ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
'in the USA, individual freedom is at the heart of the culture.'
C'mon...seriously...? Two words. Patriot Act.
C'mon...seriously...? Two words. Patriot Act.
Let me know if you make it out alive.
Quote:
All you have to do is go to Flightradar24 and you can see them all
All you have to do is go to Flightradar24 and you can see them all
No you can't. You only see the ones in range of the Flight radar 24 adsb receivers.
From the site:
Flightradar24 relies on volunteers around the world for the majority of our coverage.
ADS-B round-up
I assume that the 4 biggest GA areas in the world are the US, Europe, Canada and Australia - in that order. The comparisons are a bit rubbery because different country's have different aircraft registration definitions (ie Australia does not count RAA registrations, but some other countries do).
Australia seems to be completely on its own in mandating ADS-B for GA and for IFR below 10,000 ft.
WHY?
And given that no other major country seems to be adopting Australia's "one size fits all" regime, I would assume that the rest of the world has found a way to accommodate non compliant aircraft like Dick's Citation.
I agree that ADS-B has benefits, but why the rush to implement a blanket solution in Australia before the mandated equipment is readily available????
Here is the roundup I have found:
The US is implementing ADS-B by 1 Jan 2020 in class A, B & C airspace and in class E only above 10,000 ft.
See here: ADS-B Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Europe seems to be bundling ADS-B implementation in with the "Single Sky" policy via EASA. Its a bit hazy to me, but I can't see that Europe ever intends to mandate ADS-B for aircraft under 5700 kg / 250 kt cruise speed, although implementation into GA still seems to be in debate.
See here:
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2010/adsb/sp22.pdf
Canada
No current plan to implement across domestic airspace.
See:
http://www.midcanadamod.com/sites/de...or_posting.pdf
Some useful summaries from Honeywell
http://pages3.honeywell.com/rs/honey...%209-2013.pptx
And Boeing
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/20...12%20Final.pdf
And Boeing again
http://www.caac.gov.cn/dev/fbs/xjsyy...0147660674.pdf
Australia seems to be completely on its own in mandating ADS-B for GA and for IFR below 10,000 ft.
WHY?
And given that no other major country seems to be adopting Australia's "one size fits all" regime, I would assume that the rest of the world has found a way to accommodate non compliant aircraft like Dick's Citation.
I agree that ADS-B has benefits, but why the rush to implement a blanket solution in Australia before the mandated equipment is readily available????
Here is the roundup I have found:
The US is implementing ADS-B by 1 Jan 2020 in class A, B & C airspace and in class E only above 10,000 ft.
See here: ADS-B Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Europe seems to be bundling ADS-B implementation in with the "Single Sky" policy via EASA. Its a bit hazy to me, but I can't see that Europe ever intends to mandate ADS-B for aircraft under 5700 kg / 250 kt cruise speed, although implementation into GA still seems to be in debate.
See here:
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2010/adsb/sp22.pdf
Canada
No current plan to implement across domestic airspace.
See:
http://www.midcanadamod.com/sites/de...or_posting.pdf
Some useful summaries from Honeywell
http://pages3.honeywell.com/rs/honey...%209-2013.pptx
And Boeing
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/20...12%20Final.pdf
And Boeing again
http://www.caac.gov.cn/dev/fbs/xjsyy...0147660674.pdf
QUOTE]Any chance you could now compare those 4 countries level of surveillance coverage?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that is possible from publicly available data.
Its hard enough finding what I did. And once you get into ICAO minutes you're eyes cross. In part the lack of information I suspect its a reflection that most of the rest of the world doesn't attach the significance to ADS-B that we do. But my guess is that Canada might be quite similar to Australia in terms of surveillance coverage and implementing ADS-B domestically is not even on their agenda.
However, I will counter with the question whether ADS-B will make any measurable improvement below 10,000ft (or maybe even F150) outside the J curve?
1. The traffic densities are very low and 2. Most of the traffic is VFR NOSAR NODETAILS and therefore ADS-B is not offering anything in terms of traffic separation or increased safety. ATC has bugger all value to the pilot in these areas and nearly everyone saves the money & aggravation.
Indeed I would go further and argue that ATC does not even represent a safety net for emergencies (outside the main population centres) since it doesn't monitor 121.5 and flightwatch is effectively disbanded. In the era of Sat phones, satellite trackers (eg Spot) and 406 MHz GPS EPIRBS, we are better off looking after ourselves.
