CASA Dispensation Decision Reversed by Airservices
Thread Starter
CASA Dispensation Decision Reversed by Airservices
Reproduced below is an article that was published in The Australian newspaper this morning (Wednesday 8 July).
I find it interesting that CASA would allow the exemption – in the same way that an RVSM exemption was allowed – but then it would be Airservices, the commercial profit making body, who would force a change of this position.
Procedural airspace across Australia is incredibly safe, especially because mandatory transponders and TCAS exist as well as the ICAO-approved huge separation standards required.
I have not previously been able to work out why Airservices were against allowing dispensations in this airspace – of course, other than for their friends in the military, but now I think I may know.
I received a phone call from a person who did not wish to be identified who told me that they believed the performance bonuses paid to Airservices management were linked to getting the ADS-B in at a certain date and not giving dispensations. This would be outrageous if it was true - surely it can’t be so. Can anyone throw some light on this? It seems strange that the safety regulator was happy to allow a dispensation but the commercial service provider wasn’t.
I wonder if Airservices management who stopped this dispensation coming in really understands the damage they are doing to aviation businesses with these quite staggering extra costs?
As I have said before, I see an industry being destroyed.
FLYERS BURNT BY AIR SAFETY U-TURN
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority promised charter aircraft operators an exemption from having to install a cripplingly expensive new air navigation system, but backed down after Airservices Australia reversed its position and insisted on no such breaks.
Documents obtained by The Australian show that two years ago, the then head of CASA, John McCormick, told one charter operator, Brad Edwards, that CASA as the safety regulator had reached an understanding with Airservices, the government body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, for exemptions to a mandate requiring the installation of the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system.
ADS-B is an advanced air navigation system based on satellite GPS, which relays aircraft positions via ground stations to air traffic controllers.
Airservices has sought to have all required aircraft carry the new system by 2017, three years before its full introduction in the US.
Aviation figures say that for smaller general aviation operators, the cost of installing ADS-B is at present prohibitive, because it requires aircraft owners to do complex engineering work.
Mr Edwards, who runs charter service Edwards Aviation with seven aircraft based in Armidale, NSW, sought along with other smaller operators to be exempted from installing ADS-B for a few years, until the economies of scale and mass production of the equipment in the US brought it down to a fraction of the cost.
“I could see it was going to cost me a big whack of money,” Mr Edwards said. “For one of my aircraft there were still no engineering solutions out there, so we said, ‘What are we going to do, we want an exemption’.”
Engineers had told him it would cost $125,000 to equip that aircraft with ADS-B, because the equipment manufacturer, Honeywell, had not designed the adaptation engineering for the aircraft type, and would not be doing so until the market developed in the US. “In five years, it would cost a tenth as much,” Mr Edwards said.
Mr McCormick met Mr Edwards in Armidale, and said CASA would arrange for an exemption for him and others in his sector of the aviation industry.
Soon after, Mr McCormick wrote to Mr Edwards. “I have spoken to (an aviation industry officer representing smaller air operators) and Airservices and the approach they have spoken of between themselves is to treat biz jets that are not ADS-B compliant in the same manner as Airservices dealt with non RVSM compliant aircraft when that initiative was introduced,” Mr McCormick wrote. RVSM refers to an advanced altimeter system, in relation to which exemptions were granted, and are still granted, to small operators, who are only required to accept occasionally being placed in second priority for flight clearances by air traffic controllers.
Mr Edwards said once he received the letter from Mr McCormick, “I went, you beauty, we can relax.”
But on a flight from Launceston to Uluru with Russian tourists, air traffic controllers kept his aircraft below 29,000 feet instead of the preferred cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, meaning it was burning twice the fuel. The controllers said he could not fly at the higher altitude because he had not installed ADS-B, and ignored his protestations that he had been granted an exemption by CASA.
Knowing the aircraft would not make it to Uluru, Mr Edwards touched down at Whyalla in South Australia to refuel.
“We were not going to make it,” Mr Edwards said.
He then spoke to CASA, but could not immediately get a ¬response to what had happened to his promised exemption.
He spoke to businessman and aviator Dick Smith, who contacted Mr McCormick. Mr McCormick told Mr Smith that Airservices had changed its mind and decided it did not want the exemptions granted. In a subsequent letter to Mr Smith, Mr McCormick wrote: “CASA took into consideration and accepted Airservices Australia’s safety arguments against exemptions.”
