ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Thanks rotorblades
lP: They are a far bigger problem comparatively.
Are they a substantial problem practically?
How often do you have to route/clear ADSB-equipped aircraft in ways that you otherwise wouldn’t, because of ADSB-exempt bizjets, and what were the practical consequences for the ADSB-equipped aircraft? I’m not interested in knowing what you would have to do, in a range of hypothetical operational circumstances. I’m interested in what actually happens and how often.
lP: They are a far bigger problem comparatively.
Are they a substantial problem practically?
How often do you have to route/clear ADSB-equipped aircraft in ways that you otherwise wouldn’t, because of ADSB-exempt bizjets, and what were the practical consequences for the ADSB-equipped aircraft? I’m not interested in knowing what you would have to do, in a range of hypothetical operational circumstances. I’m interested in what actually happens and how often.
What about the concept of providing some infrastructure and jobs by putting towers and controllers back at some of our major regional airports rather than relying on ADSB to do the job.
In my view, the greatest threat of an accident in Australia involving RPT is not during the cruise phase, it is to going to be a mid air collision of a high capacity RPT aircraft operating at regional airports mixing it with GA while trying to operate on two radios - this is where close in control is needed.
Jeez, you can go to just about any country airport in India and they have an ATC tower, fire service and flight briefing....at every airport.
First world country - sure we are.
Infrastructure & jobs required.
In my view, the greatest threat of an accident in Australia involving RPT is not during the cruise phase, it is to going to be a mid air collision of a high capacity RPT aircraft operating at regional airports mixing it with GA while trying to operate on two radios - this is where close in control is needed.
Jeez, you can go to just about any country airport in India and they have an ATC tower, fire service and flight briefing....at every airport.
First world country - sure we are.
Infrastructure & jobs required.
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
Can someone educate this ADSB illiterate by answering if a WAAS enabled A/C say from the US can interface with a GBAS system like we have here?
In a word...NO
WAAS implies DO260B. As long as the right modeS 1090es transponder is fitted...and the paperwork is filled, submitted and approved....however, GBAS is a Ground Based Augmentation System...proprietary...licence...equipment...money
Just to add, Francis...do you remember that deal between AirServices and Honeywell a few years ago...system allowing CATIII approaches into a fogbound SY? That's GBAS.
WAAS implies DO260B. As long as the right modeS 1090es transponder is fitted...and the paperwork is filled, submitted and approved....however, GBAS is a Ground Based Augmentation System...proprietary...licence...equipment...money
Just to add, Francis...do you remember that deal between AirServices and Honeywell a few years ago...system allowing CATIII approaches into a fogbound SY? That's GBAS.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 21st Jan 2014 at 22:23.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, I'm sure there will be some controllers on here who control in non-radar airspace that would be able to give you a fairer reflection and more accurate picture, as to the effect in my radar airspace (in the ADSB exempt airspace on te J curve) of an aircraft not having ADSB at high levels is none...(presuming they have working transponder lol) as we can utilise 5nm lateral or 1000ft/2000ft vertical separation between any mix of ADSB & standard transponders
More of a problem are the slow & normally non-RVSM aircraft going into those levels (like some Citations ) but RVSM is a different topic
But we let them up there because we have discretion to do so and normally the workload allows us to manage it & not hinder RVSM approved aircraft.
More of a problem are the slow & normally non-RVSM aircraft going into those levels (like some Citations ) but RVSM is a different topic
But we let them up there because we have discretion to do so and normally the workload allows us to manage it & not hinder RVSM approved aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you remember that deal between AirServices and Honeywell a few years ago...
Akro,
I dont think the colors have any meaning. Given the line of site, its pretty easy to get on GE and radiate out on the terrain model...
Last edited by underfire; 21st Jan 2014 at 23:56.
Under fire, that's the gear.
However, there was a lot of debate about WAAS and a certain crash in north Qld..and then someone from ASA started pushing smartpath and how it was so much better....methinks the same guys are still there putting the knockers on a WAAS solution...vested interest?
