Mr Skidmore unmovable on ADSB
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who care's if it affects your privacy?? Big Brother is always watching anyway
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just big brother... you can get the registration data from CASA and use ADSB information to compile a real time list of "Rich people who are not at home"
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think that? How would you make it better?
ASA management is full of inflated ego's, they do literally think they are the best in the world at ATC/ANSP. When you see how it works elsewhere, it's embarrassing when you come back here & experience the 'superior' service you receive.
What would I do? I believe Dick did it in the 90's, a review of resources, 3000 odd bludgers & floorwalkers made redundant. Word is that a review is happening now. At least a 1000 bludgers wouldn't be missed from that organisation, what would I know Alpha? Worked there for 26 years
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro,
what is the point of aircraft having ADSB out, if they are operating in an environment where there is no obligation on the authority monitoring it to provide any type of separation service? It doesn't make any sense! In Class G airspace in Australia there is no separation standards applied, therefore what is the point mandating a requirement for aircraft to transmit their position?? If there is no separation standards for AsA to apply, there is no such thing a loss of separation. If they were serious about providing a suitable level of service to IFR aircraft, we would have - as a minimum - Class E airspace wherever IFR aircraft operate, with procedural separation standards. Then the ADSB technology would be used to reduce these separation standards. Like the rest of the world is planning to do. But wait, apparently we are leading the rest of the world.....
what is the point of aircraft having ADSB out, if they are operating in an environment where there is no obligation on the authority monitoring it to provide any type of separation service? It doesn't make any sense! In Class G airspace in Australia there is no separation standards applied, therefore what is the point mandating a requirement for aircraft to transmit their position?? If there is no separation standards for AsA to apply, there is no such thing a loss of separation. If they were serious about providing a suitable level of service to IFR aircraft, we would have - as a minimum - Class E airspace wherever IFR aircraft operate, with procedural separation standards. Then the ADSB technology would be used to reduce these separation standards. Like the rest of the world is planning to do. But wait, apparently we are leading the rest of the world.....
what is the point of aircraft having ADSB out, if they are operating in an environment where there is no obligation on the authority monitoring it to provide any type of separation service?
Air Traffic Services are provided to aircraft in Class G airspace, traffic information to IFR is one.
Why have transponders operating in Class G?
Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 9th May 2016 at 23:41.
I think that a few people are missing one of the main benefits of ADS-B. The system allows for a pilot(with the appropriate equipment) to be aware of another aircraft without ATC assistance. This works without ground stations or equipment beyond that installed in the aircraft. The equipment to display an ADS-B equipped aircraft either on an EFB(Ipad) or a glass screen is relatively inexpensive.
Now whether that benefit (and reduced risk) justifies the cost is very debatable.
Now whether that benefit (and reduced risk) justifies the cost is very debatable.
Sunfish, I understand that and so does the FAA. They, in 2020, will require ADS-B for all aircraft, VFR and IFR, within the areas that a transponder is currently required over there.
All I was trying to point out was that the lack of ground stations does not mean the system is useless.
All I was trying to point out was that the lack of ground stations does not mean the system is useless.
I think that a few people are missing one of the main benefits of ADS-B. The system allows for a pilot(with the appropriate equipment) to be aware of another aircraft without ATC assistance.
Yes, you can pick up nearby aircraft with non-TSO'd equipment, but you can do that now with mode C. You don't need ADS-B.
They, in 2020, will require ADS-B for all aircraft, VFR and IFR, within the areas that a transponder is currently required over there
Australia is the only country in the world that is mandating ADS_B for ALL IFR aircraft at ALL levels in ALL airspace types.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADSB Introduction - New Zealand
A number of posts have highlighted and/or implied that NZ agencies have taken the deliberate step of delaying introduction of ADS-B equipage until 2021 to align with the US implementation.
Whilst the scheduled implementation date for ADS-B in NZ is correct, the implication that the delay is deliberate to align with the US implementation schedule is false.
The fact is that NZ (to my knowledge) does not currently offer any ADS-B surveillance capability at all in its domestic FIR and that ADS-B surveillance capability will only become fully available in tandem with its Southern Sky ATM modernisation project which is only due for commissioning in 2021. By that date all existing radars will be decommissioned in favour of ADS-B surveillance. Leading up to 2021, ADS-B capability will be progressively introduced for controlled airspace operations starting from 2018. New Zealand will use the 1090 MHz extended squitter (ES) ADS-B system not the US UAT system.
Whilst the scheduled implementation date for ADS-B in NZ is correct, the implication that the delay is deliberate to align with the US implementation schedule is false.