Mr Smith yesterday said: “CASA is the safety regulator, why are they letting a profit-making business decide safety issues?”
A CASA spokesman said: “CASA assesses all relevant information in making a decision about exemptions. In this case a relevant safety argument was made by Airservices that was accepted by CASA.”
Mr Edwards said, in all, he had been forced to spend $250,000 to equip his aircraft with ADS-B, with none of the benefits CASA and Airservices promised, such as more direct routes for aircraft.
“It’s had a very big impact of the viability of this business,” Mr Edwards said.
A spokesman for Airservices said CASA had put in the ADS-B mandate “following comprehensive consultation and support from key sections of the aviation community”.
“We have also spoken individually to a number of operators, including Mr Edwards,” the spokesman said.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority promised charter aircraft operators an exemption from having to install a cripplingly expensive new air navigation system, but backed down after Airservices Australia reversed its position and insisted on no such breaks.
Documents obtained by The Australian show that two years ago, the then head of CASA, John McCormick, told one charter operator, Brad Edwards, that CASA as the safety regulator had reached an understanding with Airservices, the government body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, for exemptions to a mandate requiring the installation of the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system.
ADS-B is an advanced air navigation system based on satellite GPS, which relays aircraft positions via ground stations to air traffic controllers.
Airservices has sought to have all required aircraft carry the new system by 2017, three years before its full introduction in the US.
Aviation figures say that for smaller general aviation operators, the cost of installing ADS-B is at present prohibitive, because it requires aircraft owners to do complex engineering work.
Mr Edwards, who runs charter service Edwards Aviation with seven aircraft based in Armidale, NSW, sought along with other smaller operators to be exempted from installing ADS-B for a few years, until the economies of scale and mass production of the equipment in the US brought it down to a fraction of the cost.
“I could see it was going to cost me a big whack of money,” Mr Edwards said. “For one of my aircraft there were still no engineering solutions out there, so we said, ‘What are we going to do, we want an exemption’.”
Engineers had told him it would cost $125,000 to equip that aircraft with ADS-B, because the equipment manufacturer, Honeywell, had not designed the adaptation engineering for the aircraft type, and would not be doing so until the market developed in the US. “In five years, it would cost a tenth as much,” Mr Edwards said.
Mr McCormick met Mr Edwards in Armidale, and said CASA would arrange for an exemption for him and others in his sector of the aviation industry.
Soon after, Mr McCormick wrote to Mr Edwards. “I have spoken to (an aviation industry officer representing smaller air operators) and Airservices and the approach they have spoken of between themselves is to treat biz jets that are not ADS-B compliant in the same manner as Airservices dealt with non RVSM compliant aircraft when that initiative was introduced,” Mr McCormick wrote. RVSM refers to an advanced altimeter system, in relation to which exemptions were granted, and are still granted, to small operators, who are only required to accept occasionally being placed in second priority for flight clearances by air traffic controllers.
Mr Edwards said once he received the letter from Mr McCormick, “I went, you beauty, we can relax.”
But on a flight from Launceston to Uluru with Russian tourists, air traffic controllers kept his aircraft below 29,000 feet instead of the preferred cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, meaning it was burning twice the fuel. The controllers said he could not fly at the higher altitude because he had not installed ADS-B, and ignored his protestations that he had been granted an exemption by CASA.
Knowing the aircraft would not make it to Uluru, Mr Edwards touched down at Whyalla in South Australia to refuel.
“We were not going to make it,” Mr Edwards said.
He then spoke to CASA, but could not immediately get a ¬response to what had happened to his promised exemption.
He spoke to businessman and aviator Dick Smith, who contacted Mr McCormick. Mr McCormick told Mr Smith that Airservices had changed its mind and decided it did not want the exemptions granted. In a subsequent letter to Mr Smith, Mr McCormick wrote: “CASA took into consideration and accepted Airservices Australia’s safety arguments against exemptions.”
Mr Smith yesterday said: “CASA is the safety regulator, why are they letting a profit-making business decide safety issues?”
A CASA spokesman said: “CASA assesses all relevant information in making a decision about exemptions. In this case a relevant safety argument was made by Airservices that was accepted by CASA.”
