The Military Look After Their Own - Don't Require ADSB
Thread Starter
The Military Look After Their Own - Don't Require ADSB
I flew over to Cunderdin to help my friend, Fedor Konyukhov take off in his solo around the world balloon attempt. I had to remain at FL 280 from Ceduna on and wasn’t even allowed above FL 180 near Northam to fly around the balloon, because I was not ADSB equipped. This is despite the fact the aircraft is fitted with the latest MODE S transponder and I had been radar identified and in perfect radar coverage.
I was then told, the military PC9s were all flying in the ADSB mandatory airspace but without ADSB. They were conducting training practice in these small aircraft but of course, the ex military people in charge of CASA and Airservices have ensured the military have a full exemption against ADSB fitment in mandatory ADSB airspace.
The reason that was given, “It would cost the military too much to fit ADSB.” So here you have the mates of a multi-billion dollar outfit protecting their own, whilst small commercial businesses have to fit the ADSB and generally go broke.
Remember, John McCormick wrote to an operator at Armidale saying exemptions would be given regarding non-ADSB fitment in a similar way RVSM exemptions were given. This was then stopped by John McCormick because Airservices Australia said that operations would not be safe.
Work that one out. It’s quite safe to have lots of PC9 training aircraft as well as dozens of other military aircraft flying in mandatory ADSB airspace with complete safety, but one small GA aircraft is going to make the whole thing unsafe.
Yes, it’s a total dishonest con. How these people can sleep at night amazes me.
By the way, I’m not complaining personally in any way, I have absolutely no problems in affording the extra cost of the equipment. I’m very concerned about the destruction of a GA industry and all of the things I will do in future will be to draw the attention of the media and the politicians to this, so hopefully I can get some changes before total destruction takes place.
I was then told, the military PC9s were all flying in the ADSB mandatory airspace but without ADSB. They were conducting training practice in these small aircraft but of course, the ex military people in charge of CASA and Airservices have ensured the military have a full exemption against ADSB fitment in mandatory ADSB airspace.
The reason that was given, “It would cost the military too much to fit ADSB.” So here you have the mates of a multi-billion dollar outfit protecting their own, whilst small commercial businesses have to fit the ADSB and generally go broke.
Remember, John McCormick wrote to an operator at Armidale saying exemptions would be given regarding non-ADSB fitment in a similar way RVSM exemptions were given. This was then stopped by John McCormick because Airservices Australia said that operations would not be safe.
Work that one out. It’s quite safe to have lots of PC9 training aircraft as well as dozens of other military aircraft flying in mandatory ADSB airspace with complete safety, but one small GA aircraft is going to make the whole thing unsafe.
Yes, it’s a total dishonest con. How these people can sleep at night amazes me.
By the way, I’m not complaining personally in any way, I have absolutely no problems in affording the extra cost of the equipment. I’m very concerned about the destruction of a GA industry and all of the things I will do in future will be to draw the attention of the media and the politicians to this, so hopefully I can get some changes before total destruction takes place.
Also the PC9's don't have a GPS of any description (except iPad, which they're using without approval because it's safer to break the rules and come back alive). Single pilot IFR, no autopilot, no GPS
It would cost 355 million dollars to fit them too. You need the 5 year project set up with 25 people. Engineering approvals, operational approvals, project meetings, stakeholder meetings, then a tender and 4 year selection process. Nothing would happen during any election year or minority government, so another 6 years passes until finally a minister announces they're buying the second lowest tender (Bowen's law - everything the ADF operates is second lowest tender).
It gets blocked by contractor maintenance because servicing the new equipment is not in the contract. The RAAF eventually folds to contractor demands because they need their aircraft serviced, costing a further $3m. Training/operational demands blow out operational test flight/evaluation schedule.
The aircraft is retired before fitment of the new box.
It would cost 355 million dollars to fit them too. You need the 5 year project set up with 25 people. Engineering approvals, operational approvals, project meetings, stakeholder meetings, then a tender and 4 year selection process. Nothing would happen during any election year or minority government, so another 6 years passes until finally a minister announces they're buying the second lowest tender (Bowen's law - everything the ADF operates is second lowest tender).
It gets blocked by contractor maintenance because servicing the new equipment is not in the contract. The RAAF eventually folds to contractor demands because they need their aircraft serviced, costing a further $3m. Training/operational demands blow out operational test flight/evaluation schedule.
