ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There is a lot of life outside the J curve... Transcontinental flights, internationals, North/South flights through the middle, Sandgroper territory with numerous North/South long distance flights which have exploded in number over the last few years, top end routes etc. Even flights from Kalgoorlie to Perth can get up to FL400.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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’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.
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.
If I'm reading this CASA EX113/13 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace correctly it is CASA not ASA that are forbidding non ADSB aircraft in ADSB airspace. ASA hands are tied.
Thread Starter
All you have to do is go to Flightradar24 and you can see them all,
At this time only 4 aircraft in the central Australia area- and none above F390,
Plenty of space for even a beginner ATC to let a non ADSB aircraft climb or
descend at Ayers Rock.
How come no comments on my CAA letter- or doesn't anyone care if they comply with the law?
At this time only 4 aircraft in the central Australia area- and none above F390,
Plenty of space for even a beginner ATC to let a non ADSB aircraft climb or
descend at Ayers Rock.
How come no comments on my CAA letter- or doesn't anyone care if they comply with the law?
More the point is that no one cares that some rich guy can't fly their multi million dollar SECOND aircraft where ever they want. Ho hum. It is astounding how out of touch with the real world some people are I am sure you will agree.
More the point is that no one cares that some rich guy can't fly their multi million dollar SECOND aircraft where ever they want.
This should be a forum to debate issues. Its not a forum to sling off at guys that fit your description of having too much money.
I do not see this form of reverse snobbery in any other country's. Its one of the things I like least about Australia.
Man up and contribute to the debate or if you want to make personal shots at someone have the backbone to identify yourself.
Dick, it's quite possibly one of the ATC guys at Alice. The planefinder feed for the northwest is run by an ATC in Karratha. So you only see what is visible to that receiver. Not sure how many are between us and Perth.
The others sites would be the same no doubt.
The others sites would be the same no doubt.
Hey Old Akro, let's back up about half a dozen pages and read the thread title where poor little Dicky accused Air Traffic Controllers of killing people if you want to talk offensive. The 'identify yourself' card is tiresome and completely against the rules of Pprune. I have reported your post.
Air Traffic Controllers of killing people
poor little Dicky
I have reported your post.
It just goes to show how fundamentally different the culture of Australia is compared to that of the USA.
In the USA, individual freedom is at the heart of the culture. The country became and remains great because of each individual’s freedom to determine his or her own destiny. The kid training in the 152, the millionaire in the G5 and the 737 all get the same priority. They are the county. The government is grudgingly tolerated and held in constant suspicion.
In Australia, you’re all just subjects to be regulated by the government! The government is the country. The government decides what’s ‘in the public interest’. If it’s expedient for the government, it magically becomes the public interest to do it, and individuals can just go and get stuffed (or, as happens very frequently, move to the USA ….)
Yup. I can think of stronger words than “hard”.
Yup.
Yup. The Yanks have this crazy idea that if they are proposing to force something on an individual so that someone else gets a benefit, they’re obliged to sweeten the deal. In Australia, if the individuals disadvantaged don’t have enough political clout to change a government, they can go and get stuffed.
Dick: Remember when you were threatening to support Tony Windsor to run against John Anderson in his comfy House of Reps seat? That’s when the government pretended to take you seriously and gave you lots of aviation things to play with. It was, after all, ‘in the public interest’.
My suggestion is that if you want your ideas about ADSB to be implemented, you’d better start looking for someone popular to run against Warren Truss.
In the USA, individual freedom is at the heart of the culture. The country became and remains great because of each individual’s freedom to determine his or her own destiny. The kid training in the 152, the millionaire in the G5 and the 737 all get the same priority. They are the county. The government is grudgingly tolerated and held in constant suspicion.
In Australia, you’re all just subjects to be regulated by the government! The government is the country. The government decides what’s ‘in the public interest’. If it’s expedient for the government, it magically becomes the public interest to do it, and individuals can just go and get stuffed (or, as happens very frequently, move to the USA ….)
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.
This whole thing is just another Part 61. Its not properly thought through. Time they saw sense and delayed implementation the way they did with that. Would make more sense just to do it on the same timetable as the Yanks. At least technology options would exist that might even be affordable.
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.
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.
