Don’t Kowtow to CASA ADSB Mandate if Safety is Improved by Spending Money Elsewhere
Thread Starter
Don’t Kowtow to CASA ADSB Mandate if Safety is Improved by Spending Money Elsewhere
The extraordinary CASA ADSB mandate for all aircraft that fly IMC from February 2017 still appears to be going ahead.
If you remember, the CASA Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) stated, that the cost would be over $30 million for general aviation. Of course, as we all know, there is no measurable safety issue being addressed. AOPA and other groups have asked for the mandate to be delayed, so it matches the New Zealand ADSB mandate – 1 year after the US mandate comes in at 2020. This will result in very low cost equipment being available.
In the USA there is no ADSB mandate ,even in 2020 for IFR aircraft that fly below 10,000ft in E and G airspace, unless the aircraft is within 30 nautical miles of a class B airport.
It’s clear now that CASA is a dysfunctional organisation and its Board has absolutely no control over what is going on within.
Respected industry figures I speak to, all believe that one day – even though it may be the day before the mandate comes in – sanity will be restored and the mandate will be moved to a more suitable date.
My suggestion to those who are looking around at mortgaging their houses so they can buy the ADSB equipment, is to wait if they believe they could spend that money on improving safety in a far better way.
Shouldn’t be hard. Possibly updating the fleet and using more modern aircraft.
A number of pilots I’ve spoken to are simply going to take their aircraft out of the IFR category and fly VFR from February 2017 onwards. This will clearly reduce safety.
I’ve tried to find out why CASA is insisting on this mandate, which no other country in the world follows. I can only find out it is accepting the Airservices push to bring this in earlier than other countries, so Airservices management can receive some type of international award for being first.
If so, this is outrageous. If someone else knows a different and more respectable reason for this early mandate, please publish it here.
If you remember, the CASA Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) stated, that the cost would be over $30 million for general aviation. Of course, as we all know, there is no measurable safety issue being addressed. AOPA and other groups have asked for the mandate to be delayed, so it matches the New Zealand ADSB mandate – 1 year after the US mandate comes in at 2020. This will result in very low cost equipment being available.
In the USA there is no ADSB mandate ,even in 2020 for IFR aircraft that fly below 10,000ft in E and G airspace, unless the aircraft is within 30 nautical miles of a class B airport.
It’s clear now that CASA is a dysfunctional organisation and its Board has absolutely no control over what is going on within.
Respected industry figures I speak to, all believe that one day – even though it may be the day before the mandate comes in – sanity will be restored and the mandate will be moved to a more suitable date.
My suggestion to those who are looking around at mortgaging their houses so they can buy the ADSB equipment, is to wait if they believe they could spend that money on improving safety in a far better way.
Shouldn’t be hard. Possibly updating the fleet and using more modern aircraft.
A number of pilots I’ve spoken to are simply going to take their aircraft out of the IFR category and fly VFR from February 2017 onwards. This will clearly reduce safety.
I’ve tried to find out why CASA is insisting on this mandate, which no other country in the world follows. I can only find out it is accepting the Airservices push to bring this in earlier than other countries, so Airservices management can receive some type of international award for being first.
If so, this is outrageous. If someone else knows a different and more respectable reason for this early mandate, please publish it here.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 18th Apr 2016 at 21:45.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick I think it is a serious case of lack of situational awareness by ASA and CASA. They don't seem to recognize that aviation wise we are a pissant country with relatively few aircraft and a huge area of land.
If it is shown that the early introduction of ATSB is nothing more than ego driven skiting then they should be sued in a class action for the difference in price of ADSB equipment in 2017 and the price when it is mandated in the US.
Their arrogance is breathtaking . Forcing Australians to buy ridiculously expensive equipment now when we know that in a few years it will be a fraction of the current price is nothing short of criminal.
CASA and ASA should have to present a cost/ benefit analysis showing why although we coped all these years without ADSB suddenly we can't cope a few more years until the price becomes affordable.
If it is shown that the early introduction of ATSB is nothing more than ego driven skiting then they should be sued in a class action for the difference in price of ADSB equipment in 2017 and the price when it is mandated in the US.
Their arrogance is breathtaking . Forcing Australians to buy ridiculously expensive equipment now when we know that in a few years it will be a fraction of the current price is nothing short of criminal.
CASA and ASA should have to present a cost/ benefit analysis showing why although we coped all these years without ADSB suddenly we can't cope a few more years until the price becomes affordable.
