New ADS-B Requirement Built on an ASA/CASA Lie

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The best description I can think of to define ADS-B.

The technology burden is transferred from AirServices to the aircraft owner. AirServices is a passive receiver of the transmitted information. the aircraft owner must supply a certified platform to transmit the required data with the required reliability and integrity.

I have found enough information on this subject to choke a herd of elephants.

Best to talk to actual owners who are live within the system.

[garrya100]

Sorry to disappoint you, but a KLN94 doesn't meet the required standard for ADSB. You need to have An FDE enabled device, read TSO145 or better. The KLN94 is only TSO129.

I've been going through this process working out the costs of upgrading my machine, and the with the cost of upgrading the 430 to the W model (TSO145a), the cost of replacing the transponder and the paper work etc, it will be around $15k depending on the exchange rate.

For those that don't have an upgradable GPS, around $20K sounds about right.

I'll also add ADSB in to OzRunways to get some use out of ADSB, can't really see how it will help me otherwise....

[Old Akro]

Any compatible GPS receiver will do fine, no need to run new cabling, existing GPS antenna/connectors will do the job.

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong

ADS-B as required for IFR requires a C146a GPS source. Period.

CASA are supposed to be running a programme to investigate using C129a. But I'm not optimistic.

Peter 005, we've had this debate before. The King KLN94 is not acceptable for ADS-B. You are misreading AC 21-45 v2.1. The KLN 94 is a C129a device. Soon its only use will be as a boat anchor, along with the Garmin 150 / 155XL & 300 XL.

From the CASA FAQ's :

14. If I have ADS-B connected to TSO 129, will I have to update the box?
Unless the aircraft has a separate approval for ADS-B compliance, the GNSS will require upgrading to TSO C145/146 since TSO C129 systems do not output all the information required for ADS-B.

[peterc005]

@Old Akro - the avionics LAME I've spoken to is happy to pick up a feed from the KLN 94, so that's good enough for me.

I'll wait until 2015 when the next transponder check is due though.

[BronteExperimental]

Peterc, You need a new LAME.
Why don't you just print CAO 20.18 and read it for yourself.
Or if you have already, share the reasons for your different interpretation?
BE

[Old Akro]

you'll be able to see who's around without radar.

No.

1. Unlike the USA, Australia is implementing ADS-B out only. The units have no ability to receive data.

2. VFR, RA(Aus), ballon, glider & historic aircraft will remain using mode C or will have no transponder at all. So, Ozrunways or any other non certified cheap thing will not see this traffic.

All of the mid-air "frights" I have on IFR plans had have been VFR aircraft or aircraft with non functioning or non-existent transponders. Not one of them would have been made better by my spending $25k on upgrading to ADS-B. This includes an instance of a conflicting direction same level VFR aircraft while I was in IMC!!

There is no benefit to GA IFR aircraft in class G airspace from the fitment of ADS-B

Australia is the only country in the would that is mandating ADS-B for all IFR aircraft in all airspace types at all levels.

[thorn bird]

I listen to all this back and forth...and aint it so Typical of our f..kced up system....nobody, including the regulator has the slightest idea of what is, or aint required, or what complies or what doesn't...Bloody marvelous...The land of the guess!!...guess what!!...Okay..."Simon Said"...spare me.....PLAIN LANGUAGE UNAMBIGUOUS REGULATIONS PLEASE!!!


I agree based on the evidence... all the ADSB mandate was for, was so Mc COMIC could big note himself in Montreal, and ASA directors could get a massive bonus paid for by unfortunate GA operators.

Modelled perhaps on the Solar subsidy where a whole bunch of rich people, who could afford to install solar panels, were subsidized by poor people who couldn't, God our democracy has become a joke!!...CORRUPTION PEOPLE!!

[LeadSled]

The improvement in safety will pay for these things many times over and again.

pjm,(and slippery pete)
Absolute rubbish, and that is from AsA's own figures.

In the mid-levels, (10-25,000) the collision risk probabilities have been shown (using AsA's own model) to be a statistical zero, and several magnitudes less than the ICAO standard.

