Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

Old 15th Jan 2014, 21:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

It is now becoming obvious that after Australia led the United States and other leading aviation countries by six years in the ADS-B mandate that there are now business jets which are flying non-ADS-B compliant and are being forced by Airservices Australia Air Traffic Controllers to fly at flight 290 or below in the non-radar airspace. Already I have heard that one plane was forced into very bad weather.

I just wonder how long it will be before there is a serious accident causing multiple fatalities because a business jet is not able to fly above the weather but is being forced by the Air Traffic Controller to fly in the middle of the worst weather possible. Especially with summer coming on and the wet season in the Northern Territory and some pretty horrendous weather conditions around.

I am sure there are those who will say that the pilot can use the radar to weave in and out through the big CBs, however it is not always possible to avoid the maximum turbulence this way.

If you look on Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! it’s obvious that about 98% of the time there are plenty of flight levels available in the non-radar airspace where these aircraft could operate and, once again, using Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!, it’s quite obvious that non-equipped aircraft would be able to climb and descend with procedural separation standard.

I understand it’s not the ATCs who have refused to accept these aircraft, but a small group of “concrete minded bureaucrats” within the upper echelons of Airservices and CASA.

Of course, when the inevitable accident occurs because a bizjet has had its wings pulled off, I bet it will be the ATC who will be blamed or will at least have it on his or her conscience that the aircraft could have flown above the weather and been separated in an acceptably safe way.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 21:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 87
I operated F28s in the tropics for around 10 years at the levels you are so concerned about ie. FL280/ FL290 never came close to having the wings torn off Dick. In fact after the DC3 and F27 it was sheer luxury to be at those Flight Levels, as always I suspect you have an alterior motive for raising the issue,I wonder what it is ?
Minosavy Masta is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 22:04
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 665
Just pay for the upgrade and abandon your infantile sense of entitlement Dick.

I am still working around compromises in the airspace made to suit your personal wants.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 22:11
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Dick. I'll probably get the blame for this, being one of many who fought to stop the mandatory installation of ADSB for every aircraft. (like my Piper Colt). I suppose I inadvertently got a 50% win. Airservices and CASA felt duty obliged to mandate it elsewhere, (above FL290), where the poor bloody fare paying travelling public, (read voters), matter, who if asked would support it 100%. (even in the circuit at Oodnadatta). Of note however is the opposite of those who vehemently proposed its introduction everywhere got 50% of what they were looking for. As we all know compromises rarely work except to keep the peace.


I didn't intend for this to happen, but those concrete minded supporters did and still need more. Not all are Bureaucrats either.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 15th Jan 2014 at 22:16. Reason: And I'm not joking either.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 22:11
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,745
You have got to be joking...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 22:19
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 14
Dick, I thought you were a founder of the Australian Sceptic’s society - remember all those logical fallacies your railed against? Here's a wall chart in case you forgot: Your Logical Fallacies

Your post ticks the strawman & appeal to emotion fallacies as you have framed it.
tempsky is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 22:36
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
I have spoken to controllers who reckon they can easily handle the small number of aircraft that havn't yet been able to get a manufactures service bulletin for the upgrade.- just as they did with non RVSM compliant aircraft.

If I was a professional controller I would not like to be told that I had to force business jets to low levels( up to $1000 per hour extra fuel cost as well as the WX worries) unless there was a good reason for it.

I would want to provide a professional service to all that were paying my salary- not force their passengers into operations with lower levels of safety.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 22:43
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Australo, what compromises?

I havn't been involved for a decade so why havn't you had the problems rectified?

Or have you fabricated a story? I challenge you to give a bit more info on the changes you do not like.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 22:50
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Back to your Aussiemite Richard. Stop stirring up the pot for you entertainment.

"Forced into bad weather...." Give me strength....

p.s. Don't tell the poor Q400 drivers in QLink about the possibility of having their wings torn off mate, they too fly in those dangerous Flight Levels because they can't get any higher!!

Drivel, utter tosh.
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 22:53
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,745
force business jets to low levels( up to $1000 per hour extra fuel cost
You are joking. You're a numbers-man, Dick; prove your claim.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 22:55
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 435
Zero safety issues with flying below FL290, to say there are is just emotive and with that logic we should ban Dash 8, ATR and Saab operations. However, at $1000 an hour increase in cost, I understand the frustration of the owners/passengers. Are these few that can't get the manufacturer service bulletin because they left their run late or because the manufacturer has been dragging their feet?
angryrat is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 23:00
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
I think what Australo is probably referring to is the CTA steps Australia wide that have been compromised for the benefit of a few GA aircraft to avoid paying airspace charges.
For every other minute of the day there is a high capacity jet flying a compromised descent profile burning excess fuel and pumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere.
The problem is getting worse as a result of newer aircraft types with lower descent (more efficient) profiles.
This problem rarely exists anywhere else in the world.
-438 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 23:02
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
If I was a professional controller I would not like to be told that I had to force business jets to low levels.....unless there was a good reason for it.
Really?? If you were a professional controller you wouldn't like to do anything that doesn't have a good reason for it explained to you? What would you do if no one could explain a 'good reason' to you, break the rules on your own authority or suck it up and do what you are told? That's how Aviation in this country works now Dick. You should know, you started it. The only difference is back then we all thought your ideas were shit, but you didn't, so we had to do what you wanted even though there was no 'good reason' for it to anyone other than you. Its still the same today...people making arbitrary decisions without consultation.

