example TAAATS has an Estimated Time of Passing tool. You select two aircraft and it automatically calculates the ETOP. The process takes about 2 seconds. Previously a manual ETOP calculation may take a minute or more depending on how good you are. When I got my initial ATC license I could do these calculations quickly and accurately everytime. Ask me to do one today I would take 2 mins. Ask a controller rated post TAAATS to do one they would have to get the book out and look it up. Now the ETOP is a wonderful thing. It removed the chance the controller making a mistake and has probably prevented many incidents. Now if you took that tool away, there would need to be significant retraining to teach us how to do it quickly and accurately again. Now if you remove ADSB from the new generation of controllers who have never separated procedurally before, then significant training would need to occur.
I have already seen the difference in controllers who were rated pre ADSB and ones rated post ADSB. While they are not unsafe, there mindset is entirely different and it won't be long before the procedural separation skills are lost even from the pre ADSB rated controllers.
To put it in piloting terms, imagine we removed RNAV/GPS tomorrow. There is a whole generation of pilots who have only flown with GPS and they would struggle without retraining.
PS Dick:- I have restricted your climb in procedural airspace. PM if you want details.
Thread Starter
Willa. So if a plane comes from the east coast below fl190 won't the controller have to still be trained in procedural separation?
No roll back needed. As you now have to handle non compliant military aircraft just treat them the same!
No roll back needed. As you now have to handle non compliant military aircraft just treat them the same!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ATCs doing below F285 will still be trained. But the guys doing above 285 (Upper Airspace Services is the ASA dept) will not have the full procedural training in the future.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. You are proposing a roll back. I am telling you it needs to be sorted quickly before skills are lost.
You are fixed wing and rotary rated. I assume you maintain proficiency in both. A bit like a curernt UAS controller, proficient in procedural and surveillance separation. A future UAS controller would get the rotary theory, a few circuits and that will be it, before doing a full fixed wing course. They may, in an emergency or a equipment failure be asked to fly that chopper but they will not be proficient at it.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. You are proposing a roll back. I am telling you it needs to be sorted quickly before skills are lost.
You are fixed wing and rotary rated. I assume you maintain proficiency in both. A bit like a curernt UAS controller, proficient in procedural and surveillance separation. A future UAS controller would get the rotary theory, a few circuits and that will be it, before doing a full fixed wing course. They may, in an emergency or a equipment failure be asked to fly that chopper but they will not be proficient at it.
Last edited by willadvise; 17th Jan 2014 at 03:48.
I'm sure this is misconstruing it, but this sounds a lot like putting less skilled people on the high traffic, high capacity aircraft routes.
But the guys doing above 285 (Upper Airspace Services is the ASA dept) will not have the full procedural training in the future.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure this is misconstruing it, but this sounds a lot like putting less skilled people on the high traffic, high capacity aircraft routes.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick - who is ASA most answerable to though? If we can save 1000 customers $1, but increase the costs of one customer by $100, should we do it? Looking at the big picture would suggest yes, but I admit I'd be hacked off if I were that one customer.
With regard to willadvise's point, you may not be aware of the power and glory that is SDE. Amongst other things, under this plan the sectors are split at F285 (outside J curve and ocean). The high level sectors would be surveillance only, and eventually controllers working these sectors would have little procedural training and almost no recent procedural experience. However, as pointed out the mil exemption is a rather large flaw in that argument.
Reading Akro's post would it be fair to suggest you jet is in an unfortunate "middle ground"? i.e. newer glass cockpit aircraft have ADSB already fitted or available, analog cockpit aircraft have a simple aftermarket bolt on.
With regard to willadvise's point, you may not be aware of the power and glory that is SDE. Amongst other things, under this plan the sectors are split at F285 (outside J curve and ocean). The high level sectors would be surveillance only, and eventually controllers working these sectors would have little procedural training and almost no recent procedural experience. However, as pointed out the mil exemption is a rather large flaw in that argument.
Reading Akro's post would it be fair to suggest you jet is in an unfortunate "middle ground"? i.e. newer glass cockpit aircraft have ADSB already fitted or available, analog cockpit aircraft have a simple aftermarket bolt on.