Under the existing arrangements, all classes of airspace in Australia have have a collision risk probability better than the ICAO target, which is about the same collision risk as an asteroid big enough to wipe out life on planet earth.

Neither AsA, nor anybody else, has ever been able to produce a genuine justification to the path that Australia is taking. Every attempt at a cost/benefit analysis to justify the policies have not even been genuine cost/benefit analysis, but more akin to cost/effectiveness analysis, where it is very obvious that it is effective for AsA to transfer costs to the industry in general.

I am reminded, some time ago, now, of a senior Virgin Flight Ops. executive extolling the theoretical virtues of ADS-B, but admitting that they could make a safety case to the board of the company, to justify the costs.

Of course, no trouble, just the Australian way, have it all made mandatory, and sing the safety song to the supremely ignorant, including many in the aviation sector -- as seen from some of the posts on this thread.

Ask every airline pilot in Australia who operates to uncontrolled aerodromes whether they think brand new transponders country wide for the IFR GA fleet would be a safety improvement.

Oh!! The wonderful world view of "Australian" pilots, where fact doesn't get a look in. I am reminded of the then AFAP Technical Director arguing that "a perception of a safety problem was the same as a demonstrated safety problem" and, therefor, Australian airspace management processes had to take into account "perceptions of a safety problem", even though rigorous analysis has shown the problem did not exist.

Being a pilot of any kind does not make you an airspace management expert, any more than having a drivers license makes you an expert on traffic engineering --- even if many think otherwise.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I don't understand the references to requiring a WAAS enabled GPS, although it is true that a number of Garmin GPS, that meet the Australian TSO's of a GPS source are WAAS compatible.

[CaptainMidnight]

I recall the same fuss here when transponders became mandatory for ops in CTA, except then there was only the print media, letters and aeroclub grumbling

Gotta move with the times and technology folks.

If you think you have a problem now, wait till 2016 when 200+ navaids will be switched off ......

Being a pilot of any kind does not make you an airspace management expert, any more than having a drivers license makes you an expert on traffic engineering --- even if many think otherwise.

You've certainly got that right

[Hempy]

Originally Posted by p.j.m

Originally Posted by chimbu warrior

Didn't seem to help MH370.

MH370 wasn't within cooee of any land based receivers like MDX would be today, but point taken, and "international" aircraft should also have satellite ADS-B mandated.

Satellite ADS-B aka ADS-C

[Jack Ranga]

(And Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself baiting this mob).

Oi I'm not baiting anyone, merely stating the fact that it is far too late to change anything.

[VH-MLE]

"Being a pilot of any kind does not make you an airspace management expert, any more than having a drivers license makes you an expert on traffic engineering --- even if many think otherwise."

The irony of that statement is just classic but you had better tell that to your mate Dick...

[LeadSled]

The irony of that statement is just classic but you had better tell that to your mate Dick...

MLE,
Hard as it may seem to you, Dick has forgotten more about airspace management than most posters here will ever know.

It comes about from a wide variety of experience, world wide, not just flying experience as an end user, but the almost 50 years he has spent delving into the subject, aided by quite an army of people, both here and outside Australia, who have provided him with thoroughly expert advice.

And, for those of you who have a problem with English comprehension, I said: "Being a pilot of any kind does not make you an airspace management expert ---", I did not say "Being a pilot excludes you from ---"

Indeed, one pilot of my acquaintance, who has only ever flown in GA, never professionally, and has never worked for AsA, has also forgotten more about airspace management than most I have come across, his contribution to successful modelling of separation assurance, and valid calculation of collision risk, is just one quite unlikely ( as far as most of you would conceive) pilot to be an expert in this field, it can reasonably be said that he has contributed directly to the processes that have been eventually adopted by ICAO for separation assurance.

Of course, that separation assurance standard is at the heart ICAO "alphabet soup" airspace classification, where the target standard is achieved in each classification of airspace, and any further attempts ar risk reduction are just wasted resources --- something that is still not accepted by most of you, who, quite incorrectly, see G through A as progressively "safer" airspace, as opposed to what is actually the intent and the outcome.