Dick: Remember when you were threatening to support Tony Windsor to run against John Anderson in his comfy House of Reps seat? That’s when the government pretended to take you seriously and gave you lots of aviation things to play with. It was, after all, ‘in the public interest’.
My suggestion is that if you want your ideas about ADSB to be implemented, you’d better start looking for someone popular to run against Warren Truss.
Creamy brings it back to the debate!
OA:
Well said OA..
and top post Creamy...
To add another dimension to this debate and in context of Creamy's...
"...It just goes to show how fundamentally different the culture of Australia is compared to that of the USA...."
...the Yanks in the area of ATC are also in a world of hurt but their hurt is largely to do with an ever decreasing pot of funds and a Congress diminished in effectiveness due to divisive political self-interest...
Came across an article from the US Cato institute titled.. New Study on Air Traffic Control Reform
...which also links to a report just completed by Robert Poole from the Hudson Institute titled Organization and Innovation in Air Traffic Control One of Poole's findings in the report actually praises countries like Australia for embracing self-supporting organisations, like ASA, to run ATC:
Unfortunately that would appear to be the sum total of comparison with Oz, as the report primarily focusses and promotes the US northern neighbour's (Nav Canada) ATC system as the model to which the US should espouse: Airports and Air Traffic Control
Hmm..this is getting a bit repetitive bloody Canucks leading the way again...
(like with the TSBC & Transport Canada), must have something to do with the rarefied air in those northern latitudes..
Anyway thought this could possibly add another perspective to what is becoming a great debate..??
This should be a forum to debate issues. Its not a forum to sling off at guys that fit your description of having too much money.
and top post Creamy... To add another dimension to this debate and in context of Creamy's...
"...It just goes to show how fundamentally different the culture of Australia is compared to that of the USA...."
...the Yanks in the area of ATC are also in a world of hurt but their hurt is largely to do with an ever decreasing pot of funds and a Congress diminished in effectiveness due to divisive political self-interest...
Came across an article from the US Cato institute titled.. New Study on Air Traffic Control Reform
...which also links to a report just completed by Robert Poole from the Hudson Institute titled Organization and Innovation in Air Traffic Control One of Poole's findings in the report actually praises countries like Australia for embracing self-supporting organisations, like ASA, to run ATC:
•Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and Germany are doing a better job of embracing new technologies for ATC. These countries have restructured their systems as self-supporting organizations outside of their government bureaucracies.
Canada's ATC system has been fully commercialized.30 In 1996, Canada set up a private, nonprofit ATC corporation, Nav Canada, which is self-supporting from charges on aviation users. The Canadian system has been widely praised for its sound finances, solid management, and its investment in new technologies.31 The Canadian system is a very good reform model for the United States to consider. Nav Canada's corporate board is composed largely of aviation stakeholders.32 It has 4 seats for the airlines, 3 for the government, 2 for employees, and 1 for the non-commercial aviation industry. Those 10 stakeholders select 4 directors from outside aviation, and then those 14 select the company president, who becomes the 15th board member. To further strengthen governance, neither elected officials nor anyone connected with suppliers to Nav Canada can serve on the board. Nav Canada also has a 20-member outside Advisory Committee.
A number of studies have found that ATC commercialization has generally resulted in improvements to service quality, better management, and reduced costs.33 At the same time, air safety has remained the same or improved in the countries that have pursued reforms to set up independent ANSP organizations.
A thorough 2009 report by Glen McDougall and Alasdair Roberts compared the performance of 10 commercialized ATC systems and the FAA during the 1997 to 2004 period.34 They looked at large amounts of performance and safety data from the systems in the various countries and conducted over 200 interviews with managers, workers, and users of the different systems. The researchers found:
ANSP commercialization has generally achieved its objectives. Service quality has improved in most cases. Several ANSPs have successfully modernized workplace technologies. The safety records of ANSPs are not adversely affected by commercialization, and in some cases safety is improved. Costs are generally reduced, sometimes significantly. Other risks of commercialization—such as erosion of accountability to government, deterioration of labor relations, or worsened relationships between civil and military air traffic controllers—have not materialized.35
For the United States, a commercialized ATC organization would be more likely than the FAA to efficiently implement the major aviation infrastructure advances that the nation desperately needs. Air traffic control is more complex and dynamic than ever, and it needs to be managed in the sort of efficient and flexible manner that only a commercialized environment can offer. Countries like Canada have shown the way forward for air traffic control, and U.S. policymakers should adopt the proven organizational reforms that have been implemented abroad.
