Will New ADSB IFR Requirement Reduce Safety Even More?
Thread Starter
Will New ADSB IFR Requirement Reduce Safety Even More?
A number of pilots I talk to who hold instrument ratings and own and operate an aircraft that is in the IFR category, have told me that when the ADSB mandate comes in (unique in the world) that rather than spend the money in fitting the ADSB, they are going to simply take their aircraft out of the IFR category and only fly VFR.
At the present time we have a very low percentage of Australian pilots with instrument ratings, compared to countries like the USA and it’s going to get worse and worse as pilots end up scud running all the time because of not being able to afford the cost of ADSB.
Another pilot told me he is just going to sell his plane and move on to other fields.
This is going to make our industry even more unviable.
At the present time we have a very low percentage of Australian pilots with instrument ratings, compared to countries like the USA and it’s going to get worse and worse as pilots end up scud running all the time because of not being able to afford the cost of ADSB.
Another pilot told me he is just going to sell his plane and move on to other fields.
This is going to make our industry even more unviable.
...Another pilot told me he is just going to sell his plane and move on to other fields...
Something tells me them ADS-B spruikers don't care about those who would so easily just walk out.
.
Yep.
The amount of IFR that I do does not justify me spending a minimum of $10k all-up for a minimally-compliant system, or upwards of $20k+ for something that complies and improves my navigation/radio capabilities.
My steed will be leaving the IFR stable.
The amount of IFR that I do does not justify me spending a minimum of $10k all-up for a minimally-compliant system, or upwards of $20k+ for something that complies and improves my navigation/radio capabilities.
My steed will be leaving the IFR stable.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see a fair number of light aircraft on Flightradar24 nowadays, obviously already equipped with ADS-B Out and ES. Around Bacchus Marsh, you even see experimental (or could they be ultralights) doing circuits on various days as well as a couple of PA44s out of Ballarat doing IFR training flights. Surely if they can afford to install the system, so can others?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another pilot told me he is just going to sell his plane and move on to other fields.
and personally was in a position to buy a well known school in bankstown, but decided investing in a medical degree would be more rewarding...
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends, if you are building a new experimental and want a transponder you need Mode S anyway so you get one that is ADSB ready and then you only need the TSO's GPS to go with it to have ADSB out and a certified nav source which you'll also need to fly night VFR even. Some people will spring for this. Others won't.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, surely you realise this part of the master plan? Make flying more difficult and expensive, get people to drop out, kill the industry and leave only Military, airlines and the top IFR end of GA. The other, formerly IFR guys, at the lower end will drop out. I'm sure the Authorities consider this a feature, not a bug.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Playing the Devils' advocate; why should the IFR aircraft that are being talked about not be equipped with ADSB? Yes, Australia is unique in the world with the requirement but it is a bloody unique bit of real estate. Can you show me other places with such huge tracts of land, other than the USA, where radar can cover the areas concerned? The Americans have spent huge amounts of money on the infrastructure to date and if you're expecting Australia to do the same, who is going to pay? ADSB is very cheap compared to radar coverage and I'm sure that if the USA was in the same situation as Oz they wouldn't go to that expense now when there is a much cheaper alternative. Why should the airlines, military and top end IFR have to fund providing a radar infrastructure that they don't need to just because the minority don't want to pay out on new kit for their aircraft?
If you're not prepared to pay for the service you want then you're going to have to go VFR because it is entirely unreasonable to expect the tax payer (Government funding and military funding) and airline passengers (airline contributions) to fund the infrastructure enjoyed by relatively few people.
Nobody ever told us flying was going to be cheap but if you want the certified equipment necessary for the IFR service you want then you're going to have to dip into your pocket.
And please, enough of the histrionics. Painting a picture of scud running aircraft crashing in droves because they've been forced out of IFR is disingenuous and does little for your argument. Given the benign weather we enjoy in Oz there is already little enough scud running taking place. The increase in the amount because a few people don't want to equip with ADSB is so negligible as to answer 'no' to your question and will tend towards zero as those that do have their flying curtailed as a result of their stupidity.
If you're not prepared to pay for the service you want then you're going to have to go VFR because it is entirely unreasonable to expect the tax payer (Government funding and military funding) and airline passengers (airline contributions) to fund the infrastructure enjoyed by relatively few people.