However, there was a lot of debate about WAAS and a certain crash in north Qld..and then someone from ASA started pushing smartpath and how it was so much better....methinks the same guys are still there putting the knockers on a WAAS solution...vested interest?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oz,
Not sure what the WAAS talk is all about. First off, there is no WAAS Sat coverage, and second, AUS doesnt have the ground ops stations.
GBAS cost about $2.5Million per airport to install. All commercial aircraft from Airbus and Boeing are capable, and there is no cost from either to have it installed. Think how muach a few sats and ground stations would cost for WAAS.
We have been able to add at least one curve to final in the GBAS signal, and RNP to GBAS final is seemless.
With one system an airport can manage 26 runway ends, code different GPA, displaced thresholds (for wake mitigation), and even CATIII autoland.
Since it is not a beam, but a signal, there are no issues with multi-path, temperature, other aircraft, or blackout areas.
You can have ARR and DEP from the same runway end, because the DEP doesnt disrupt the signal like ILS.
GBAS is a perfect solution..I am really uncertain why it is not everywhere.
EDIT: Currently, SmarthPath is Cert to Cat I, (FAA) the actual broadcast is very, very good. There are quite a few government agencies in the world using it for CAT III autoland, especially for military helos.
In AUS, it is just too difficult at YSSY, runway config, ATC, FL constraints, and traffic blend to make GBAS effective as a prototype. I am hoping they move the GBAS to YMML, where it will be very, very effective. We shall see.
Not sure what the WAAS talk is all about. First off, there is no WAAS Sat coverage, and second, AUS doesnt have the ground ops stations.
GBAS cost about $2.5Million per airport to install. All commercial aircraft from Airbus and Boeing are capable, and there is no cost from either to have it installed. Think how muach a few sats and ground stations would cost for WAAS.
We have been able to add at least one curve to final in the GBAS signal, and RNP to GBAS final is seemless.
With one system an airport can manage 26 runway ends, code different GPA, displaced thresholds (for wake mitigation), and even CATIII autoland.
Since it is not a beam, but a signal, there are no issues with multi-path, temperature, other aircraft, or blackout areas.
You can have ARR and DEP from the same runway end, because the DEP doesnt disrupt the signal like ILS.
GBAS is a perfect solution..I am really uncertain why it is not everywhere.
EDIT: Currently, SmarthPath is Cert to Cat I, (FAA) the actual broadcast is very, very good. There are quite a few government agencies in the world using it for CAT III autoland, especially for military helos.
In AUS, it is just too difficult at YSSY, runway config, ATC, FL constraints, and traffic blend to make GBAS effective as a prototype. I am hoping they move the GBAS to YMML, where it will be very, very effective. We shall see.
Last edited by underfire; 22nd Jan 2014 at 08:04.
This is becoming thread drift now.
underfire, I could also make a good argument to put WAAS over the continent. Think about it, ASA owns half of that system...do you really think they will fit out a basin and then allow use of that same system for gratis?
If the argument is saving lives, you only have to think a little where all the fatalities have occurred...we should start another thread and bring this one back to why would someone want an exemption to fly in controlled airspace without a transponder.
underfire, I could also make a good argument to put WAAS over the continent. Think about it, ASA owns half of that system...do you really think they will fit out a basin and then allow use of that same system for gratis?
If the argument is saving lives, you only have to think a little where all the fatalities have occurred...we should start another thread and bring this one back to why would someone want an exemption to fly in controlled airspace without a transponder.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I am a bit simple, but how will ADSB change this:
If the argument is saving lives, you only have to think a little where all the fatalities have occurred
Even if it is a significant problem my take is most of the fatalities lately have occurred close to home, close to the ground and below 5000 ft.
Just how ADSB would or could change this is a mystery to me, anyone with me ????
If the argument is saving lives, you only have to think a little where all the fatalities have occurred
Even if it is a significant problem my take is most of the fatalities lately have occurred close to home, close to the ground and below 5000 ft.
Just how ADSB would or could change this is a mystery to me, anyone with me ????
Not sure what the WAAS talk is all about.
I believe today the only C146a units you can buy are the remaining Garmin GNS 430W plus GTN 650 and GTN750. Sometime in the not too distant future there will be King & Avidyne units - but they are not yet commercially available.
Despite that lack of WAAS in Australia, CASA is effectively mandating that we fit WAAS units.