A number of studies have found that ATC commercialization has generally resulted in improvements to service quality, better management, and reduced costs.33 At the same time, air safety has remained the same or improved in the countries that have pursued reforms to set up independent ANSP organizations.
A thorough 2009 report by Glen McDougall and Alasdair Roberts compared the performance of 10 commercialized ATC systems and the FAA during the 1997 to 2004 period.34 They looked at large amounts of performance and safety data from the systems in the various countries and conducted over 200 interviews with managers, workers, and users of the different systems. The researchers found:
ANSP commercialization has generally achieved its objectives. Service quality has improved in most cases. Several ANSPs have successfully modernized workplace technologies. The safety records of ANSPs are not adversely affected by commercialization, and in some cases safety is improved. Costs are generally reduced, sometimes significantly. Other risks of commercialization—such as erosion of accountability to government, deterioration of labor relations, or worsened relationships between civil and military air traffic controllers—have not materialized.35
For the United States, a commercialized ATC organization would be more likely than the FAA to efficiently implement the major aviation infrastructure advances that the nation desperately needs. Air traffic control is more complex and dynamic than ever, and it needs to be managed in the sort of efficient and flexible manner that only a commercialized environment can offer. Countries like Canada have shown the way forward for air traffic control, and U.S. policymakers should adopt the proven organizational reforms that have been implemented abroad.
(like with the TSBC & Transport Canada), must have something to do with the rarefied air in those northern latitudes.. Anyway thought this could possibly add another perspective to what is becoming a great debate..??
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
I once lived in Truss' electorate and he treated my letters to him with gross indifference and displayed all the virtues of a king with his serfs. I have since written to him in his present Ministerial position and was ignored until I went through my local member and only then did I get a 'mickey mouse' answer more to appease the local bloke than me.
My grandkids wrote to Ronald McDonald c/o the local dispensary of hamburgers and GOT A REPLY and some freebies for them and their school.
What's that tell you?
you’d better start looking for someone popular to run against Warren Truss.
I once lived in Truss' electorate and he treated my letters to him with gross indifference and displayed all the virtues of a king with his serfs. I have since written to him in his present Ministerial position and was ignored until I went through my local member and only then did I get a 'mickey mouse' answer more to appease the local bloke than me.
My grandkids wrote to Ronald McDonald c/o the local dispensary of hamburgers and GOT A REPLY and some freebies for them and their school.
What's that tell you?
It tells you he didn’t care because he didn’t have to care. It tells you it was ‘his’ seat whether or not he responded to your letters.
If Dick gets on ‘Australia All Over’ each Sunday morning and starts promoting someone against Warren Truss in Warren Truss’s seat, because the government isn’t requiring ATCers to wear pink tutus, ATCers will end up wearing pink tutus. It would clearly be ‘in the public interest’ for them to do so.
If Dick gets on ‘Australia All Over’ each Sunday morning and starts promoting someone against Warren Truss in Warren Truss’s seat, because the government isn’t requiring ATCers to wear pink tutus, ATCers will end up wearing pink tutus. It would clearly be ‘in the public interest’ for them to do so.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ronald McDonald in a pink tutu would still be more popular than Warren Truss. The aviation portfolio needs a loose cannon like Barnaby Joyce or Fiona Nash to run the show.
As you correctly say, the government is grudgingly tolerated and held in constant suspicion in the US, while here, I believe, the government is held captive by the Bureaucracy. Some sort of 'Stockholm Syndrome' aberration?
BTW has anyone heard anything about when the DAS is going? Is it still February?
I keep hearing rumors that things are about to change with this new mob. I don't hold much hope for the Truss 'review' but looking at a wider picture, 'post review' may lead up to the Brandis/ Attorney General matter already having the wheat separated from the chaff to suit it's initial requirements for the terms of reference. Of note one being the reversal of the burden of proof which could put paid to the criminalization of administrative breeches and open the door to having the whole 23+ years of regulation review 'dimwittery' put to the sword and put in place the FAR's equivalent.
