Will New ADSB IFR Requirement Reduce Safety Even More?
Good to see the double standard still exists, the 787 has been banned from ADS-B airspace overseas as it transmits the wrong position information passing a waypoint, instead of banning the aircraft above FL280 they are allowed to operate.
Double standard, try getting away with that in your own aircraft.
Double standard, try getting away with that in your own aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see the double standard still exists, the 787 has been banned from ADS-B airspace overseas as it transmits the wrong position information passing a waypoint
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius, here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...n-data-419916/
Frankly if everyone has ADSB in and out, what the hell do we need en route ATC for? You will be able to see all traffic and the computer will tag the one that is a threat well before any potential collision.
With no enroute radar if ADSB fails due to a GPS failure ATC won't be much good anyway. Good luck going to procedural control if you've stuffed the airspace with aircraft using lower than procedural separation standards.
This has in fact been simulated in a dense traffic environment some years ago and the surprising result was the small number of conflicts when everyone just flew direct to their destination (Free Flight) while being able to see all traffic. No I don't have the URL to hand.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...n-data-419916/
Frankly if everyone has ADSB in and out, what the hell do we need en route ATC for? You will be able to see all traffic and the computer will tag the one that is a threat well before any potential collision.
With no enroute radar if ADSB fails due to a GPS failure ATC won't be much good anyway. Good luck going to procedural control if you've stuffed the airspace with aircraft using lower than procedural separation standards.
This has in fact been simulated in a dense traffic environment some years ago and the surprising result was the small number of conflicts when everyone just flew direct to their destination (Free Flight) while being able to see all traffic. No I don't have the URL to hand.
Clearedtoenter, ADS-B is radio waves so line-of-sight just like radar and has exactly the same range and coverage - if every aircraft were suitably equipped you could one-for-one replace radar with ADS-B ground stations.
swh, are you confusing ADS-B with ADS-C? Or something else? The 787 ADS-B works perfectly well here in Australia and not just the local ones.
swh, are you confusing ADS-B with ADS-C? Or something else? The 787 ADS-B works perfectly well here in Australia and not just the local ones.
This has in fact been simulated in a dense traffic environment some years ago and the surprising result was the small number of conflicts when everyone just flew direct to their destination (Free Flight) while being able to see all traffic. No I don't have the URL to hand.
Such studies have been done over the years, the first one, of which I am aware, was financed by United Airlines, with a major US university, in the 1960s.
Each one I have read came to the same conclusion about en-route (not terminal) operations ---- that the joke definition of ATC was correct:
"Air traffic control is a system for concentrating a small number of aircraft, in a vast and empty sky, over one point, greatly increasing the collision risk, and thereby justifying the need for air traffic control".
Then and now there is a truth in this, the first study was long before even the first rudimentary TCAS, random tracking produced a lower collision risk than organised ATC.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 12th Dec 2015 at 02:09. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that the joke definition of ATC was correct
I'm tipping that the cockpit will be automated well before en-route ATC.
are you confusing ADS-B with ADS-C? Or something else? The 787 ADS-B works perfectly well here in Australia and not just the local ones.
"Nav Canada first detected a problem on 1 July 2014 when controllers noticed a 787 appearing to deviate up to 38nm (70km) from its planned track. The controllers alerted the crew by radio, but the pilots insisted their instruments showed they were still on course. Suddenly, however, the 787 “was observed jumping back to the flight plan route” on the controller’s screens, according to ICAO documents.
Around four months later, Airservices Australia noticed a similar problem when a Jetstar 787 appeared to deviate “significantly” off-track, then suddenly “jump” back to the planned route on a controller’s screen, the ICAO documents say."
"In rare cases, after passing a planned turn upon crossing a waypoint, the data packets that arrived at the transponder would contain either the aircraft’s latitude or longitude, but not both. In those cases, the ADS-B transponder’s software would extrapolate the 787’s position based on the previous flight track before it made a planned turn at a waypoint. It would continue reporting the aircraft erroneously on the incorrect track until it received a data packet containing both the latitude and the longitude of the aircraft.
“It is important to understand that this is not a safety concern,” Boeing says. "
via Pontius #18:
FB, I don't know really where to start with your post. I think the best thing you can probably do is invest in some industrial strength tinfoil for a new hat and realise the USA & Russia are not going to switch off GPS because of the terrorist threat of GPS-guided bomb drones in Oz. They're quite capable of inertial guidance as well, so you'd better decide how you're going to combat l@ser ring gyros as well as GPS
FB, I don't know really where to start with your post. I think the best thing you can probably do is invest in some industrial strength tinfoil for a new hat and realise the USA & Russia are not going to switch off GPS because of the terrorist threat of GPS-guided bomb drones in Oz. They're quite capable of inertial guidance as well, so you'd better decide how you're going to combat l@ser ring gyros as well as GPS
Pontius, i received exactly the same comments several years ago in this forum when i first started posting about terrorists using GPS guided drones. Well, i've been proven right. Or should i say that those who first alerted me to the possibility have been proven right. There were many threads on the subject and many have now disappeared from this site, though there is a 'go-back' web history site around that will bring up the old threads.
