Why are we so different to Canada re ADS-B?
Have a look at AIC 12/17, Leadsled, aka sunshine. 
And this: (Page 8)
https://www.casa.gov.au/files/wa-air...-apg-phase2pdf
And this: (Page 8)
https://www.casa.gov.au/files/wa-air...-apg-phase2pdf
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 8th Jun 2017 at 08:49. Reason: Link fixed for Sunshine.
Bloggs,
Page 8 ---- So --- do you actually understand what "conflict pairs" are in the TAM program??
"aka Sunshine" ?? Whatever you are smoking must be No1 Good ------.
Tootle pip!!
Page 8 ---- So --- do you actually understand what "conflict pairs" are in the TAM program??
"aka Sunshine" ?? Whatever you are smoking must be No1 Good ------.
Tootle pip!!
Class E, non-surveillance, to 700ft AGL. Go for it, Sunshine! 
Wunnerful, wunnerful, as Laurance Welk would have said.
The irrational belief that, somehow, Class E airspace is higher risk than Class G, unless you have "surveillance".
Only in Australia, the rest of the civilised world doe not share you belief, staring with ICAO.
And, of course, you haven't told us what you think is the significance of conflict pairs to actual separation.
A $1000 flarm installation would probably add more to safety.
But only if the genuine risk, as opposed to the perception of something called "safety", genuinely exists.
We keep referring to US, but have a look at the Eurocontrol ADS-B mandate, it is nowhere near as extensive as Australia, and all in an area of far greater traffic, at low level, than anywhere on Australia.
Tootle pip!!
Nothing to do with risk of E verses G, Sunshine. The fact that the holy-grail of airspace, non-surveillance E, would be unworkable in the subject area seems to have escaped you.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's attitudes like Bloggs' that are the reason Australian aviation is in the poor state it's in, this idea that Australia is unique and we know better than everyone else. If there is a risk identified in the airspace then we should use the ICAO model to resolve it, not somehalf arsed unique system that requires specialist kit that only works here.
ADSB in Australia is Air Services gold plating the power lines, where they can pass on the entire cost plus a percentage, for no foreseeable benefit other than to themselves. Just like Halliburton did in Iraq, they drove empty trucks around the country simply so they could increase profits
ADSB in Australia is Air Services gold plating the power lines, where they can pass on the entire cost plus a percentage, for no foreseeable benefit other than to themselves. Just like Halliburton did in Iraq, they drove empty trucks around the country simply so they could increase profits
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ICAO airspace model is used to ensure there is an appropriate level of service provided to aircraft within a certain classification of airspace, based on flight category/ traffic density etc. Radar and ABSB are tools used to increase the capacity within the designated airspace, by allowing reduced separation minima.
If a problem with traffic mix (VFR/IFR) and/or density is identified, then surely the airspace must be re-classified first, and then the efficiency devices are put in place? That's the way the rest of the world does it.
ADSB technology is great, the rest of the world will be using it with the appropriate airspace in place. I look forward to receiving full ATC services based on ADSB separation rather than procedural standards when I go over to the USA and Europe. But here in Australia, with our "unique" requirements, we put the efficiency tools in place without the underlying airspace model, resulting in IFR HCRPT aircraft still decending towards each other, and losing the ATC separation service at the most vital time of the flight, the approach and landing. Remember - in Class G there is no ATC separation service (traffic information to IFR aircraft is not a separation service) therefore there are no separation standards to be employed, regardless of whether they are ADSB equipped or not.
If a problem with traffic mix (VFR/IFR) and/or density is identified, then surely the airspace must be re-classified first, and then the efficiency devices are put in place? That's the way the rest of the world does it.
ADSB technology is great, the rest of the world will be using it with the appropriate airspace in place. I look forward to receiving full ATC services based on ADSB separation rather than procedural standards when I go over to the USA and Europe. But here in Australia, with our "unique" requirements, we put the efficiency tools in place without the underlying airspace model, resulting in IFR HCRPT aircraft still decending towards each other, and losing the ATC separation service at the most vital time of the flight, the approach and landing. Remember - in Class G there is no ATC separation service (traffic information to IFR aircraft is not a separation service) therefore there are no separation standards to be employed, regardless of whether they are ADSB equipped or not.
Lest we get to caught up in an airspace disaster...
And do that "appropriate airspace" have a plan B for when them GPS signals don't work ?
