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

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

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

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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 04:39
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,603
Likes: 0
Received 74 Likes on 29 Posts
New ADS-B Requirement Built on an ASA/CASA Lie

It won’t be long before all IFR aircraft will require ADS-B Out. Yes, a little Twin Comanche based at Longreach or a 172 flying out of Birdsville!

Because of the ASA middle-management “ego” tripping (“we were first in the world…”), Australia is going to lead the world. Even in the USA, where an ADS-B mandate comes in at 2020, it’s not below 10,000 feet in G and E airspace.

Yes, the Australian requirement is unique in the world and I would imagine will send more small aviation charter businesses and training organisations out of business.

The Regulation Impact Statement (“RIS”), which is prepared by CASA and Airservices, is a total sham. He talks of savings of 10% to 15% in fuel and alludes that all aircraft will benefit in this way. Of course, if you are a GA aircraft flying predominantly in uncontrolled airspace, ADS-B Out will not help you in any way in relation to saving fuel.

Remember, costs can be up to $20,000 as you not only have to get an approved Mode-S transponder but also, in many cases, upgrade the GPS to the very latest standard.

And it looks as if they will get away with it! The industry is so weak (primarily because there has been so little money in GA for so long because of our ridiculous regulations) that there is virtually no-one powerful to object.

RIP General Aviation.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 04:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting that AUS mandates ADSB, when Airbus/Boeing ac will be fitted, beginning in 2015, with ADSB-2.
The FAA mandate in 2020 is for ADSB-2
underfire is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 05:12
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Too late now Dick
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 05:46
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Too late now Dick
Wasn't too late for Part 61!!

And VFR aircraft got a last minute exemption from the ADSB madness.

Its primarily GA IFR aircraft that fly below 10,000 ft who are being screwed by CASA / AsA.

There is no safety benefit for IFR aircraft in class G airspace. There is no cost / flight routing / traffic separation benefit in class G. Zilch, nada, none.

Australia is the only country in the world that is mandating ADSB for all IFR in all classes of airspace at all levels.

And Dick left out some costs. Any aircraft with a non WAAS GPS (ie anything made by King or Trimble, plus Garmin 150 & 300 series and 400 & 500 series non WAAS) will require:

ADSB transponder
New grey code altitude encoder
WAAS GPS
New WAAS gps antennae
New coax cable for the WAAS GPS antennae
Sundry engineering orders for the installation (another special Australian notion)
An avioincs rack re-layout if the new GPS is taller than the old one (ie if the existing GPS is a Garmin 155XL, 300XL or King 89 / 94)
If the installation is (say) a Garmin 430 or 650 and it replaces an old King Nav/com (for example) then a new GPS compatible indicator will be required.

This could easily top $25k
Old Akro is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 05:50
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The cost will be nothing like $20,000 for GA.

A Bendix King KT74 costs about $3,800, and is a reasonably simple upgrade from older transponders. The trays are similar sizes and I assume the same antennas and cables can be reused.

Bendix King KT74

Add, say, $1,000 tops for an Engineering Order and maybe $1,000 for the LAME install.

Probably $5k or $6k for the Mode S transponder upgrade, and you've got a shiny new piece of avionics.

Transponders need to be tested every two years (from memory) and the avionics LAMEs are getting fussier about tolerances, forcing owners to upgrade older transponders anyway. I've been told the Narco AT150 in my plane won't pass again.

If I have to get a new Mode C transponder, I'd just pay a bit more for Mode S to be safe. I assume this will be the same for a lot of owners.
peterc005 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:01
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
It won’t be long before all IFR aircraft will require ADS-B Out. Yes, a little Twin Comanche based at Longreach or a 172 flying out of Birdsville!
Excellent news, shame its taken so long!

The improvement in safety will pay for these things many times over and again.
If a small operator can't afford $2 or $3k to outfit their aircraft, then they shouldn't be flying anyway!

No point scaremongering, and sensationalising Dick - its not going to be anywhere near $20k for small operators, and you know it!
How come you are playing down the safety aspect on this? Shame on you!

Imagine if you beloved MDX went down with one of these things installed. The rescue crew could be sent DIRECTLY to the exact location.
p.j.m is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:07
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 488
Received 374 Likes on 70 Posts
It seems safety improvements to some are only warranted where they are free.

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.

Every second GA IFR aircraft which never sees CTA probably doesn't have the mode C working properly anyway.

In fact, I think it should be mandated for ALL aircraft, not just IFR. That would be the single biggest safety improvement we could make to Australian aviation.

The safety benefit for the country of the entire GA fleet getting new transponders would have to be tenfold more than removing the Willy flight planning restriction.

Which one are you going to bat for the most?