Tootle pip!!

[Dexta]

Mandatory ADS-B under 10,000 reduces safety...

I have an IFR C172 and a CIR, I rarely fly over 9,000', most of the time between 4,000' and 8,000' in class G. The reason I choose to fly IFR is so that I do not have to "scud run" and I enjoy the precision and skill involved in flying IFR.
My aircraft has a Garmin 300XL, and Mode c Xpndr. Come 2017 I will have to remove the 300XL as it is only TSO129a and replace it with a WAAS capable TSO 146 unit, I will have to remodel the panel, replace cables and antennae. The current quote was a ballpark of $25,000.
I am not going to spend 50% of the value of the aircraft on upgrading the avionics as I will not get that back when/if I sell it. So I have a choice to either fly VFR or not fly at all. If I fly VFR then I may be delayed hours or days waiting for cloud to lift or choose to scud run. If I drive then I have to take my chances on the "wonderful"Australian roads we have.
Also, flying at 4,000 to 6,000 there are no current ADS-B receivers that will pick me up anyway unless I'm flying where there is current radar coverage. So I have no benefit if I spend the money and reduced safety if I cannot afford to spend the money, terrific!

[VH-XXX]

@Old Akro - if you follow the link provided it is an Australian supplier - Mendelssohn, who've always been good in the past. AUD $3,795 inc GST is the price.

My existing blind altitude encoder should work find and I'll use the KLN 94 as the GPS source.

In this case, where the Narco AT150 will need to be replaced anyway, the difference in cost between a Mode C and Mode S transponder will be a couple of hundred bucks.

I imagine all new planes will have Mode S transponders for this reason and it won't be easy to buy something only Mode C.

Check out the Trig TT21, it's about $2,800 with built in altitude encoder:

Trig TT21 Class 2 Mode S Transponder

PeterC005, seriously you are living in a fairytale. Your costs are nowhere representative of the true costs to the opeartor and industry. Simply quoting a new transponder cost from your on-line pilot supplies store it not going to come close to the actual total cost for many reasons. Also, not everyone is going to try and install their avionics themselves in their certified aircraft like you once tried to do unsuccessfully in your Victa.

I liken your costs to IT where you say it costs $600 for a computer from Harvey Norman so why did it cost $3,000 per PC to roll out to some government department. Chalk and cheese

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dexta, if your home 20 is correct, you are still inside the old j-curve.

Just in case you do fly elsewhere...
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...t_5000f_GM.jpg

The red bits are old school ssr, the green bits are within line of sight of an ADS-B receiver at 5000ft.

[swh]

The GPS source for ADS-B does not need to be panel mounted, the easiest solution for GA aircraft at the moment is the Trig TT31 which is a replacement for the KT76A, and use the Freeflight GPS located in the aircraft somewhere as the position source for the ADS-B.

The GPS unit in the panel is not required to be WAAS, nor is it required to be the position source for ADS-B.

Freeflight make a small GPS receiver designed specially as a stand alone position source for ADS-B. You can keep your Garmin 100 in the panel and still have ADS-B.

http://www.freeflightsystems.com/images/WAAS-GPS.pdf

The Freeflight GPS and the Trigg TT31 will set you back around US$5k, probably budget another 5k for install.

Make sure your software version on the transponder and GPS Is correct for ADS-B.

Any avionics shop saying you need to remove your panel mounted GPS and install a WAAS unit for ADS-B, RUN away from, they are speaking B/S.

[Capn Bloggs]

I see no reason for a bugsmasher to have ADSB if not mixing it in CTA. Transponder for ops at Reg/Cert airfields would be great (better for our TCAS) but that is all.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

SWH..spot on!

You taking notes, XXX? There are more ways to skin a cat than just throw money at it.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Hey Bloggsy, why should you guys have all the fun. Rx unit fitted to a smartphone/tablet gives me better than your tcas. Doesn't have to be TSO to help your SA