Mr Edwards said, in all, he had been forced to spend $250,000 to equip his aircraft with ADS-B, with none of the benefits CASA and Airservices promised, such as more direct routes for aircraft.
“It’s had a very big impact of the viability of this business,” Mr Edwards said.
A spokesman for Airservices said CASA had put in the ADS-B mandate “following comprehensive consultation and support from key sections of the aviation community”.
“We have also spoken individually to a number of operators, including Mr Edwards,” the spokesman said.
Procedural airspace across Australia is incredibly safe, especially because mandatory transponders and TCAS exist as well as the ICAO-approved huge separation standards required.
I have not previously been able to work out why Airservices were against allowing dispensations in this airspace – of course, other than for their friends in the military, but now I think I may know.
I received a phone call from a person who did not wish to be identified who told me that they believed the performance bonuses paid to Airservices management were linked to getting the ADS-B in at a certain date and not giving dispensations. This would be outrageous if it was true - surely it can’t be so. Can anyone throw some light on this? It seems strange that the safety regulator was happy to allow a dispensation but the commercial service provider wasn’t.
I wonder if Airservices management who stopped this dispensation coming in really understands the damage they are doing to aviation businesses with these quite staggering extra costs?
As I have said before, I see an industry being destroyed.
Dick,
ADSB is the future. Australian aviation is moving away from fixed route structures to more flexible use of airspace, user preferred route structures. This can only be delivered where the surveillance is either radar or ADSB. Fixed route structures are being phased out.
The transfer from £sd to decimal currency and the transfer from imperial to metric weren't easy, neither will the transfer to ADSB, but it is arguably for the better.
(AIC H24/14)
Reducing the procedural separation standards from ICAO approved 10 minutes (lets say 60-100 miles) to ICAO approved 5 NM ADSB separation standard is a quantum leap in terms of airspace capacity, aircraft being able to operate at their preferred levels sooner and for longer, weather diversions, situational awareness.
Having to apply procedural separation standards between ADS-B and non-ADS-B aircraft outside of radar coverage is the crux of the matter. It means a high degree of complexity that voids many of the benefits that ADSB brings, and I believe that this is the reason for the mandate; a mandate gets to the end state sooner and with a shorter period of operating a hybrid system.
ADSB is the future. Australian aviation is moving away from fixed route structures to more flexible use of airspace, user preferred route structures. This can only be delivered where the surveillance is either radar or ADSB. Fixed route structures are being phased out.
The transfer from £sd to decimal currency and the transfer from imperial to metric weren't easy, neither will the transfer to ADSB, but it is arguably for the better.
(AIC H24/14)
In order to take full advantage of this modern technology, Airservices Australia is installing additional ADS-B ground stations to enhance coverage and service provision for the lower level operations across continental Australia in addition to that currently available at or above FL290. As more ADS-B ground stations are added, some radars will be decommissioned as they reach their end of life date. Surveillance will be increasingly provided to ATC by ADS-B only. ADS-B fitment also facilitates the cockpit display of nearby traffic based on ADS-B transmissions thus increasing efficiency and safety.
Furthermore, air traffic control separation services are increasingly based on required navigation performance (RNP) standards as specified in CAO 20.91. Increased operational efficiency can be derived through early GNSS fitment allowing RNP derived separation to be applied. In addition, the progressive decommissioning of ground based navigation aids (reducing to the core backup network) will result in an increasing reliance on GNSS-based approaches.
Furthermore, air traffic control separation services are increasingly based on required navigation performance (RNP) standards as specified in CAO 20.91. Increased operational efficiency can be derived through early GNSS fitment allowing RNP derived separation to be applied. In addition, the progressive decommissioning of ground based navigation aids (reducing to the core backup network) will result in an increasing reliance on GNSS-based approaches.
Having to apply procedural separation standards between ADS-B and non-ADS-B aircraft outside of radar coverage is the crux of the matter. It means a high degree of complexity that voids many of the benefits that ADSB brings, and I believe that this is the reason for the mandate; a mandate gets to the end state sooner and with a shorter period of operating a hybrid system.