The areas where ADS-B will make a big difference are the non radar coverage airports with RPT like Mildura & Albury where we should be slapped for not having put in radar decades ago.
Somewhat interestingly, the regional airline turboprops that operate in these airports that would greatly benefit from the additional safety of ADS-B are currently exempt from implementing ADS-B until 2017 since they typically operate below F280. Yet Dick's Citation can't transit through the ADS-B levels even in remote areas.
Once again, I support ADS-B. But it seems like we have made a mess of the implementation.
Why have we used altitude to define who needs ADS-B? Other countries have used airspace type (eg US) or flight type (eg RPT in Europe)?
Wouldn't it be more important to get all RPT on ADS-B than an IFR C-182?
After 2017 an IFR aircraft will require a $20,000 + ADS-B installation to fly from Mildura to Broken Hill at 3,000ft Why?
After 2017 an IFR aircraft will need ADSB to fly from Moorabbin to Essendon for an Essendon entry. Why? ( I can see more special VFR requests).
After 2017 if I fly from (say) JR's Lethbridge base to Temora for one of the museum fly-ins. There is a bit of weather around the Mountains, so rather than scud run, I'll put in an IFR plan (which surely is safer and should be encouraged). Its spring and the freezing level is a bit low, so I plan at 5,000 ft and go via Ballarat which keeps me under the steps then maybe Bendigo, Tocumwal, Temora. ADS-B will not improve my safety one iota. I will have potential VFR non ADS-B traffic scud running at various altitudes, Potential Non ADS-B traffic cruising VFR at (maybe) ICAO levels, Non RAA(Aus) traffic doing things that only they understand at any level, Non-ADSB gliders and potentially non-ADSB skydive aircraft. So, ATC cannot offer me any better separation or traffic advice that they can today. Why did I spend that $23,500 on the ADS-B upgrade?
A couple of flights ago I met an RV - without functioning mode C - cruising opposite direction at the IFR ICAO level of 9,000 ft while I was on an IFR plan. How does ADS-B improve this? Would I be better off with a $1,000 ZAON XRX?
I don't think that is possible from publicly available data.
Its hard enough finding what I did. And once you get into ICAO minutes you're eyes cross. In part the lack of information I suspect its a reflection that most of the rest of the world doesn't attach the significance to ADS-B that we do. But my guess is that Canada might be quite similar to Australia in terms of surveillance coverage and implementing ADS-B domestically is not even on their agenda.
However, I will counter with the question whether ADS-B will make any measurable improvement below 10,000ft (or maybe even F150) outside the J curve?
1. The traffic densities are very low and 2. Most of the traffic is VFR NOSAR NODETAILS and therefore ADS-B is not offering anything in terms of traffic separation or increased safety. ATC has bugger all value to the pilot in these areas and nearly everyone saves the money & aggravation.
Indeed I would go further and argue that ATC does not even represent a safety net for emergencies (outside the main population centres) since it doesn't monitor 121.5 and flightwatch is effectively disbanded. In the era of Sat phones, satellite trackers (eg Spot) and 406 MHz GPS EPIRBS, we are better off looking after ourselves.
The areas where ADS-B will make a big difference are the non radar coverage airports with RPT like Mildura & Albury where we should be slapped for not having put in radar decades ago.
Somewhat interestingly, the regional airline turboprops that operate in these airports that would greatly benefit from the additional safety of ADS-B are currently exempt from implementing ADS-B until 2017 since they typically operate below F280. Yet Dick's Citation can't transit through the ADS-B levels even in remote areas.
Once again, I support ADS-B. But it seems like we have made a mess of the implementation.
Why have we used altitude to define who needs ADS-B? Other countries have used airspace type (eg US) or flight type (eg RPT in Europe)?
Wouldn't it be more important to get all RPT on ADS-B than an IFR C-182?
After 2017 an IFR aircraft will require a $20,000 + ADS-B installation to fly from Mildura to Broken Hill at 3,000ft Why?
After 2017 an IFR aircraft will need ADSB to fly from Moorabbin to Essendon for an Essendon entry. Why? ( I can see more special VFR requests).