Nobody ever told us flying was going to be cheap but if you want the certified equipment necessary for the IFR service you want then you're going to have to dip into your pocket.
And please, enough of the histrionics. Painting a picture of scud running aircraft crashing in droves because they've been forced out of IFR is disingenuous and does little for your argument. Given the benign weather we enjoy in Oz there is already little enough scud running taking place. The increase in the amount because a few people don't want to equip with ADSB is so negligible as to answer 'no' to your question and will tend towards zero as those that do have their flying curtailed as a result of their stupidity.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should the airlines, military and top end IFR have to fund providing a radar infrastructure that they don't need to just because the minority don't want to pay out on new kit for their aircraft?
The system as we know it has worked well with procedural separation outside of controlled airspace. Further, we have such a vast expanse with bugger-all GA traffic operating IFR, the chances of a mid-air are exceedingly remote.
In my case I've spent 22K to install TCAD and I'm reasonably confident I can detect and avoid any aircraft, always providing they have a working transponder (that's also been switched on). Thanks to CASA and their over-the-top approach and early introduction, I'm held to ransom by Garmin and Mooney if I choose to bring my G1000 panel up to ADSB compliance. A spare $45K would do the trick.
Heard from a very reliable source yesterday that Airservices have to keep the radars operational to continue to look at the VFR traffic.
IFR aircraft being monitored using ADS-B and VFR being monitored using radar, is that economical?????
ADS-B for IFR above 10,000 would be a far better solution initially, especially for GA.
IFR aircraft being monitored using ADS-B and VFR being monitored using radar, is that economical?????
ADS-B for IFR above 10,000 would be a far better solution initially, especially for GA.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius, the people you quote have the means to fund the infrastructure and except for the military, are commercial operations that recover the cost in their fare structure.
I agree that the chances of bashing into someone are incredibly small but that doesn't really help Joe the ATC who has to provide standards of separation in an ever reducing airspace (or more aircraft, however you wish to view it). The world is moving on and we cannot continually say that how we did it in XXXX worked okay. Procedural control is incredibly inefficient. It may have worked with the lower traffic numbers of yesteryear but it's binding the hands of ATC and has no future-proofing (sorry for the management babble). ADBS, along with RNAV etc not only make things easier and more efficient for ATC but save money with direct routings etc and has development potential, whereas scores of miles between procedurally controlled aircraft, following necessarily mandatory courses, does not.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what ever happened to the idea of the general public, through their taxes, pay for the infrastructure required, to support an industry that supports them? imagine the same funding regime applied to the waterways, or roads.. every road a toll road... how well will that go down..
via Pontius:
...ADBS, along with RNAV etc not only make things easier and more efficient for ATC but save money with direct routings etc and has development potential,...
...ADBS, along with RNAV etc not only make things easier and more efficient for ATC but save money with direct routings etc and has development potential,...
Terrorists have already used GPS guided drones and will only continue to develop and evolve the potential. As soon as they have a few succeses with GPS guided bomb drones we'll be seeing them in Oz. I dont think a couple of F18 jammers will be enough. The only real defence against terrorist drones will be to turn off civy GPS. When that happens, lets hope ATC remember how to use radar...
.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over time ADSB transponders will get cheaper and more common as the Mode C transponders age and need to be replaced.
At the last transponder check the Avionics LAME said it would be the last time the old Mode C unit would be able to pass the tests.
I doubt anyone will buy a new Mode C unit now and by natural attrition and default ADSB will become the norm.
In my case it looks like the Trigg 31 will fit directly into the tray where the old Narco AT150 sits now. The Trigg transponder, EO and fitting should cost less than $5k. Spending $5k is a pain, but is not a show stopper. Instead of spending $3k to replace the old Mode C unit it is only about $2k extra for an ADSB upgrade.
Everyone will use GPS and ADSB. Radio-based navaids and Mode C transponders will end up like VHS VCRs - just a memory.
At the last transponder check the Avionics LAME said it would be the last time the old Mode C unit would be able to pass the tests.
I doubt anyone will buy a new Mode C unit now and by natural attrition and default ADSB will become the norm.
In my case it looks like the Trigg 31 will fit directly into the tray where the old Narco AT150 sits now. The Trigg transponder, EO and fitting should cost less than $5k. Spending $5k is a pain, but is not a show stopper. Instead of spending $3k to replace the old Mode C unit it is only about $2k extra for an ADSB upgrade.