The aircraft is retired before fitment of the new box.
Incredible. Not even a fitted GPS. ? Is this true? Surely not. It's 2016!
After the Seasprite, why are you surprised?
Shagpile's description of an RAAF project timeline and administration sound like it is from his/her experience, not a "Yes! Minister" comedy sketch.
I wouldn't want to take an F-35 into seriously contested airspace. I wouldn't want to be in one, the first time the "networked defenses" are actually tried against faster and agile aircraft with commonly available current electronics and missiles.
Tootle pip!!
Further to Shagpiles post, the gps units planned to be fitted were actually purchased!! There were approx 100 shiny new G430 units acquired around 2006/7. So far as i know they're still sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting .....so the project Shagpile speaks of already happened.
The dispute came down to cockpit layout, pilots v contractors and then who would maintain them.
Anyone know if PC21 comes gps eqquipped? Or is it another MRH90 'fitted for but not with' scenario?
The dispute came down to cockpit layout, pilots v contractors and then who would maintain them.
Anyone know if PC21 comes gps eqquipped? Or is it another MRH90 'fitted for but not with' scenario?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, it would be a waste of public money to fit the PC9 with ADSB. They fly mainly in airspace controlled by the RAAF at PEA and ESL and the type will shortly be gone and replaced by the PC21 (presumably with ADSB).
I would imagine if it was announced that the PC9's were getting a new bit of kit a a cost of (pick a number) you would complain about that due to the proximity of their retirement.
I would imagine if it was announced that the PC9's were getting a new bit of kit a a cost of (pick a number) you would complain about that due to the proximity of their retirement.
Edit: quote incorrectly truncated due to iPhone screen size. Apologies to the sensitive types.
Last edited by Squawk7700; 15th Jul 2016 at 06:54.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you (I presume you pay tax) like to pay for ADSB to be fitted to a fleet of soon to be replaced aircraft that fly mainly (but not always) in RAAF Restricted Areas?
Also, if you are going to quote somebody, the idea is to quote them without editing what they said. Perhaps you are a politician or a journalist?
What I said was "They fly mainly in airspace controlled by the RAAF at PEA and ESL and the type will shortly be gone and replaced by the PC21 (presumably with ADSB)."
Nope no GPS. I'm not even joking either -- it's navaid to navaid. Navigation to IFR waypoints is done by old school point to point radial/range from a known navigation aid by visualising your location on the HSI. The tolerance on an instrument rating test to be checked out is 2nm for one of these.
Yes they spend 80% of time in ESL/PEA airspace but (a) Other IFR aircraft also transit, (b) Roulettes fly all across the country and sometimes international island hopping. (c) it's very common to do IFR Nav trainers to Essendon/Perth/Albury/Wagga/Tamworth/Geraldton/Learmonth/Albany etc.
Worse, they have a single generator and poor batteries. Lots of generator fails recently. If you're in IMC there's about 10mins to turn off some stuff, get visual and consider extending the gear to check 3 wheels before complete loss of electrical power, no artificial horizon and ejecting.
At least without ADSB, ATC won't be able to see the lack of RNP compliance!
Yes there's a warehouse full of GPS's but due to complex issues involving training downtime and contract issues for fitment, were only fitted to a couple of aircraft at ARDU.
Also, the pc9 transponder is a small square one (around 2.5"). I could be wrong, but I don't know of any small ADSB transponders with inbuilt TSO146 GPS (or whatever the inbuilt spec is).
So no, I highly doubt you'll see ADSB on any PC9's any time soon Dick.
Yes they spend 80% of time in ESL/PEA airspace but (a) Other IFR aircraft also transit, (b) Roulettes fly all across the country and sometimes international island hopping. (c) it's very common to do IFR Nav trainers to Essendon/Perth/Albury/Wagga/Tamworth/Geraldton/Learmonth/Albany etc.
Worse, they have a single generator and poor batteries. Lots of generator fails recently. If you're in IMC there's about 10mins to turn off some stuff, get visual and consider extending the gear to check 3 wheels before complete loss of electrical power, no artificial horizon and ejecting.
At least without ADSB, ATC won't be able to see the lack of RNP compliance!