After 2017 if I fly from (say) JR's Lethbridge base to Temora for one of the museum fly-ins. There is a bit of weather around the Mountains, so rather than scud run, I'll put in an IFR plan (which surely is safer and should be encouraged). Its spring and the freezing level is a bit low, so I plan at 5,000 ft and go via Ballarat which keeps me under the steps then maybe Bendigo, Tocumwal, Temora. ADS-B will not improve my safety one iota. I will have potential VFR non ADS-B traffic scud running at various altitudes, Potential Non ADS-B traffic cruising VFR at (maybe) ICAO levels, Non RAA(Aus) traffic doing things that only they understand at any level, Non-ADSB gliders and potentially non-ADSB skydive aircraft. So, ATC cannot offer me any better separation or traffic advice that they can today. Why did I spend that $23,500 on the ADS-B upgrade?
A couple of flights ago I met an RV - without functioning mode C - cruising opposite direction at the IFR ICAO level of 9,000 ft while I was on an IFR plan. How does ADS-B improve this? Would I be better off with a $1,000 ZAON XRX?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia seems to be completely on its own in mandating ADS-B for GA and for IFR below 10,000 ft.
WHY?
WHY?
As I stated earlier, I believe the answer is related to staffing levels within ASA, given that labour costs in Australia are very likely the highest in the world.
Perhaps some bean counter/bureaucrat has some incentive payments linked to his future success at reducing staff levels.
I think we would all like to see CASA give a proper explanation.
I am not an enroute controller so I am not really sure what difference it will make to them workload wise with the introduction of the low level stuff.
As a procedural tower controller I can't see ADSB anyway, however it certainly makes it easier for me when Centre can separate longer to help with a sequence or even getting the higher one that is in front through the followings level (5nm radar vs 20nm with no closing procedural standard).
But I am also equally happy to hold you up high and overfly while number 2 becomes number 1 because he was cruising at a lower level. The joys of procedural separation.
As a procedural tower controller I can't see ADSB anyway, however it certainly makes it easier for me when Centre can separate longer to help with a sequence or even getting the higher one that is in front through the followings level (5nm radar vs 20nm with no closing procedural standard).
But I am also equally happy to hold you up high and overfly while number 2 becomes number 1 because he was cruising at a lower level. The joys of procedural separation.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Akro,
Thanks for the links to that further information. I haven't delved into it yet, but am really curious about one particular aspect of this issue:
The requirement that the ADSB transmitted position be the same as the position used by the onboard navigation system.
I am curious because this one requirement has made the installation requirements much more complicated - and therefore, much more expensive. I heard that, for a chap with a Global 5000 jet, the avionics upgrade cost him about $130,000.
This requirement would be acceptable if there was some tangible benefit behind it, but I cannot see any. I would really like to know what the supposed advantage/benefit is.
I can only see a disadvantage, which is because there could have been two (2) independent positions in play, but now there is only one.
With two positions, it would have been more obvious if a significant discrepancy between positions had arisen. With only one, that discrepancy could remain hidden.
I know this is not a big concern, given the expected accuracy and consistency of the positions, but in the absence of any other reasons, it really stands out.
It would have been a much more robust system with the two positions in play. I think we all take the availability and accuracy of GNSS positions for granted these days, but a future event involving solar flares (taking out some of the satellites) could make things interesting.
Thanks for the links to that further information. I haven't delved into it yet, but am really curious about one particular aspect of this issue:
The requirement that the ADSB transmitted position be the same as the position used by the onboard navigation system.
I am curious because this one requirement has made the installation requirements much more complicated - and therefore, much more expensive. I heard that, for a chap with a Global 5000 jet, the avionics upgrade cost him about $130,000.
This requirement would be acceptable if there was some tangible benefit behind it, but I cannot see any. I would really like to know what the supposed advantage/benefit is.
I can only see a disadvantage, which is because there could have been two (2) independent positions in play, but now there is only one.
With two positions, it would have been more obvious if a significant discrepancy between positions had arisen. With only one, that discrepancy could remain hidden.
I know this is not a big concern, given the expected accuracy and consistency of the positions, but in the absence of any other reasons, it really stands out.
It would have been a much more robust system with the two positions in play. I think we all take the availability and accuracy of GNSS positions for granted these days, but a future event involving solar flares (taking out some of the satellites) could make things interesting.
As I stated earlier, I believe the answer is related to staffing levels within ASA, given that labour costs in Australia are very likely the highest in the world.
Airservices Australia seems to be one of the few member organisations of CANSO (Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation) that does NOT participate in the benchmarking study.
I wonder why not?
