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

Latest Price for ADSB US$163,000 AU$213,252

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

Latest Price for ADSB US$163,000 AU$213,252

Old 17th Apr 2016, 05:05
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,781
Originally Posted by Defenestrator View Post
Everyone is feeling the pain Dick. Whilst within the 'J' curve you can operate in RVSM airspace without ADSB. However once outside your limited to FL280 as FL290 is in RVSM airspace.

D
Nope, can't do that anymore. ADSB exemptions for operating above FL280 in the J curve expired in December and haven't been renewed.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2016, 16:17
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 204
"Replace the Enroute Surveillance "

Folk,

Sorry I cannot immediately respond to posts. Usually I'm off working as a sole trader consultant having to earn a quid to stay on top but, to tell the truth, yesterday and today I was at the Singapore Rugby Sevens: did you see Kenya demolish Fiji in the final? Great weekend but back to PPRuNe watching.

Re posts 16 and 22. As I remember, there was a bit of a dummy spit within AirServices about the rejection of the low level ADS/B programme and the enroute radars have been or are in the process of being replaced.

En route Radar Replacement Program | Airservices seems to refer. As I remember the tender only allowed for one on one replacement of the existing SSR ennroute radars and no non complying alternatives -but I may have misread the tender docs based on my limited understanding of surveillance needs and technologies.

My abject apologies for injecting fact into the argument.

MJG
lay about ex military guy and airspace regulator in several States whose international ATM surveillance technology experience is limited to only two and a bit decades.
mgahan is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2016, 23:10
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SYDNEY AUSTRALIA
Posts: 30
"Replace the Enroute Surveillance "

@megahan

Sure, replace the ageing 'existing'radar ie 'The J Curve" where does it say about new stations to cover all the areas that ADSB do now.

We can get airborne out of Osborne/ Trepell mine these days and be identified at 8000 feet. In our aircraft that aren't fitted we then have to trudge along in the weather at 280 until close to Hughenden before they will let us up. It was cheaper for AS to ask industry to fund ADSB and put in ADSB receivers around the country than what it would have been to upgrade / increase their ground based radars to cover more of Oz

Sure America is going this way as well due to their ageing radar equipment but not for years to come and not by way of enroute charges that we pay as well. Additionally the US government offers an interest free loan to operators to install ADSB equipment in commercially operated aircraft, but that will never happen here either
Jetgo Management is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 00:47
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 73
Forgive me if this sounds naive but surely the industry as a whole has some say in what CASA can and can't do...
pressing the issue to government re the huge cost should see them back down and bring us more in line with the US? what happens in Europe? are all a/c there required to have ADSB? what about low level IFR?

AOPA don't appear to have much power, shown by the amount of threads on PPRuNe complaining about CASA,
Is it time for a new union to represent the industry?
there are a great deal of wealthy and influential people on PPRuNe,
if a factual breakdown of the costs incurred by the industry surely at the very least an interest free loan could be offered to cover the cost of the installation,

all the ADSB mandate favors is the large and established operators who can easily afford the $200K fit. (who are then favored by lower fuel costs as they can operate above FL290) what about the myriad of operators running old iron, how much did it cost Alliance to upgrade?

At the end of the day i see Australia as the country where the little guy is afraid to tell the big guy to get f*cked,
and that's not just against the government, i see it all the time in big business,
laws/ requirements are introduced without consultation with the little guy who is then shot down for trying to negotiate back.
e.g. needless safety measures that do more to hinder than 'keep safe'

so has anyone said f*ck off to the big guy?
or more reasonably, lets relax and follow the US example?
Supermouse3 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 23:02
  #25 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,187
ATCs Can you assist with this query.?

I note from Flight Radar 24 that there is rarely an aircraft above FL410 over the Aus mainland.

I can fly my Citation to and from Christmas Island above this level. Obviously I can climb out of BK in radar airspace so this should not be a problem.

En Route I would have to be treated procedurally however this would also happen if I was at FL290. So what would be the difference?

On descent into Broome I would also have to be procedurally separated from other traffic. If any traffic was there!

Now if at 290 wouldn't I have to be separated from other traffic descending into places like Alice and Ayers Rock from higher flight levels ?

Doesn't this mean all the controllers will have to be procedurally rated and current?

So what's the problem in approving my flight at FL450? Or is it just sheer bastardry ?

Remember John Mc Cormac wanted to give dispensations but AsA said not acceptably safe.

Yes. I can afford the $8 k of extra fuel- but what a rediculous ( ree-DIK-ulus) waste. I would rather donate it to Angel Flight so they can do some extra good work.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 19th Apr 2016 at 06:09. Reason: Spelin reedikulas for fujjiii
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 23:46
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 67
Posts: 775
Hell Dick. When will you learn to spell ridiculous?
fujii is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 23:50
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,059
I note from Flight Radar 24 that there is rarely an aircraft above FL410 over the Aus mainland.
You've been told a few times that FR24 only displays around 10% of traffic outside the "J" curve and capital cities/major towns.

From their site:

Why don't you have coverage in my area?

Flightradar24 only have coverage in areas where someone has installed an ADS-B receiver and feeds his/her data into Flightradar24. If there are no connected ABS-B receivers in an area, then there is no coverage in that area.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 09:21
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,187
Ok just look under the J curve to Adelaide. Virtually no aircraft above FL410.

Can someone answer my post number 27?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 09:55
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Supermouse3,
The Eurocontrol ADS-B mandate is on their web site, it is very similar to the FAA mandate, potentially actually less restrictive.

The Australian mandate is far more restrictive than either, for absolutely no good reason.

You will not find any serious airline people that will tell you that ADS-B is saving them any money. The last big improvement was RVSM, that had minimal (compared to ADS-B) compliance costs, and the savings of cruising closer to optimum more of the time has been measurable.