Yes there's a warehouse full of GPS's but due to complex issues involving training downtime and contract issues for fitment, were only fitted to a couple of aircraft at ARDU.
Also, the pc9 transponder is a small square one (around 2.5"). I could be wrong, but I don't know of any small ADSB transponders with inbuilt TSO146 GPS (or whatever the inbuilt spec is).
So no, I highly doubt you'll see ADSB on any PC9's any time soon Dick.
The exemptions always expose the safety justification for a rule as a sham.
We won't fit the RAAF fleet because it's too costly, and that's safe.
Heavy metal can fly around for days without it serviceable, and that's safe.
But everyone else has to have it fitted and serviceable, irrespective of the cost, because to do otherwise would be unsafe.
It would be silly to expect the taxpayers to pay for the fitment of ASD-B to the legacy RAAF fleet, but safety demands that those same taxpayers pay for the fitment of ADS-B to a legacy GA aircraft if they happen to own one.
As with almost all other aspects of Australian aviation regulation, the ADS-B rules and exemptions are just another manifestation of political expedience hiding behind the facade of safety rhetoric.
We won't fit the RAAF fleet because it's too costly, and that's safe.
Heavy metal can fly around for days without it serviceable, and that's safe.
But everyone else has to have it fitted and serviceable, irrespective of the cost, because to do otherwise would be unsafe.
It would be silly to expect the taxpayers to pay for the fitment of ASD-B to the legacy RAAF fleet, but safety demands that those same taxpayers pay for the fitment of ADS-B to a legacy GA aircraft if they happen to own one.
As with almost all other aspects of Australian aviation regulation, the ADS-B rules and exemptions are just another manifestation of political expedience hiding behind the facade of safety rhetoric.
The RAAF civvy style aircraft have ADS-B.
Expediency hiding behind the facade of safety rhetoric.
Just let the military fly everywhere Due regard...should keep everyone happy. I believe those pesky Mil types also have exemptions for dangerous goods.....its terrible :0
They are also exempt from civilian rules such as lowest alt and flying over the crowd at airshows, because as we know the military has *never* crashed at an airshow anywhere in the world before.
Moderator
Dick, it would be a waste of public money to fit the PC9 with ADSB. They fly mainly in airspace controlled by the RAAF at PEA and ESL and the type will shortly be gone and replaced by the PC21 (presumably with ADSB).
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine if it was announced that the PC9's were getting a new bit of kit a a cost of (pick a number) you would complain about that due to the proximity of their retirement.
Depends on how you look at the CAO I guess:
The 'specifically approved' bit allows scope, otherwise aerobatics below 500 AGL in front of a crowd wouldn't be allowed for example, as I've seen civil pilots approved to do at airshows.
CASA certainly had a say in what we were allowed to do in the displays I was involved in, and tightened up requirements over time to prohibit looping manoeuvers back towards the crowd etc.
Anyway, doesn't really relate to the ADSB thing I suppose.
Manoeuvring Limitations
(1) Except during take-off and landing, or where specifically approved as part of the programme of events, the minimum height at which any aircraft may operate shall be 500 feet above ground level.
(2) An aircraft in flight below 1 500 feet above ground level shall not:
(a) track or manoeuvre towards spectators within a horizontal distance of 500 metres; or
(b) pass within 200 metres horizontal distance from spectators.
(1) Except during take-off and landing, or where specifically approved as part of the programme of events, the minimum height at which any aircraft may operate shall be 500 feet above ground level.
(2) An aircraft in flight below 1 500 feet above ground level shall not:
(a) track or manoeuvre towards spectators within a horizontal distance of 500 metres; or
(b) pass within 200 metres horizontal distance from spectators.
CASA certainly had a say in what we were allowed to do in the displays I was involved in, and tightened up requirements over time to prohibit looping manoeuvers back towards the crowd etc.
Anyway, doesn't really relate to the ADSB thing I suppose.
Armoutthewindow, have you not ever seen the roulettes pull out of a loop at low level heading directly towards and then over the crowd? EVERY airshow they attend my friend. Just one example of many. Of course PT6's have never failed either!
You've also answered your own question with your post...
CIVIL aviation orders... Not military!
You've also answered your own question with your post...
Depends on how you look at the CAO I guess:
Last edited by Squawk7700; 16th Jul 2016 at 12:51.