But I've been wrong before.
As you correctly say, the government is grudgingly tolerated and held in constant suspicion in the US, while here, I believe, the government is held captive by the Bureaucracy. Some sort of 'Stockholm Syndrome' aberration?
BTW has anyone heard anything about when the DAS is going? Is it still February?
I keep hearing rumors that things are about to change with this new mob. I don't hold much hope for the Truss 'review' but looking at a wider picture, 'post review' may lead up to the Brandis/ Attorney General matter already having the wheat separated from the chaff to suit it's initial requirements for the terms of reference. Of note one being the reversal of the burden of proof which could put paid to the criminalization of administrative breeches and open the door to having the whole 23+ years of regulation review 'dimwittery' put to the sword and put in place the FAR's equivalent.
But I've been wrong before.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 18th Jan 2014 at 00:14. Reason: Flower pots keep me awake at nights.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, my source tells me Mr Angry will be around until sometime in March. Just a rumour though. And then he will fly away.
Pink tutu's? Interesting, but I think Hoody would probably look the best in one of those
I can picture Truss and Mrdak dressed like Adam and Eve, walking the gardens of Parliament House nude except for lettuce leaves strategically placed over their man bits! As for the rest of Fort Fumbles execs, the potty ones, here they are;
They borrowed Pot Plant Pete from Senator Nash's office, and some of Fort Fumbles plants as well!
Pink tutu's? Interesting, but I think Hoody would probably look the best in one of those
I can picture Truss and Mrdak dressed like Adam and Eve, walking the gardens of Parliament House nude except for lettuce leaves strategically placed over their man bits! As for the rest of Fort Fumbles execs, the potty ones, here they are;
They borrowed Pot Plant Pete from Senator Nash's office, and some of Fort Fumbles plants as well!
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
I keep hearing rumors that things are about to change with this new mob. I don't hold much hope for the Truss 'review' but looking at a wider picture, 'post review' may lead up to the Brandis/ Attorney General matter already having the wheat separated from the chaff to suit it's initial requirements for the terms of reference. Of note one being the reversal of the burden of proof which could put paid to the criminalization of administrative breeches and open the door to having the whole 23+ years of regulation review 'dimwittery' put to the sword and put in place the FAR's equivalent.
the move to strict liability is the very stupidest change in law ever inflicted on a basically honest population of pilots.
from my personal perspective I got back into aviation after a break about 15 years ago now. I read all the aviation acts, all the regs all the other aviation bumf. locked it away in the head.
I didnt agree with it all but understood it.
I absolutely refuse to read any of this new legislative crap. It is heading inthe wrong direction and it is all crap. all of it.
I would support the entire dismissal of CASA and replaced by contracting out the oversight to Transport Canada.
In Classic Wings Downunder issue 91 is a wonderful testament to just how bad CASA is.
The Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum were restoring to airworthiness a Lancaster Bomber.
I quote from the article...
"The restoration work took many years with great assistance from Air Canada, Dowty, Western Propeller and many others. The Department of Transport also supported the Lancaster restoration by issuing a Restricted Certification Authority letter in March 1985. This RCA allowed the DOT in Ottawa to supervise the restoration from arms length and the CWHM to certify the Lancaster without having the endorsement on a private aircraft mechanics licence."
Can you imagine HARS ever having that sort of cooperation from our Fumble Fort? CASA need to be abolished from Australian Aviation permanently.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That clip looks like they're wearing a jelly mold on their heads. Seems appropriate, but I feel I'll now have nightmares about Truss, Mrdak and Lettuce leaves. Thanks for that.
W8, any mob who have their own dictionary to explain their version of the Oxford version is bent and demonstrates what's wrong with the system. That and 23+ years and $millions to achieve nothing is incompetence and is why the whole show needs the sword including all it's functionaries. I understand DOCS are looking for good folk to further bugger the family unit. Oh, and there's also The Greens. Same horse just different jockey's.
W8, any mob who have their own dictionary to explain their version of the Oxford version is bent and demonstrates what's wrong with the system. That and 23+ years and $millions to achieve nothing is incompetence and is why the whole show needs the sword including all it's functionaries. I understand DOCS are looking for good folk to further bugger the family unit. Oh, and there's also The Greens. Same horse just different jockey's.