Partial subsidy for owners - perhaps.
Unrealistic expectation for old mate who's 1963 IFR model C172 hasn't had a new piece of avionics for the last 40 years - hardly.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:21
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,455
Received 33 Likes on 15 Posts
The improvement in safety will pay for these things many times over and again.
If a small operator can't afford $2 or $3k to outfit their aircraft, then they shouldn't be flying anyway!
Mate you obviously haven't installed new TXPRs and new GPSs in an IFR aeroplane.

GNS650 installed by Eaglecopters was $30k, new Trig TXPR about $4k - as installed over 3 400-series Cessnas.

I don't mind installing new gear but yes it is a major cost.

Dick - Good luck with your campaign to remove this requirement.

Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:22
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Peter

You are only counting about half the costs. ADSB requires a C146a (WAAS) receiver. WAAS receivers require new, different antennae and new coax cable. For most aircraft this requires major diassembly of the interior to route the cable.

In my estimation, the absolute rock bottom price for this will be $6,500 for a secondhand 430W plus $5k installation.

And I think you'll find the KT74 price you are quoting is a US price without Aussie GST, duty, freight & margin. Or is the price from Ozpilot which has a little asterisk saying STC and install kit not included.

Plus, you forgot that you need a grey code altitude encoder which your old Narco is unlikely to have.

$1k installation will be 1 day or less for most avioincs shops. Good luck with that.

You're lucky because the AT150 is 3mm shorter than the KT74. and 10mm less deep. If it was 3mm the other way, it would require the whole stack to be rebuilt.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:22
  #10 (permalink)  
 
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
It always amazes me when people only read the last posts before weighing into the debate. Go back to the first post by Dick and you will note it is a requirement for IFR aircraft, not VFR in the circuit at Oodnabloodydatttta. So tell me pete pete and pjm (pete maybe), what is the safety advantage at uncontrolled airports? (And Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself baiting this mob). Another thing, where can you buy an IFR GPS setup for $2,000 that will make your Victa IFR legal. I know it's been attempted by one "knowledgeable" poster without an engineering order who thought he could remove his ADF and use his handheld GPS for NVMC flight. This bloke got caught and still barracks for the CAsA mob. Go figure if he's a Troll or not!


Sorry Dick, rant over.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:27
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The improvement in safety will pay for these things many times over and again.
THERE IS NO SAFETY BENEFIT.

There is a HUGE cost benefit to AsA. There is a BIG cost benefit to the airlines through reduced separation, faster sector times, less holding, etc.

There is no benefit to GA IFR aircraft under 10,000ft which will continue to mix with mode C VFR aircraft and non transponder gliders, balloons, RA(Aus) aircraft & historic aircraft.

Once again, Australia is the only country in the world doing this.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:40
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 68
Posts: 1,552
Received 52 Likes on 20 Posts
Imagine if you beloved MDX went down with one of these things installed. The rescue crew could be sent DIRECTLY to the exact location.
Didn't seem to help MH370.

I agree with Dick; this seems to be more about chest-beating than safety.
chimbu warrior is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:44
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 82
Posts: 3,096
Received 45 Likes on 20 Posts
hey pjm.....

Reur "Excellent news, shame its taken so long!
The improvement in safety will pay for these things many times over and again."

Please explain...??

Serious question requiring a serious answer...thanks.

Griffo
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:52
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The sad part is, no one cares about GA IFR aircraft under A100 except the operators themselves anyway. ASA certainly don't, their contribution to the Navcharge coffers is so minuscule in the grand scheme of things as to be irrelevant. The decision is made so suck it up. It's coming, for the benefit of every airspace user. If the little guys go under because they can't afford to upgrade, stiff. If private IFR has to go VFR or stay home, stiff.

Don't shoot the messenger.
Hempy is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 06:59
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
p.j.m is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 07:03
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,603
Likes: 0
Received 74 Likes on 29 Posts
p.j.m.

You state,
“the improvement in safety will pay for these things many times over and again”.
How does an improvement in safety pay for the cost of the equipment? Let’s say you are a Twin Comanche owner based at Bathurst and fly basically OCTA and therefore use our 1940s self-separation “non-standards” for IFR flying. Where would you get any benefit in safety or any benefit from the accurate position your aircraft is transmitting?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 07:06
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Old Akro
ADSB requires a C146a (WAAS) receiver. WAAS receivers require new, different antennae and new coax cable.
More FUD? Any compatible GPS receiver will do fine, no need to run new cabling, existing GPS antenna/connectors will do the job.
p.j.m is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 07:08
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@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 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 07:10
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Where would you get any benefit in safety or any benefit from the accurate position your aircraft is transmitting?
Dick, please stop now, everyone knows you have an agenda, pretending to be thick, or obsuse doesn't fool anyone.

Just a single accident avoided, HELLO?
p.j.m is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 07:12
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The benefit for GA is better situational awareness.

Eventually everyone will have ADSB/Mode S, and once cheap ADSB receivers, like the OzRunways Raspberry Pie unit, become common place you'll be able to see who's around without radar.
peterc005 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.