The fact is that NZ (to my knowledge) does not currently offer any ADS-B surveillance capability at all in its domestic FIR and that ADS-B surveillance capability will only become fully available in tandem with its Southern Sky ATM modernisation project which is only due for commissioning in 2021. By that date all existing radars will be decommissioned in favour of ADS-B surveillance. Leading up to 2021, ADS-B capability will be progressively introduced for controlled airspace operations starting from 2018. New Zealand will use the 1090 MHz extended squitter (ES) ADS-B system not the US UAT system.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midnight,
you are correct, DTI is a service, albeit not one that provides any formal separation standards. Which is my point, it's Class G - there are no published separation standards, which means the authorities have determined the risk is not high enough to require ATC separation standards. If you are not going to provide a separation service, why mandate that aircraft must be fitted with equipment that is used to provide a separation service? It doesn't make any sense
you are correct, DTI is a service, albeit not one that provides any formal separation standards. Which is my point, it's Class G - there are no published separation standards, which means the authorities have determined the risk is not high enough to require ATC separation standards. If you are not going to provide a separation service, why mandate that aircraft must be fitted with equipment that is used to provide a separation service? It doesn't make any sense
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vref+5. If you you are IFR and enter 'controlled' airspace you receive an ATC route clearance. You also receive a separation service (which really is one in the same). It costs you a fee (navcharge) every time.
If you solely fly IFR in G (which, unless you are one of the few who operate a non-pressurised a/c IFR outside radar coverage, is pretty rare), you are still subject to position reporting and receive a DTI service.
If you only fly IFR in G, would you prefer a standard traffic statement (e.g "IFR traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, was ABC at 08, A060, estimating YDEF at 25") on other IFRs, or "Traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, maintaining A060, currently 10 miles in your 9 o'clock, tracking souhbound"?
Or even better, "additionally, VFR traffic VWX, departed YDEF at 09, passing A045, appears to be tracking northbound, intentions unknown"?
Hopefully the 'big sky' theory in Australia doesn't last forever. It'll only end in tears one way or another
If you solely fly IFR in G (which, unless you are one of the few who operate a non-pressurised a/c IFR outside radar coverage, is pretty rare), you are still subject to position reporting and receive a DTI service.
If you only fly IFR in G, would you prefer a standard traffic statement (e.g "IFR traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, was ABC at 08, A060, estimating YDEF at 25") on other IFRs, or "Traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, maintaining A060, currently 10 miles in your 9 o'clock, tracking souhbound"?
Or even better, "additionally, VFR traffic VWX, departed YDEF at 09, passing A045, appears to be tracking northbound, intentions unknown"?
Hopefully the 'big sky' theory in Australia doesn't last forever. It'll only end in tears one way or another
Vref+5. If you you are IFR and enter 'controlled' airspace you receive an ATC route clearance. You also receive a separation service (which really is one in the same). It costs you a fee (navcharge) every time.
If you solely fly IFR in G (which, unless you are one of the few who operate a non-pressurised a/c IFR outside radar coverage, is pretty rare), you are still subject to position reporting and receive a DTI service.
If you only fly IFR in G, would you prefer a standard traffic statement (e.g "IFR traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, was ABC at 08, A060, estimating YDEF at 25") on other IFRs, or "Traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, maintaining A060, currently 10 miles in your 9 o'clock, tracking souhbound"?
Or even better, "additionally, VFR traffic VWX, departed YDEF at 09, passing A045, appears to be tracking northbound, intentions unknown"?
Hopefully the 'big sky' theory in Australia doesn't last forever. It'll only end in tears one way or another
If you solely fly IFR in G (which, unless you are one of the few who operate a non-pressurised a/c IFR outside radar coverage, is pretty rare), you are still subject to position reporting and receive a DTI service.
If you only fly IFR in G, would you prefer a standard traffic statement (e.g "IFR traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, was ABC at 08, A060, estimating YDEF at 25") on other IFRs, or "Traffic is XYZ, a Chieftain, maintaining A060, currently 10 miles in your 9 o'clock, tracking souhbound"?
Or even better, "additionally, VFR traffic VWX, departed YDEF at 09, passing A045, appears to be tracking northbound, intentions unknown"?
Hopefully the 'big sky' theory in Australia doesn't last forever. It'll only end in tears one way or another
I reckon a fair number of these aircraft will continue to fly in IMC post 1Feb 2017 without ADS-B and no-one will ever know.
One of my problems with ADS-B is that it is being applied in a heavy handed manner to IFR aircraft, but not VFR. My only anxious moments about mid air conflicts have occurred when I was IFR and in each case involved conflicting VFR traffic cruising at over 5,000 ft at non ICAO levels in class G airspace. ADS-B will do nothing to improve my safety in these circumstances.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that AsA is under any mandate to pass on VFR traffic to me. I think it's done on an "as available" or " as workload allows" basis.
Unfortunately it's always been that way Old Akro. I recall once hearing a request for IFR traffic and being told there was none, quickly followed by a request for VFR for which there was half a dozen, a number of which were heading for a potential direct conflict.
equipment that is used to provide a separation service?