Last edited by sunnySA; 8th Jul 2015 at 02:26. Reason: ;
Thread Starter
So how come AsA readily agreed to give all military aircraft an exemption from the requirement and how come airline aircraft have a permanent exemption to fly up to three days with non operating ADSB equipment in the airspace above FL 290?
Sounds like a con to me.
And of course the FAA could have brought in the mandate 5 years earlier but decided not to do so industry had adequate time to design suitable inexpensive equipment. Which is happening.
Also notice how AsA have hardly put any ADSB stations in compared to the FAA. It's all about tokenism and about maximizing profits and bonuses to executives .
Sounds like a con to me.
And of course the FAA could have brought in the mandate 5 years earlier but decided not to do so industry had adequate time to design suitable inexpensive equipment. Which is happening.
Also notice how AsA have hardly put any ADSB stations in compared to the FAA. It's all about tokenism and about maximizing profits and bonuses to executives .
Last edited by Dick Smith; 8th Jul 2015 at 03:51.
Dick, the military aren't subject to civilian requirements anywhere in the world and play by their own rules. Nor are other state aircraft required to carry ADS-B, no matter which country they come from. It's nothing about "mates rates".
Who would pay for the extra ADS-B stations? The airlines would say bugger off, so it would be down to your friends in GA. Affordable safety Dick, affordable safety.
Who would pay for the extra ADS-B stations? The airlines would say bugger off, so it would be down to your friends in GA. Affordable safety Dick, affordable safety.
and the safety case put forward by ASA was .........
Thread Starter
Yes. Same with some bis jets. But they were given a dispensation to continue flying in RVSM airspace.
So why won't AsA allow a similar dispensation for non ADSB compliant aircraft.?
That's what CASA wanted.
So why won't AsA allow a similar dispensation for non ADSB compliant aircraft.?
That's what CASA wanted.
The amount of extra work involved in accommodating a non-RVSM aircraft is relatively small. The amount involved in accommodating non-ADS-B is considerably more.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone could argue that ADSB is a wonderful thing.
What I have trouble getting my head around is why in gods name did we decide to implement it long before the country where all the fixes will come from?
How on earth does the USA with their traffic density manage without ADSB?
Given Australia's traffic density why the hell did we need it ahead of the rest of the world other than to ensure fat bonuses for ASA executives.
The GA industry is left to devise its own fixes at considerable cost, which will have to be removed if our aircraft have to be sold overseas because our maintenance standards are not accepted by the rest of the world.
The economies of scale make it quite affordable for airlines, and no doubt they get a lot of free technical advice from aircraft manufacturers, a few bucks on the ticket price and away they go. Maybe the irishman could implement an ADSB levee.
For a GA aircraft flying 500 hours a year the proportional cost is enormous. Considering GA will receive no benefit from ADSB I can understand why some are a little upset.
What I have trouble getting my head around is why in gods name did we decide to implement it long before the country where all the fixes will come from?
How on earth does the USA with their traffic density manage without ADSB?
Given Australia's traffic density why the hell did we need it ahead of the rest of the world other than to ensure fat bonuses for ASA executives.
The GA industry is left to devise its own fixes at considerable cost, which will have to be removed if our aircraft have to be sold overseas because our maintenance standards are not accepted by the rest of the world.
The economies of scale make it quite affordable for airlines, and no doubt they get a lot of free technical advice from aircraft manufacturers, a few bucks on the ticket price and away they go. Maybe the irishman could implement an ADSB levee.
For a GA aircraft flying 500 hours a year the proportional cost is enormous. Considering GA will receive no benefit from ADSB I can understand why some are a little upset.
Thread Starter
We clearly did not have such extensive radar coverage as traffic densities are so low it was not justified.
Could it be that we went ahead before other countries so performance bonuses would be paid to AsA management.?
I think that's what happened anyway!
Could it be that we went ahead before other countries so performance bonuses would be paid to AsA management.?
I think that's what happened anyway!
We have vast tracts of gaffa criss-crossed by fixed routes that are inefficient for airlines to fly. Works for ATC without surveillance and low traffic levels.
Increase the traffic levels and introduce non-fixed routes (flex tracks and UPRs) and it comes to a point where it no longer works for ATC without surveillance. At least not without increasing controller numbers considerably. Solution, introduce surveillance.
Dick, when was the last time you saw how ATC is done?