Everyone will use GPS and ADSB. Radio-based navaids and Mode C transponders will end up like VHS VCRs - just a memory.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like lots on here, I can't comprehend why Aus had to be the first to mandate. USA options are becoming cheaper by the month, and they've got until 2020. What is the point in me spending 20-30k now to upgrade my IFR Archer when it will probably cost half that price come 2020. What was so wrong with our current system that we have to be the first in the world 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what ever happened to the idea of the general public, through their taxes, pay for the infrastructure required, to support an industry that supports them?
There would be nothing wrong with that if the infrastructure was required, but it's not. What I am saying is that the tax payer and airline passenger should not have to be paying for radar coverage when ADSB would allow ATC to provide the same service. The fact that some aircraft owners do not want to fit ADSB should not be the cause of a whole infrastructure being put in place and paid for by others just so they can fly IFR......and avoid scud running.
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 laser ring gyros as well as GPS
Duck, aircraft are monitored by whatever surveillance method they are in range of and equipped with.
There was never any intention of removing radars, in fact they're all being updated. ADS-B was never intended as a replacement for radar but as a relatively cheap means of extending surveillance coverage.
For the cost of installing and maintaining one radar you can install and maintain something like 30 ADS-B ground stations.
There was never any intention of removing radars, in fact they're all being updated. ADS-B was never intended as a replacement for radar but as a relatively cheap means of extending surveillance coverage.
For the cost of installing and maintaining one radar you can install and maintain something like 30 ADS-B ground stations.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Down south ADSB has extended coverage significantly. Before the ESL radar was fed back into TAAATS you'd be lucky to get identified out of ESL, WSL, BNS etc by F120. It's virtually to the ground there. High level stuff in bound from NZ (GEMAC, KURTT, SNELLY, LOLLY etc) are now ADSB identified 15 minutes prior to the boundary rather than a couple of minutes west. It's making a significant difference to the way controllers are separating (better, easier).
There are areas where surveillance has improved significantly (low level). If you haven't got an ADSB transponder your radar service will be terminated where it is always terminated. VFR pilots are **** scared of talking to controllers and don't take advantage of the services available to them. The reasons for that are beyond my understanding.
So, is there a benefit to the controller? Yes, in some areas a significant benefit (makes life a whole lot easier). Is there a benefit to the airlines and high level traffic, yes, they are more often getting the levels they want due to reduced distances in the application of separation standards. This a moot point however when you're transferring aircraft to an FIR that doesn't have surveillance, it goes back to procedural separation.
Is there a benefit to the GA? It depends if you are using ADSB services. I know one big charter and freight operator LOVES it, he can see exactly where his aircraft are rather than relying on text messages in suss coverage areas or expensive tracking tools. If you're an IFR lighty, yes, increased coverage will give a better traffic picture where there's coverage. If you need help one day, assistance becomes much easier if it's known exactly where you are, same with VFR. How do you quantify what that's worth?
Did there need to be a mandate and did that mandate need to be so out of whack with the rest of the world? Particularly the USA where most of the avionics comes from, where cost will reduce significantly with higher market penetration?...................
There are areas where surveillance has improved significantly (low level). If you haven't got an ADSB transponder your radar service will be terminated where it is always terminated. VFR pilots are **** scared of talking to controllers and don't take advantage of the services available to them. The reasons for that are beyond my understanding.
So, is there a benefit to the controller? Yes, in some areas a significant benefit (makes life a whole lot easier). Is there a benefit to the airlines and high level traffic, yes, they are more often getting the levels they want due to reduced distances in the application of separation standards. This a moot point however when you're transferring aircraft to an FIR that doesn't have surveillance, it goes back to procedural separation.
Is there a benefit to the GA? It depends if you are using ADSB services. I know one big charter and freight operator LOVES it, he can see exactly where his aircraft are rather than relying on text messages in suss coverage areas or expensive tracking tools. If you're an IFR lighty, yes, increased coverage will give a better traffic picture where there's coverage. If you need help one day, assistance becomes much easier if it's known exactly where you are, same with VFR. How do you quantify what that's worth?
Did there need to be a mandate and did that mandate need to be so out of whack with the rest of the world? Particularly the USA where most of the avionics comes from, where cost will reduce significantly with higher market penetration?...................