CANSO - Transforming Global ATM Performance
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
sorry if this is a thread drift....but.
do you guys realise that there are more people outside of aviation playing with ADSB than there ever will be inside of aviation.
my boy has hacked his way through most of his experiments, but hasn't quite got the final thing working. there are evidently thousands of people playing with this.
using an american data mobile phone connected to a raspberry pi and a bunch of code in the raspberry pi to decode the adsb signals he has full output of everything the adsb system is transmitting line of sight.
he is working to input the information to his oz runways display on his iPad.
very interesting.
once the prototyping is sorted the chipsets get made into a reliable board and become a commercial product is my guess. maybe not by him but by lots of others.
do you guys realise that there are more people outside of aviation playing with ADSB than there ever will be inside of aviation.
my boy has hacked his way through most of his experiments, but hasn't quite got the final thing working. there are evidently thousands of people playing with this.
using an american data mobile phone connected to a raspberry pi and a bunch of code in the raspberry pi to decode the adsb signals he has full output of everything the adsb system is transmitting line of sight.
he is working to input the information to his oz runways display on his iPad.
very interesting.
once the prototyping is sorted the chipsets get made into a reliable board and become a commercial product is my guess. maybe not by him but by lots of others.
The requirement that the ADSB transmitted position be the same as the position used by the onboard navigation system.
So --- I don't know.
But I can see this being another 406 Mz transponder or Part 61 type implementation stuff up and at the 11th hour CASA will realise they have done something unworkable, back down and blame it on industry not being ready despite x years notice.
As a corollary, a friend noted tat a new car is pretty much always launched on time (or within a week or two) after what may have been a 5 year development. And, this is the industry that is fat and inefficient that we don't want. When was the last time we saw a government project delivered fully functional on time?
Last edited by Old Akro; 19th Jan 2014 at 06:04. Reason: Added last paragraph
Idly thinking of buying a gtn635 and coupling it to the Skyview and a Skyview transponder.
That would make me the slowest, but fully AdSb compliant aircraft in the world. If I ever got stuck in IMC in theory the GTN (with jeppesen database of approaches) coupled to the Skyview autopilot might get me out of trouble.
Reading this thread turned me off the idea. My view is that CaSA sees Ads-B as giving them "total information awareness" and the ability to automatically generate infringement notices throughout the country as well as pinpoint any aircraft for purposes of harassing its owner/ pilot.
No sale.
That would make me the slowest, but fully AdSb compliant aircraft in the world. If I ever got stuck in IMC in theory the GTN (with jeppesen database of approaches) coupled to the Skyview autopilot might get me out of trouble.
Reading this thread turned me off the idea. My view is that CaSA sees Ads-B as giving them "total information awareness" and the ability to automatically generate infringement notices throughout the country as well as pinpoint any aircraft for purposes of harassing its owner/ pilot.
No sale.
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
not only but also....
if you can see the speed and id of an aircraft and its position you can home in on it.
not everyone would want to home in on an aircraft for friendly reasons methinks.
casa's mindset and the innocent openness of adsb are just a packet of salted crisps for the mind of a determined hacker.
something to be munched on as a pleasantry.
if you can see the speed and id of an aircraft and its position you can home in on it.
not everyone would want to home in on an aircraft for friendly reasons methinks.
casa's mindset and the innocent openness of adsb are just a packet of salted crisps for the mind of a determined hacker.
something to be munched on as a pleasantry.
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
Some Bureaucrats would have us all micro chipped or tattooed at birth. It fits in with the new world order I believe.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the acronym CASA is inaccurate and outdated. They have no reasonable input into 'Aviation', absolutely no input into 'Safety', and they abuse and misuse their 'Authority'. The word 'Civil' can stay because they do worm their way through the civil side of things (lucky the RAAF don't have to deal with them in great deal). So I am going to simply call them C--- for the time being
And Frank, Dr Hoodoovoodoo already knows what we are all up to mate - magic potions, Witchdoctory, hocus pocus, boiling cauldrons, pins in dolls etc etc. He sees much
And Frank, Dr Hoodoovoodoo already knows what we are all up to mate - magic potions, Witchdoctory, hocus pocus, boiling cauldrons, pins in dolls etc etc. He sees much
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
I read a book a long time ago. Bamboo and Bushido. Forgot the Author, but he was a Pommie caught at Singapore. He related a new Jap Commanders first day on the job addressing some Aussies. It went something like this;
"You Orstralian bastards. You think I know fcuk nothing... well I tell you I know fcuk all.
And that is what our doctor of witchdoctery knows.
"You Orstralian bastards. You think I know fcuk nothing... well I tell you I know fcuk all.
And that is what our doctor of witchdoctery knows.