Increase the traffic levels and introduce non-fixed routes (flex tracks and UPRs) and it comes to a point where it no longer works for ATC without surveillance. At least not without increasing controller numbers considerably. Solution, introduce surveillance.
Dick, when was the last time you saw how ATC is done?
Thread Starter
So it's a cost issue. Not a safety issue .
By bringing in ADSB requirements 5 years ahead of the country which manufactures most equipment results in far higher installation costs.
And this is a classic case of a monopoly supplier moving costs (ie extra staff) to the user ( ie aircraft owners)
Great if you can get away with it.
By bringing in ADSB requirements 5 years ahead of the country which manufactures most equipment results in far higher installation costs.
And this is a classic case of a monopoly supplier moving costs (ie extra staff) to the user ( ie aircraft owners)
Great if you can get away with it.
Which managers are getting performance bonuses for introducing ADS-B? I've seen this mentioned a few times but curious who is actually getting them?
Dick Smith
I thought the two things were linked - affordable safety.
Its both a cost and a safety issue, its an ATC workload issue, its about delivering the future, moving from a fixed route structure to a more flexible route structure. User preferred routes that avoid volcanic eruptions, weather (turbulence, cyclones, thunderstorms) and save $$. My guess is that the Industry (big end of town) and Airservices, through ASTRA have looked at the cost of installing additional radar capability on the inside of the J curve and decided that ADSB provided the safest and lowest cost option to provide this additional (safety, efficiency and capacity) surveillance.
One enroute radar = how many ADSB sites?
So it's a cost issue. Not a safety issue.
Its both a cost and a safety issue, its an ATC workload issue, its about delivering the future, moving from a fixed route structure to a more flexible route structure. User preferred routes that avoid volcanic eruptions, weather (turbulence, cyclones, thunderstorms) and save $$. My guess is that the Industry (big end of town) and Airservices, through ASTRA have looked at the cost of installing additional radar capability on the inside of the J curve and decided that ADSB provided the safest and lowest cost option to provide this additional (safety, efficiency and capacity) surveillance.
One enroute radar = how many ADSB sites?
I dont understand why Airservices has a say at all in a CASA exemption. CASA is the regulator for the airports, airspace, pilots, controllers, operators, and ASA.
You can get exemptions in other areas as well, like a SAT phone instead of HF, a ADSB MEL which allows flight in the airspace for days.
The difference between radar and ADSB is more like fixed line broadband and WIFI. ADSB is still in the early adoption phase, and we have not even tried to expand on its capabilities. It is the way of the future.
Eventually it will do more than just ATC. Once the network is in place, it can expanded to deliver a two way datalink service to every aircraft. The datalink for example could allow the transmission of the latest metars for the closest airports, and differential precision updates so aircraft can fly GLS approaches anywhere (there is already a low rate ILS like system based upon transponders called TLS).
Go back twenty years we used to take a photo on film, get it developed, and then talk about with our friends. Today we take a photo with our phone, and whatapp it away.
I think we will still need a primary radar around busy airspace to deal with aircraft failures which would prevent the transmission of ADSB, but the enroute SSR technology wise must be looking like a Motorola analogue brick phone compared to ADSB.
I think the eventual capabilities of the ADSB network have not even been thought of yet.
You can get exemptions in other areas as well, like a SAT phone instead of HF, a ADSB MEL which allows flight in the airspace for days.
My guess is that the Industry (big end of town) and Airservices, through ASTRA have looked at the cost of installing additional radar capability on the inside of the J curve and decided that ADSB provided the safest and lowest cost option to provide this additional (safety, efficiency and capacity) surveillance.
Eventually it will do more than just ATC. Once the network is in place, it can expanded to deliver a two way datalink service to every aircraft. The datalink for example could allow the transmission of the latest metars for the closest airports, and differential precision updates so aircraft can fly GLS approaches anywhere (there is already a low rate ILS like system based upon transponders called TLS).
Go back twenty years we used to take a photo on film, get it developed, and then talk about with our friends. Today we take a photo with our phone, and whatapp it away.
I think we will still need a primary radar around busy airspace to deal with aircraft failures which would prevent the transmission of ADSB, but the enroute SSR technology wise must be looking like a Motorola analogue brick phone compared to ADSB.
I think the eventual capabilities of the ADSB network have not even been thought of yet.