Pontius, inertial guidance/laser ring for small terrorist bomb drones were covered some time ago here in pprune. Seems, at this time, that the tech can't match the un-traceability, versatility, accuracy, and low cost, of GPS for terrorist purposes. And the terrorist purposes... Usama bin Laden himself wrote that islamic terrorist warfare will be one of economically bleeding the west dry. (ref, Kilcullen, 2009)
If you have a look at the terrorists nightmare, the Predator drone, one of the main people involved in its development first looked at it as a poor mans cruise missile. i.e., a GPS guided drone bomb...
"...Neal Blue found his imagination fired by the coming availability of GPS. He began following the system's development avidly, and when he heard of a Silicon Valley company called Trimble Navigation Ltd. that was already making products based on GPS applications, he flew to California to meet the firms founder. He came back with a new idea: theoretically, an unmanned aircraft equipped with a GPS receiver connected to an autopilot could be flown with great accuracy to any point on the globe that its aerodynamics and fuel capacity would enable it to reach. If such a drone also had a couple of hundred pounds of TNT in its nose, and was built cheaply enough, it could be a poor mans cruise missile..." (via, Whittle, 2014)
.
Trimble? Nothing to fear being bombed by a drone with that system on board... 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get it, FB, and I'm not disagreeing with the technology available nowadays to a terrorist with $$s in his pocket. What I am at odds with is the tenuous relevance to ADSB. You've managed to squeeze in your point because the drones use GPS, as does ADSB but, whereas it's obviously a favourite topic of yours, it really has nothing to add to Dick's question. Might I suggest you start a different thread and discuss your GPS drones there, rather than clog up the ADSB thread with irrelevance.
(And the gyros know where they are in the first place because you tell them, just like every inertial platform and you don't need GPS for that).
(And the gyros know where they are in the first place because you tell them, just like every inertial platform and you don't need GPS for that).
Thread Starter
I understand that the US currently has ADSB coverage down to about 1000 agl across 90% of the lower 48.
To save money AsA has less than 20% coverage at 1000 agl. More likely less than 10%.
In the US IFR aircraft remain in a minimum of class E airspace in all IFR approaches so ADSB gives a measurable advantage.
Not so in Australia- most small IFR aircraft fly in Class G and get no ATC separation service.
The US has no plans for an Australian type ADSB mandate for all IFR aircraft.
To save money AsA has less than 20% coverage at 1000 agl. More likely less than 10%.
In the US IFR aircraft remain in a minimum of class E airspace in all IFR approaches so ADSB gives a measurable advantage.
Not so in Australia- most small IFR aircraft fly in Class G and get no ATC separation service.
The US has no plans for an Australian type ADSB mandate for all IFR aircraft.
Dick,
Why do you continue to pursue this issue? Particularly, as you've previously advised that you intend to sell your aircraft? (And that you've suggested that others should do likewise.)
Why do you continue to pursue this issue? Particularly, as you've previously advised that you intend to sell your aircraft? (And that you've suggested that others should do likewise.)
Originally Posted by Dick
To save money AsA has less than 20% coverage at 1000 agl. More likely less than 10%.
swh, that problem with the 787 ADS-B is incredibly rare - I'm not sure how many we've seen in Aus but I doubt it's more than a handful. I'll try to find out. Pilots deviate from clearances vertically and laterally far more frequently. Controllers screw up far more frequently. On the scale of risks it's small.
"Incredibly rare."
Apparently a risk of that magnitude is fine.
What is the magnitude of the risk mitigated by the Australian ADS-B mandate?
If it's mainly about user pays, and efficiency and cost savings for Airservices, the people who get the benefits efficiencies and savings should pay for costs of mandate.
Apparently a risk of that magnitude is fine.
What is the magnitude of the risk mitigated by the Australian ADS-B mandate?
If it's mainly about user pays, and efficiency and cost savings for Airservices, the people who get the benefits efficiencies and savings should pay for costs of mandate.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it should be communicated how dishonest these people are.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Dick is trying to say that anywhere else in the developed world IFR aircraft receive an ATC service at all times, with the applicable separation standards. Low level ADSB means ATC can apply better separation standards. However in Australia, AsA have elected to mandate ADSB for all IFR aircraft, without planning to provide that service. So what is the point of the mandate? What benefit - related to separation standards - is there?
Of note, it's also very interesting to see that Australia was the first to mandate ADSB, but has no plans for a SBAS, which has far more safety benefits that ADSB. Take this into account before stating I'm wrong - the rest of the developed world - which includes India and China BTW - have taken the opposite path, SBAS then ADSB. Safety before efficiency. I remember reading something about the priority order somewhere. Oh yes, day 1 at flying school
Of note, it's also very interesting to see that Australia was the first to mandate ADSB, but has no plans for a SBAS, which has far more safety benefits that ADSB. Take this into account before stating I'm wrong - the rest of the developed world - which includes India and China BTW - have taken the opposite path, SBAS then ADSB. Safety before efficiency. I remember reading something about the priority order somewhere. Oh yes, day 1 at flying school
but has no plans for a SBAS, which has far more safety benefits that ADSB.
anywhere else in the developed world IFR aircraft receive an ATC service at all times, with the applicable separation standards. Low level ADSB means ATC can apply better separation standards.
Australia is the only country in the world that is MANDATING ADSB for ALL IFR aircraft in ALL airspace types.