Could it be that 'military minds' have made this decision 'cause they thought it to be a 'good idea' without having any regard to the cost to civilian COMMERCIAL operators, who have to make a living by charging competitive COMMERCIAL rates to their clients, and do NOT have any taxpayers funds to pay for it..???
Could it be...???
No Cheers. Nope - NONE at ALL.
Could it be...???
No Cheers. Nope - NONE at ALL.
Dick,
Exaggerating the situation to make your point just leads to confusion and those who would otherwise support your position stop listening to what you say. While I dont agree with how CASA implemented ABS-B in Australia there are a few key factual errors in what you have posited that I feel the need to point out to you yet again:
You say: "In the USA there is no ADSB mandate ,even in 2020 for IFR aircraft that fly below 10,000ft in E and G airspace, unless the aircraft is within 30 nautical miles of a class B airport."
This is not strictly correct. 14 CFR 91.225 requires ADS-B for flight in class C airspace and in the class E airspace above class C. Class C airspace is fairly extensive in the USA around many minor airports. While it would be possible, operating IFR after 2020 in the USA without ADS-B is not going to be easy.
The other thing that you don't mention is that in the USA, after 2020, ADS-B will be required for VFR flight in these areas. Do you advocate that in Australia as well?
Exaggerating the situation to make your point just leads to confusion and those who would otherwise support your position stop listening to what you say. While I dont agree with how CASA implemented ABS-B in Australia there are a few key factual errors in what you have posited that I feel the need to point out to you yet again:
You say: "In the USA there is no ADSB mandate ,even in 2020 for IFR aircraft that fly below 10,000ft in E and G airspace, unless the aircraft is within 30 nautical miles of a class B airport."
This is not strictly correct. 14 CFR 91.225 requires ADS-B for flight in class C airspace and in the class E airspace above class C. Class C airspace is fairly extensive in the USA around many minor airports. While it would be possible, operating IFR after 2020 in the USA without ADS-B is not going to be easy.
The other thing that you don't mention is that in the USA, after 2020, ADS-B will be required for VFR flight in these areas. Do you advocate that in Australia as well?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. No one has another explanation after 12 hours .
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I disagree with Dick and think the ADSB implementation in Australia is a good idea that will improve situational awareness and safety.
ADSB and the new integrated ATC system will lift Australian aviation navigation to a leading place in the world.
ADSB and the new integrated ATC system will lift Australian aviation navigation to a leading place in the world.
Sounds like the 'party line' response.....
The 'Time Line'..??
Cost / benefits to IFR? 'Now' vs Wait awhile until the USA mandate and the 'things' become more economical..?
To VFR???? All areas..??
All levels - Above 10,000ft for example..?
Class D airports, e.g, BK, JT etc..??.'
no cheers
The 'Time Line'..??
Cost / benefits to IFR? 'Now' vs Wait awhile until the USA mandate and the 'things' become more economical..?
To VFR???? All areas..??
All levels - Above 10,000ft for example..?
Class D airports, e.g, BK, JT etc..??.'
no cheers
Thread Starter
No one. Class C is not around minor airports. Class C in the US requires a full terminal primary and secondary radar service and they are BIG airports by Australian standards. Many equivalent to Brisbane or Sydney.
How does it improve situational awareness when hardly anyone has an installed ADSB " IN" unit.
Peter ; And why do we need improved situational awareness? What is the risk that is being adressed for the $30 million plus bill for GA.? How can we be a leading place in the world when Airservices have installed hardly any ground stations?
No one. An IFR pilot will be able to operate to hundreds of class D and E airports across the USA without the cost of ADSB. Even be able to operate a full IFR flying school from a class D tower airport complete with dual ILSs and then do multiple approaches and training to class E approach airports with no expensive ADSB fitment.
How does it improve situational awareness when hardly anyone has an installed ADSB " IN" unit.
Peter ; And why do we need improved situational awareness? What is the risk that is being adressed for the $30 million plus bill for GA.? How can we be a leading place in the world when Airservices have installed hardly any ground stations?
No one. An IFR pilot will be able to operate to hundreds of class D and E airports across the USA without the cost of ADSB. Even be able to operate a full IFR flying school from a class D tower airport complete with dual ILSs and then do multiple approaches and training to class E approach airports with no expensive ADSB fitment.
Dick,
I am generally on your side but when you don't respond to civilized discussion in a constructive way you make it hard to support you....
