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

ADS-B via Iridium Satellite

Old 5th Oct 2015, 23:28
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
ADS-B via Iridium Satellite

I understand the next set of iridium satellites which are being launched will also have receivers for 1090MHZ ADS-B. In effect, this means every bit of Australia will be covered to ground level by ADS-B, without any additional ground stations. This would offer the potential of Class E air space at locations where there is no surveillance at the present time.

I’m only saying this because of the Australian claim that you can only have Class E where there is surveillance, of course it is different everywhere else in the world.

I suppose the key will be – what will Iridium charge to provide the ADS-B locations to a service provider such as Airservices Australia?

Here is a bit more information on it, Aireon

It appears Airservices Australia has recently signed an MOU-type document with Aireon

Last edited by Dick Smith; 5th Oct 2015 at 23:40.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 00:32
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Does that mean you now support the roll out of ADSB for all IFR aircraft?
rr007 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 01:20
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not Syderknee
Posts: 1,008
I don't understand the need for Class E all the way to the circuit. As a regular IFR pilot into CTAF airspace I find the separation between IFR aircraft to be the easiest part of my day. Its the VFR traffic that becomes more of a problem. Moving Class E down to 400ft is not going to help with that. but hinder it as I am following ATC instructions while simultaneously trying to resolve VFR conflicts.
rmcdonal is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 02:59
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Yair. I agree. We pilots don't really need air traffic control when IFR in IMC. We can do it better ourselves.

I wonder why we have ATC at all considering pilots can self separate without any prescribed separation standards at all!

And no. I only support mandatory ADSB for all IFR aircraft if a proper RIS is undertaken. I am still waiting.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 04:13
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The High Seas
Posts: 46
Arr.

Dick, ye be a right barnacle-bottomed scurvy dog. If there be VFR traffic, then ye not be in IMC, are ye?

Stop changin' what every other wee pirate be sayin' just to fit yer own yellow bellied agenda.

Spend yerself a turn o'the hourglass looking up "Straw Man Fallacy"

Arr.
AirlinePirate is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 08:02
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
Dick, you clearly don't know what you're talking about with surveillance coverage and class E in Australia. Two examples - the "E corridor" Melbourne-Mildura and E airspace Sydney-Dubbo. There is no surveillance coverage at the lower levels of E.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 09:47
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
What about terminal non tower airports? All in class E in the USA and somehow the en route controllors can give this safer service without extra staffing.

Survailance is not required to provide this service and it works very well.

We won't even try it in Aus because the troglodytes say it can't possibly work without lots of extra staff.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 10:15
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 59
Posts: 331
Airservices explores space-based ADS-B technology

Airservices will assess space-based Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) as part of ongoing efforts by the air navigation service provider to look for ways to improve service and efficiency for its airline customers.

It follows the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement by Airservices and Aireon, a company working to create a platform capable of tracking ADS-B equipped aircraft around the globe in real-time via satellite by 2018.

ADS-B is an air traffic surveillance technology that enables aircraft to be accurately tracked by air traffic controllers and other pilots without the need for conventional radar.

The space-based system is planned to facilitate smooth transition between the world’s flight information regions while lowering ground infrastructure costs, costs to airlines and improving safety.

Airservices Executive General Manager Air Traffic Control, Greg Hood, said that Australia was the first country in the world to commission a continent-wide ADS-B surveillance system and had been using ADS-B for more than a decade.

“We are interested in examining how space-based ADS-B could potentially be used in the future and will work with Aireon to determine the potential safety benefits of the technology and efficiency benefits it may offer for our customers, especially for oceanic services and in cross-boundary coordination with our neighbours,” Mr Hood said.

“There is potential for space-based ADS-B to offer value not only to Airservices, but for all of our customer airlines, airports and search and rescue teams and we are keen to explore that in further detail.”

Currently, 99.5 per cent of all commercial flights in Australian airspace at or above 29 000 feet are done using ADS-B. More than 60 per cent of Australia-based Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) aircraft have been fitted with the technology.