No Akro, it's simply a matter of needing to practice the skills to remain good at it. I haven't done full procedural separation in years as I work full radar sectors now. Doesn't mean I can't do it, just that I'd be seriously crap at it as I'd be very slow.
I haven't done a tower or approach course - not because I can't but because it isn't necessary for me to do my current job.
I haven't done a tower or approach course - not because I can't but because it isn't necessary for me to do my current job.
Thread Starter
Nautilus Blue – I suppose it basically goes back to what is ethical. Airservices Australia is a monopoly so of course it can abuse its market. I think that is what it is doing in this particular case. If there was proper leadership there they would have gone to the industry and said what the advantages were for the majority of the industry and then looked at using some of those advantages to subsidise those who were going to be affected but could not get an equivalent cost benefit.
Also, I think they are pushing this through in an incredible hurry. If you are telling me that the mandate came in last December and they are going to move quickly to these new airspace procedures and not allow the non-ADS-B aircraft to have time to be updated?
I just find it amazing that the CEO of Airservices hasn’t issued a statement saying how she is concerned about the small number of business aviation aircraft that have been affected and she is looking at doing something to minimise their costs and their problems.
I’m sure the United States could have decided to bring in the mandate five years ahead of time, but they realised it was going to cost the industry – especially the smaller operators – far more money than they could ever benefit from.
If the airlines and Airservices are going to get, say, $100 million per year in savings from this new system, what would be wrong with them using $5 million of that to assist the smaller operators with their extra fuel costs?
The fact is that the Australian Business Aviation Association was seriously misled by CASA when CASA stated that they would not consider any exemptions for the non-radar airspace.
Personally it does not affect me at all as I do not charter out my aircraft and if it’s sitting in the hangar I am actually saving money. However I am concerned about a number of the charter operators who are fantastic little Aussie companies that need to be retained in our aviation sector – not destroyed.
Also, I think they are pushing this through in an incredible hurry. If you are telling me that the mandate came in last December and they are going to move quickly to these new airspace procedures and not allow the non-ADS-B aircraft to have time to be updated?
I just find it amazing that the CEO of Airservices hasn’t issued a statement saying how she is concerned about the small number of business aviation aircraft that have been affected and she is looking at doing something to minimise their costs and their problems.
I’m sure the United States could have decided to bring in the mandate five years ahead of time, but they realised it was going to cost the industry – especially the smaller operators – far more money than they could ever benefit from.
If the airlines and Airservices are going to get, say, $100 million per year in savings from this new system, what would be wrong with them using $5 million of that to assist the smaller operators with their extra fuel costs?
The fact is that the Australian Business Aviation Association was seriously misled by CASA when CASA stated that they would not consider any exemptions for the non-radar airspace.
Personally it does not affect me at all as I do not charter out my aircraft and if it’s sitting in the hangar I am actually saving money. However I am concerned about a number of the charter operators who are fantastic little Aussie companies that need to be retained in our aviation sector – not destroyed.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There are 34 PC-12's in Australia. About half with the RFDS and half in private hands. Most have steam gauges (maybe only 8 have glass panels).
I got the numbers by searching the CASA database!
A few years I had a bit to do with Pilatus in Adelaide and at the time they said there was 24 in Australia, so I thought an increase of 10 smelled right. CASA must have some tucked away under a slightly different designation.
A few years I had a bit to do with Pilatus in Adelaide and at the time they said there was 24 in Australia, so I thought an increase of 10 smelled right. CASA must have some tucked away under a slightly different designation.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just did the CASA database search and got the same result as Old Akro - 34. Found an interesting quirk though - if you search for 'PC12' it will only show results for PC-12/47 and /47E. If you specifically search for 'PC-12/45' it will actually bring up an additional 22 results for the older machines! 34+22=56 total PC12s which is probably pretty up to date in accuracy.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many aircraft are generally flying above FL290 outside the J curve?
I would have expected that separation via levels was possible in most cases during cruise? Climb and descent would be the issue, but then how do you get up and down without passing through airspace below FL290?
I would have expected that separation via levels was possible in most cases during cruise? Climb and descent would be the issue, but then how do you get up and down without passing through airspace below FL290?