I see them terrorist chappys have refined their techniques for dropping hand grenades from small GPS guided drones. No more needing to walk in the front door of large sporting events.
.
via Vref+5: ...ADSB technology is great, the rest of the world will be using it with the appropriate airspace in place...
I see them terrorist chappys have refined their techniques for dropping hand grenades from small GPS guided drones. No more needing to walk in the front door of large sporting events.
.
If ADS-B is soooo onerous, what method of surveillance would appease the oh so mighty, gee you are sooo huge, we are all puny in your greatness, Plumbum?
Edit- anyone wonder why the periodic table classification for Lead is Pb?
Edit- anyone wonder why the periodic table classification for Lead is Pb?
Within the ADS-B transmission from the aircraft there is already a position accuracy figure which the ATC system looks at to determine separation. If the position accuracy is down, the target displayed changes and different separation standards apply.
Via shh: GPS is a "brand" of one network run by the US, there is essentially the same sort of network run by the EU (Galileo), Russia (GLONASS), China (Beidou), India (NAVIC), Japan (QZSS). Some are bigger, some smaller than GPS. You can get receivers now that receive multiple networks at the same time. Galileo has the best public precision at 1m, compared to 15m for GPS.
Within the ADS-B transmission from the aircraft there is already a position accuracy figure which the ATC system looks at to determine separation. If the position accuracy is down, the target displayed changes and different separation standards apply.
Within the ADS-B transmission from the aircraft there is already a position accuracy figure which the ATC system looks at to determine separation. If the position accuracy is down, the target displayed changes and different separation standards apply.
Anyway, no mater how many "brands" of GPS satalites there are it only takes one military jammer to take them off-line in any particular region. And when them GPS™ guided terrorist drones start turning up un-announced at any time or place then the jammers might be doing some long term operations... So, plan B is ?
.
The problem with using equipment that uses a single GNSS constellation like GPS (24 satellites of which 8-10 might be "in view at a time") is they require the use of satellites that are at lower elevations to the horizon due to the small number of satellites in the single constellation, so the mask angle (i.e. the elevation angle the receiver will ignore satellites) actually opens up GPS only system up to jamming. Using multiple interoperable GNSS constellations (100+ satellites of which 50+ might be in view at a time), a higher mask angle could be used this ignoring any low elevation "satellites" (which could be a satellite or a jammer). This has two positive effects, first being the low elevation satellites have the greatest position error are ignored (no more RAIM holes), second makes the system less prone to deliberate or accidental jamming.
To give you an idea of where we have gone with this, the state of the art receiver used to be a 12 channel GPS receiver, now you can get 555 channel GNSS receivers that are using multiple interoperable GNSS constellations.
Last edited by swh; 12th Jun 2017 at 11:35.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Binghy:
And do that "appropriate airspace" have a plan B for when them GPS signals don't work ?
As a matter of fact they do have a back up, it's called procedural separation. The standards currently in use at places like Majuro, American Samoa (unless they have upgraded - been a couple of years), any US Class D tower after the tower has closed for the night (few of those in Hawaii), aerodormes in the Meditteranean outside of radar coverge. I could go on and list others I have been to in Continental Europe, but I'm sure you get my point by now. In those places IFR aircraft are afforded a separation standard, the standard depends on what surveillance tools are available.
Australia has these standards, published in the appropriate ATC manuals, however they are not applied in Class G, regardless of the surveillance equipment fitted to the aircraft. Because it's Class G.
And do that "appropriate airspace" have a plan B for when them GPS signals don't work ?
As a matter of fact they do have a back up, it's called procedural separation. The standards currently in use at places like Majuro, American Samoa (unless they have upgraded - been a couple of years), any US Class D tower after the tower has closed for the night (few of those in Hawaii), aerodormes in the Meditteranean outside of radar coverge. I could go on and list others I have been to in Continental Europe, but I'm sure you get my point by now. In those places IFR aircraft are afforded a separation standard, the standard depends on what surveillance tools are available.
Australia has these standards, published in the appropriate ATC manuals, however they are not applied in Class G, regardless of the surveillance equipment fitted to the aircraft. Because it's Class G.
Because it's Class G.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As always Bloggs, if you think you are right then the rest of the world must be wrong, just like the SBAS/ADSB priorities (Safety before efficiency, except in Australia because we know better). But I know which horse the smart money would go on