“Airservices has long been a leader in investing in new technology to improve efficiency and increase safety for our airline customers,” Mr Hood said.

“We are pleased to be at the forefront in investigating the potential future benefits of space-based ADS-B to gain an understanding of how it may be applied in Australia in the future.”
sunnySA is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 10:28
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
"Without extra staffing". Where on Earth are you pulling that from?
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 11:12
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Folks,
It looks like "we" (Australia) are steadily moving towards the ATC union nirvana of just a single class of airspace, no names because no name is needed. Let us just call it Class Australian.

All without the slightest attempt at any form of safety or other justification, and to hell with the cost, the "policy" is "we can do it, so we should do it". Of course, "national security" got a good airing, no dastardly terrorist would be so unsporting as turn off his/hers/its transponder, would he/her/they.

Indeed, this was the grand plan announced many years ago by the original proponents of ADS-B, a step along the road to all aircraft airborne in Australia being known traffic, and, of course for Airservices, a way of charging all aircraft for access to "Australian airspace".

Unsurprisingly, Albo thought this last part was a great idea, another cost impost on "big boy's toys".

This is not just some cockamamie conspiracy theory that I have just imagined in a bad dream, it was all presented to ASTRA in its early days, and made it into several "One Sky" papers, extolling the virtues of all aircraft being controlled aircraft, direct tracking for all, and all collision avoidance being dictated by some "big brother" ATC computer.

If you go back to these early ASTRA presentations, the intent is quite clear, 100% surveillance of every aircraft airborne in an Australian FIR, and if you are not equipped, you just don't fly.

As I recall, it even made it into a draft discussion paper or draft NPRM as an option.

At the time, the discussions got right down to whether present transponder exemptions would remain (gliders, aircraft with less than 5 watts generating power etc.) and AsA made it quite clear at the time that NO exemptions was the policy position.

At least it would end all debate about Class E in Australia, there would be no Class E (or B,C,D,F or G), just A.

Am I the only one with a long memory??

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 11:28
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 775
Yair. I agree. We pilots don't really need air traffic control when IFR in IMC. We can do it better ourselves.

I wonder why we have ATC at all considering pilots can self separate without any prescribed separation standards at all!
Dick, with all due respect, I don't think you will ever win lots of friends and agreement on a PROFESSIONAL pilot forum by pushing for more Class E airspace. The issue a lot of professional pilots have with Class E airspace is the fact that not everybody is playing by the same rules. It's a half-baked piece of airspace. Having airspace where some aircraft are constrained by being controlled while others can waltz around effectively doing what they please INCREASES pilot workload when it comes to separation - especially if this was to be common in terminal areas.
Captain Nomad is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 12:34
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 81
I'm sorry, but as a 737 operator into several class G airports, I'm with Dick on this one.

I carry 170-odd passengers and have to self separate from several IFR aircraft into the airports I fly to (including FDS King Airs and other FIFO Jets).

Separation from the VFR aircraft is generally not an issue, as they don't conflict except approaching the circuit area. Separation from the IFR aircraft is often an issue as they perform similarly and climb and descend on the same air routes that we use. Class E in these areas would certainly be an improvement in the safety margins we aspire to in high capacity RPT.

Broome and Karratha became very troubling prior to the recent introduction of Class D towers - until recently they were Class G with dozens of Jet movements per day.

Sat-based ADS-B Class E? Yes please.
Derfred is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 06:33
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Captain Nomad With class E airspace everyone is playing by the same rules when IMC exists. All aircraft are separated by ATC.

When VMC exists sensible operators use the same procedures as they would with our existing class G airspace that you love so much.

There is also an additional safety advantage of mandatory transponder in Aussie class E.

But continue to resist change until we have an accident. That's what has happened with our other unique rules!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 07:25
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karratha,Western Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 445
I am pretty sure in VMC the IFR is still subject to an airways clearance in class E... or I've been doing it wrong for the last few years. So unless everyone is going to start suddenly cancelling IFR in VMC you won't be doing the same as you currently do in G. You'll be subject to an airways clearance and separated from the other IFR and traffic info on known VFR.
Awol57 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 07:40
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 310
Captain Nomad With class E airspace everyone is playing by the same rules when IMC exists. All aircraft are separated by ATC.