ADS-B is just the opposite, very high compliance costs for no measurable savings.

It will be interesting to see what happens in US. The US airlines are way behind any feasible schedule to have ADS-B fitted to all the fleets by the "mandate" date, they are betting that FAA will bend to pressure.

The American airlines objections are very simple, nobody has been able to show a return for a huge capital expenditure, and unlike here, nobody in US is dishonestly claiming a spurious "safety" benefit from ADS-B.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The terrible cost of refitting Dick's CJ-3 is actually at the lower end of costs to retrofit ADS-B to any "glass cockpit" aircraft built in the last 30 or so years, that didn't roll out of the factory so fitted.
It is a reasonable statement to make to say some VH- A320 have been retired early rather than fit ADS-B.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 10:08
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the water
Posts: 607
Can someone answer my post number 27?
Yep... Post #29

Quote:
I note from Flight Radar 24 that there is rarely an aircraft above FL410 over the Aus mainland.
You've been told a few times that FR24 only displays around 10% of traffic outside the "J" curve and capital cities/major towns.

From their site:

Quote:
Why don't you have coverage in my area?

Flightradar24 only have coverage in areas where someone has installed an ADS-B receiver and feeds his/her data into Flightradar24. If there are no connected ABS-B receivers in an area, then there is no coverage in that area.
WannaBeBiggles is online now  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 11:02
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 44
Posts: 66
The thing with ADS-B is that you can't really measure the savings effectively. It's the times you DON'T get moved that aren't apparent. Instead of a controller having to use 10 minutes (or another rather large procedural standard) between flights, they can now have 5NM (plus some for mum and the kids) between aircraft, but this is transparent to the crew/operator.
Showa Cho is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 11:09
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,229
".. but this is transparent to the crew/operator."


Showa Cho, I suspect that you may have meant: "not transparent."?
gerry111 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 12:13
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 44
Posts: 66
Maybe Gerry - the crew can't see what the controller doesn't have to do, if that makes sense? I think you know what I mean! They just amble along at their most economic level without knowing that without/pre ADS-B there's a high chance that they would have been shunted up and down a few times along their track in the GAFA.
Showa Cho is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 12:17
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,836
I think the word you're looking for is "invisible"...
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 12:54
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,876
Dick not many apart from Business Jets get above FL410 anywhere in the world. Seems reasonable to be able to use higher levels as you suggest.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 13:07
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 186
Ah, but to fly AT F410 you have to negotiate all those other pesky pilots between the ground and that level. Unless you're like the invisible VFR pilot who can magically transition from one VFR level to the next without crossing an IFR level.

ADS-B also means we don't have to make all those pesky position reports that may just happen to block out the MAYDAY on the area frequency

All we do in the west is respond to the "reduce speed by ...." calls.
Agent86 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 14:25
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,876
Can anyone remember when Australia was innovative and not rule bound?

So from Fl280 where he can cruise now to above 410, what do you think 20min on a hot day? 10min for the descent? I am sure even Australia's finest could organise separation for that (without blocking all those Mayday calls....really?).

I guess you could Squawk standby and go No SAR No details...oh wait there.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 15:29
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
The thing with ADS-B is that you can't really measure the savings effectively.
Showa,
Particularly if they are not there.

Having worked for airlines, I know just how much details of flight records are analyzed looking for possible savings --- using facts, not anecdotal pilot opinion.

The fact is that no savings have been identified over AU by major operators, that can even remotely be attributed to ADS-B ---- believe me, it would have been picked up. One carrier analyses (by QAR data) almost every sector flown, the effect of RVSM savings was clear, just not so ADS-B.

Most of you are just trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 16:16
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 390
LeadShed said
The fact is that no savings have been identified over AU by major operators, that can even remotely be attributed to ADS-B ---- believe me, it would have been picked up. One carrier analyses (by QAR data) almost every sector flown, the effect of RVSM savings was clear, just not so ADS-B.
I find that statement very interesting. Are these major operators reporting any savings from flying flex tracks vs fixed route structures?
missy is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2016, 06:04
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Are these major operators reporting any savings from flying flex tracks vs fixed route structures?
Missy,
A couple of things to say about that: By various names, flex track long predates ADS-B, in particular in oceanic areas, where there is no ADS-B, and isn't going to be, any time soon.

Over Australia, RVSM did produce very obvious savings, the domestic route network is close to optimum tracks anyway, direct tracking under TAAAATS produced a bit more flexibility, much of the claims for ADS-B never were realistic, more your standard snakeoil salesman.

The two CASA alleged "cost/benefit" studies were proof of that! The first showed big benefits for airlines, so GA was just going to have to lump it.

Then the missing decimal point was "pointed out", and the airline benefits evaporated, to be replace by all sorts of mythical benefits for GA in the second --- but none of which accrued to those who had to spend the money --- and all of said benefits required widespread low level coverage --- the satellite links from the ground stations, alone, would have needed at least one new bird in space, probably two. Please don't quote me, but the "GA benefits" would have needed about 390+ ground stations --- $$$$$.

The reduced separation standard with ADS-B is obviously fact, turning that into measurable savings is another matter entirely.

At least FAA don't make a lot of spurious claims for ADS-B, it will be interesting to see how close to the wire it will go, before shifting said FAA mandate years into the future ---- because that is what will happen, because the alternative is going to be grounding a large percentage of the US airline fleet, and that will not happen.

GA is way ahead of airlines in US, in fitting ADS-B, but that is going to degenerate into a shambles, no doubt.

Here, airlines just roll over to bureaucratic impositions, and the customers pay. Sadly, GA is fading away.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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