Blaming the ATC's is infantile and something I would have honestly thought was beneath your level of intelligence...ATC's are given rules to follow, if they don't follow them in todays highly regulated workplace they get stood down and potentially lose their livelihoods. If you want to bitch about the ADS mandate take it up with the rule makers not the poor bottom feeders at the console. Feeling irrelevant as you get older Dick? Reap the whirlwind..

Last edited by Hempy; 16th Jan 2014 at 00:18.
Hempy is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 23:13
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 302
Are these few that can't get the manufacturer service bulletin because they left their run late or because the manufacturer has been dragging their feet?
It's because those manufacturers sell the vast majority of their aircraft to customers in the USA, Europe, and other places where ADS-B mandates are either a few years away, or there is currently no mandate at all.

The only reason Australia is rolling in ADS-B before the rest of the world, and therefore before the market is ready for it is to give senior CASA staff something to brag about to their mates in Montreal.
bankrunner is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 23:24
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,745
Australo, what compromises?

I havn't been involved for a decade so why havn't you had the problems rectified?

Or have you fabricated a story? I challenge you to give a bit more info on the changes you do not like.
Dick you are joking, again? CTA Steps?? Every time I hear an A330 or 777 being told "further descent in XX miles" and I think what that crew is going through getting high on profile, I think of you, Dick.

AngryRat, ask Dick what his total fuel flow is at 350 verses 290. Then see how that matches this extra $1000 per hour claim. Maybe challenge him "to give a bit more info"...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2014, 00:00
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: YBBN
Posts: 48
It is now becoming obvious that after Australia led the United States and other leading aviation countries by six years in the ADS-B mandate that there are now business jets which are flying non-ADS-B compliant and are being forced by Airservices Australia Air Traffic Controllers to fly at flight 290 or below in the non-radar airspace. Already I have heard that one plane was forced into very bad weather.
Whilst I see your point, the mandate for ADS-B has been out there for a while, and there is a process to give yourself more time to become compliant. If a pilot of a bizjet can't follow that process, that's negligence on their part. Whilst it is expensive (I think around 50K?) and it does take the plane out of service, if you can afford to own and maintain a biz jet, you can afford to upgrade to ADS-B. They aren't Commodores.

If I was a professional controller I would not like to be told that I had to force business jets to low levels( up to $1000 per hour extra fuel cost as well as the WX worries) unless there was a good reason for it.
About 400lbs/hr difference at 280 v say 410. At the current Shell price for A1, 182kg is about $350 an hour. And that's on what are probably less efficient turbines than on newer jets.

Planes fly at 280 and below all over Australia, Dick. I don't see the problem.
yssy.ymel is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2014, 00:15
  #17 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,318
Without entering the debate..........

If a pilot of a bizjet can't follow that process, that's negligence on their part. Whilst it is expensive (I think around 50K?) and it does take the plane out of service, if you can afford to own and maintain a biz jet, you can afford to upgrade to ADS-B.
I don't believe it is a matter of affordability or cost, rather that Service Bulletins are not yet available to install ADSB in many pre-existing aircraft types, including certain models of the Cessna Citation series.
tail wheel is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2014, 00:18
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 334
I just wonder how long it will be before there is a serious accident causing multiple fatalities because a business jet is not able to fly above the weather but is being forced by the Air Traffic Controller to fly in the middle of the worst weather possible. Especially with summer coming on and the wet season in the Northern Territory and some pretty horrendous weather conditions around.
As someone who spends most of the time in the mid-F300s to low-F400s, the idea that I can be safe by flying above the worst of the NT wet season weather is a complete fallacy. Even FL500 is nowhere near good enough. Unless you're in something like a U2, the only way to be safe with that stuff is to not be in the same place.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2014, 00:29
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: YBBN
Posts: 48
I don't believe it is a matter of affordability or cost, rather that Service Bulletins are not yet available to install ADSB in many pre-existing aircraft types, including certain models of the Cessna Citation series.
Thanks for that Tail Wheel. I'd not considered that. There is still the exemption process until that happens.
yssy.ymel is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2014, 00:29
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 665
I was referring to the CTA steps primarily, but also the arbitrarily high floor of controlled airspace over most of the continent. Often times dispatch at FL250 or below is required by DDG requirements. The FL240 floor leaves little scope for operation.

The BBJ would not burn an extra thousand an hour...and I have often opted for FL280 in similar types with negligible change to SFC.

I will add my voice to the many pointing out that the mid-levels were fine for the first half of aviation's short history. And still are too for huge fleets of aircraft daily.

RVSM and ADSB are modern advances. If you don't like them maybe you should trade in your A340* executive jet for something more appropriate like a Howard 500 or Beech 18

*no wait...that'd be compliant, and STILL wouldn't burn $1000hr more 6000' lower than optimum.
Australopithecus is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.