FDE - Fault Detection and Exclusion.
But a rose by any other name. These units will still be commonly referred to as WAAS units not C146a units or FDE units.
Yes! However, regardless of WAAS availability in our skies. FDE guarantees the integrity of the position. Therefore the integrity of the ADS-B message. That is the single reason why C145/6 and higher are minimum equipment requirement.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just dont see ASA or anyone in AUS willing to pay for the sats...
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ml#post8212685
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ml#post8212685
OZBUSDRIVER, I was responding to UNDERFIRE pointing out that all the references to WAAS were not necessarily referring to augmentation capabability, but instead because WAAS units are C146a units which us required for ADSB. That's all.
To be a bit pedantic, the FDE capability of C146a units does not guarantee integrity of position, it just flags if there is not integrity of position. Integrity of position is determined by the health of satellites, the almanac position of satellites, antennae and physical issues of the GPS unit, environmental conditions and potential presence of jamming sources. A C146a unit does not have magical control of these factors to guarantee integrity - but it can flag conditions where integrity of position does not exist.
To be a bit pedantic, the FDE capability of C146a units does not guarantee integrity of position, it just flags if there is not integrity of position. Integrity of position is determined by the health of satellites, the almanac position of satellites, antennae and physical issues of the GPS unit, environmental conditions and potential presence of jamming sources. A C146a unit does not have magical control of these factors to guarantee integrity - but it can flag conditions where integrity of position does not exist.
Ignorance is bliss..??
The following article is very interesting on Australia's preferred (mandated) ADSB system. I apologise in advance if this is a re-hash...
Researchers reveal how attacks could alter aircraft trajectories.
Fort Fumble's response is pretty standard...
And ASA's is also typically type written 
:
Oh yes ignorance is bliss..
Researchers reveal how attacks could alter aircraft trajectories.
The automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) network was last week mandated to be installed for all aircraft cruising above 29,000 feet in Australia by the nation's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Australia was the first country to deploy the system using the 1090ES platform.
The United States uses a dual ADS-B platform of 1090ES for all flight altitudes and what critics argue was the more effective Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) system for flights below 18,000 feet.
Crucially, the latter platform provides enough bandwidth to enable encryption, which would render the demonstrated attacks ineffective.
"Our results reveal some bad news," researchers Matthias Schafer, Vincent Lenders, and Ivan Martinovic wrote in a research paper (pdf). "Attacks on ADS-B can be inexpensive and highly successful."
The United States uses a dual ADS-B platform of 1090ES for all flight altitudes and what critics argue was the more effective Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) system for flights below 18,000 feet.
Crucially, the latter platform provides enough bandwidth to enable encryption, which would render the demonstrated attacks ineffective.
"Our results reveal some bad news," researchers Matthias Schafer, Vincent Lenders, and Ivan Martinovic wrote in a research paper (pdf). "Attacks on ADS-B can be inexpensive and highly successful."
CASA did not respond to multiple requests for comment from this publication.
:
"Australia's air traffic control system and network has multiple layers of safety, security and resilience built into it to both mitigate and minimise current and prevailing risks," a spokesperson said.
"All threats, both real and perceived to our environment are monitored and reviews undertaken to ensure the integrity of our systems is balanced against the alternatives."
The air navigation provider said it "regularly assesses" risks to Australia's airways including "ongoing assessment of the risks associated with the adoption and use of new technologies such as" ADS-B.
"All threats, both real and perceived to our environment are monitored and reviews undertaken to ensure the integrity of our systems is balanced against the alternatives."
The air navigation provider said it "regularly assesses" risks to Australia's airways including "ongoing assessment of the risks associated with the adoption and use of new technologies such as" ADS-B.
via Sarcs #202:
The following article is very interesting on Australia's preferred (mandated) ADSB system. I apologise in advance if this is a re-hash...
The following article is very interesting on Australia's preferred (mandated) ADSB system. I apologise in advance if this is a re-hash...
Apart from short term disruption what would be achieved ?
Me-thinks any system 'attack' using that method would be of limited use to terrorists and likely quickly traceable. More likely to be done by some geek kid a couple of times until caught.
.