When VMC exists sensible operators use the same procedures as they would with our existing class G airspace that you love so much.

There is also an additional safety advantage of mandatory transponder in Aussie class E.

But continue to resist change until we have an accident. That's what has happened with our other unique rules!
Dick,

In Australia Class E requires a transponder. In the USA it doesn't*. Expanding Class E as you propose will increase the cost to industry if they do not otherwise operate in airspace that requires a transponder. Do you have data to support the safety case that you are willing to share?


* The US requirements are sumarised here:
Transponder Requirements - AOPA
no_one is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 10:53
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,334
This sounds to me like "total information awareness" no better service to us consumers, but a big dividend to AsA and Government.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 11:00
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 292
I do not understand how Class E is the answer. You're talking about controlled airspace where IFR aircraft require a clearance (so will be separated), but VFR aircraft can waltz on through WITHOUT a clearance and WITHOUT RADAR surveillance. How is this safer?
717tech is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 22:24
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
I do not understand how Class E is the answer. You're talking about controlled airspace where IFR aircraft require a clearance (so will be separated), but VFR aircraft can waltz on through WITHOUT a clearance and WITHOUT RADAR surveillance. How is this safer?
717tec et al,
With the very greatest of respect, "you do not understand" only means you do not understand why Class E is such a widely used airspace category world wide, not just in the US.
The rest of the world that uses Class E is not dumb or stupid, they use Class E because it works.
What I don't understand is how any presumably normally intelligent pilot could possibly believe the Australia Class G arrangements are "safer", (lower risk) for the traveling public than for Class E.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 00:52
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Derfred is right to want this Class E service for IMC operations. The traveling public deserve no less.

For those that don't understand how it could possibly work in VMC conditions, perhaps we should all look at the places where it DOES WORK and learn from that.

If VMC conditions exist, lets copy how the USA makes use of Class E.

Within 30nm of an airport an IFR aircraft can request a visual approach.

Once a visual approach clearance is given by the controller, the pilot of the IFR aircraft can navigate and maneuver however they wish whilst descending to the airport. Just the same as a visual approach in Australian Class G.


We can and should do away with the exhaustive and overly restrictive visual approach requirements we currently have in Australia and copy the US and other countries so that IFR aircraft can conduct visual approaches with the same freedom they currently have in class G.

Class E works with tens of thousands of visual approaches conducted every day in the US. Lets make it work here too with a simple change to our visual approach rules.
mjbow2 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 06:41
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Dick,

A bit of basic background on the Aireon system - (I'm not going to get into the Class E debate...)

the Iridium ADS-B is not intended to and will not provide the kind of surveillance required for surveillance services in CTA. It is designed to provide surveillance coverage in remote regions such as Oceanic airspace where terrestrial systems are impractical. Presently there are no international (ICAO) standards for using this technology for providing surveillance separation or services, and it's unclear how useful it will be for increasing airspace capacity or improving service provision even in Oceanic areas, communications capability out there simply isn't good enough to provide a real surveillance service and meet requirements for intervention times etc....

The update rate and latency will be far slower than required to provide the surveillance services (namely 5NM separation) we're accustomed to via radar or terrestrial ADS-B stations. It also probably won't provide reliable enough coverage at surface or low level for CTA surveillance services.

There are three likely uses of the Iridium ADS-B technology once implemented:
- Reduced enroute separation (probably around 15NM due to comms issues) in some dense oceanic airspace and very remote continental airspace. This would still be an improvement on existing separation in that airspace, but only marginal over the best available currently (30NM with RNP4, ADS-C & CPDLC).
- Provision of basic surveillance service in regions where it is difficult or impossible to maintain a ground based infrastructure (eg. Somalia).
- Facilitation of the future aircraft tracking requirements (independent of ATC systems) that have come about since the MH370 tragedy.
fower is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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