Compared to the likes of Charlotte, Boston and Houston (Class B) the likes of Fayettville, Lexington and Huntsville are pretty minor(class C). Your hypothetical IFR in the USA without ADS-B is fairly limited in where they can go.
You Said "An IFR pilot will be able to operate to hundreds of class D and E airports across the USA without the cost of ADSB. Even be able to operate a full IFR flying school from a class D tower airport complete with dual ILSs and then do multiple approaches and training to class E approach airports with no expensive ADSB fitment."
While this is true the FAA part 61.65 requires:
While what you say is possible in practice it would be a very limiting thing to be operating at a a Class D airport without going into a class c zone.
Do you advocate ADS-B for VFR flights in the same way that the USA will require after 2020?
I am generally on your side but when you don't respond to civilized discussion in a constructive way you make it hard to support you....
Compared to the likes of Charlotte, Boston and Houston (Class B) the likes of Fayettville, Lexington and Huntsville are pretty minor(class C). Your hypothetical IFR in the USA without ADS-B is fairly limited in where they can go.
You Said "An IFR pilot will be able to operate to hundreds of class D and E airports across the USA without the cost of ADSB. Even be able to operate a full IFR flying school from a class D tower airport complete with dual ILSs and then do multiple approaches and training to class E approach airports with no expensive ADSB fitment."
While this is true the FAA part 61.65 requires:
(ii) Instrument flight training on cross country flight procedures, including one cross country flight in an airplane with an authorized instructor, that is performed under instrument flight rules, when a flight plan has been filed with an air traffic control facility, and that involves--
(a) A flight of 250 nautical miles along airways or by directed routing from an air traffic control facility;
(b) An instrument approach at each airport; and
(c) Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems.
(a) A flight of 250 nautical miles along airways or by directed routing from an air traffic control facility;
(b) An instrument approach at each airport; and
(c) Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems.
Do you advocate ADS-B for VFR flights in the same way that the USA will require after 2020?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE "No-one gives a rats about feeding the troll anymore?" QUOTE
I'm at a loss as to who is the Troll.
I'm at a loss as to who is the Troll.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
no_one
You raise an excellent point. I was a very early adopter, have been ADSB compliant for maybe 4-5 years now. I see some benefit and longer term expect to see more.
I like your line of questioning. If the IFR mandate were to be extended as per the USA, like all of Dicks arguments he will want to follow them, but not all of what they do. Cherry picking it is called.
I think the VFR post 2020 deal would be an excellent idea. And ASA should be made put in all the extra ground stations to ensure coverage at A045 and above across the country.
I would be happy to wait for that
While what you say is possible in practice it would be a very limiting thing to be operating at a a Class D airport without going into a class c zone.
Do you advocate ADS-B for VFR flights in the same way that the USA will require after 2020?
Do you advocate ADS-B for VFR flights in the same way that the USA will require after 2020?
I like your line of questioning. If the IFR mandate were to be extended as per the USA, like all of Dicks arguments he will want to follow them, but not all of what they do. Cherry picking it is called.
I think the VFR post 2020 deal would be an excellent idea. And ASA should be made put in all the extra ground stations to ensure coverage at A045 and above across the country.
I would be happy to wait for that
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA and ASA should have to present a cost/ benefit analysis showing why although we coped all these years without ADSB suddenly we can't cope a few more years until the price becomes affordable.
They could also confirm or deny that CASAs care factor is ZERO whether a few years delay will save the industry millions.
Originally Posted by Captain Midnight
70-something commissioned and a bunch more going in .......
Thread Starter
The ground stations are not the whole problem.
Airservices don't appear to have put in the hard work and money to have the ADSB returns shown in the terminal facilities in Sydney and Canberra. Others report Willy Approach also can't display ADSB returns.
What a con. GA has to pay over $30 million and it doesn't even work in busy terminal airspace where risk is higher.
And yes, lots would support the US ADSB requirement for VFR if Australia allowed the freedoms of the US system for VFR. But that's unlikely to happen .
Airservices don't appear to have put in the hard work and money to have the ADSB returns shown in the terminal facilities in Sydney and Canberra. Others report Willy Approach also can't display ADSB returns.
What a con. GA has to pay over $30 million and it doesn't even work in busy terminal airspace where risk is higher.
And yes, lots would support the US ADSB requirement for VFR if Australia allowed the freedoms of the US system for VFR. But that's unlikely to happen .