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

The killer of general aviation in Australia CASA dishonesty re ADS-B

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

The killer of general aviation in Australia CASA dishonesty re ADS-B

Old 16th Mar 2018, 07:23
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,191
The killer of general aviation in Australia CASA dishonesty re ADS-B

Looking back over the last few years of the destruction of our general aviation industry, it is obvious that the killer blow came from the early and more expensive ADS-B mandate that was introduced by CASA.

The original plan from Airservices was to have a subsidised ADS-B for GA which would be paid for by the removal of the secondary surveillance radar units. It soon became obvious that removing the radars would not be a sensible thing to do – especially for organisations that had to give primacy to safety. But they went ahead with the mandate anyway.

Note that in the USA, even in 2020 ADS-B is not required for IFR or VFR aircraft below 10,000 feet in Class E and G airspace unless within 30 miles of Class B.

Rather than follow the USA, CASA then produced an aviation regulatory proposal which was one of the most dishonest documents I have ever seen. Imagine working for the place and being part of this!

What they did was to claim there would be about $30 million in expenditure and they implied this would be saved by aircraft getting direct tracking. Possibly there could be some savings for airline aircraft flying at flight levels to get direct tracking, but for general aviation aircraft primarily flying in uncontrolled airspace, where the pilot decides on the tracking, there would be no measurable saving.

Then, instead of going for the least expensive units for general aviation, CASA insisted on a particular more expensive GPS engine.

We had some flying schools closing down, and some owners were taking out a second mortgage on their house to pay for the units. What is probably more serious is that I understand quite a number of aircraft have simply been changed to VFR, and they no longer train for IFR. Wow, what a great way of improving safety!

I wrote numerous letters and had meetings with various Ministers and CASA people in Canberra in relation to the dishonesty of this proposal and I got nowhere.

We are now experiencing the disaster in Australia. CASA is now looking at ADSB for VFR aircraft.

As I have advised before, get out of aviation until someone advises that there is light on the horizon and there is recognition that it is a lie to say that the number one consideration is safety without mentioning cost. That’s what CASA did with ADSB.
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 07:55
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 260
Dick, well said. The concept of not following the largest provider and operator of GA style aircraft is totally flawed. Australia has no GA manufacturing industry for aircraft [yes we have Gippsland and a couple of other minor players] and avionics etc and yet we require equipment and standards that in some cases haven't been manufactured and certified...

Epic failures on a grand scale [TAWS, FDR's, CVR's in under 5700 aircraft and the list goes on] none of which is aligned with the FAA.

Well the Navy loses a billion on the Sea Sprite helicopters for the same reason. The biggest navy in the world with thousands of aircraft didn't see the same requirements as our needies for the 11 cabs ordered...

I rest my case
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 09:38
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,483
L1-L5 GPS augmentation signals being tested in AUstralia.

INMARSAT launched with a bent pipe transponder payload. Two year test and evaluation period. Accuracy down to less than 1m....

Dick, time to start beating up the polies to ensure this becomes FREELY available. It isn't just aviation but autonomous car technology and a huge host of other technologies...

Research has shown that the widespread adoption of improved positioning technology has the potential to generate upwards of $73 billion of value to Australia by 2030

Read more: http://criticalcomms.com.au/content/...#ixzz59to5rAYe
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 10:56
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 78
Posts: 2,739
Re "That’s what CASA did with ADSB. "

Well Dick, THAT is EXACTLY what happens when ex RAAF types try to fiddle with OUR airways system.....

'They' have NO feckin' idea of the COSTS of ANYTHING they impose -

Because.....'They' have NEVER had to pay for ANYTHING in their entire 'aviation lives'......

And, in another post in these pages somewhere, I did relate the conversation I had with the previous 'chairman', that after the mandatory ADSB carriage had been introduced for IFR flights, how long would it be, OR was there ANY intention to 'mandate' this for VFR?

In particular, DH-82A types engaged in 'Joyflights' / Scenic Flights.....

His response was something along the lines of 'No, not at this time / not me, but....some of my 'colleagues' are thinking that way...or words to that effect.

I would like to 'Shell' them....'For Effect'..!!

NO CHEERS !!!


Nope!!! None at ALL....

(p.s. Tks again for.....)

Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 17th Mar 2018 at 04:50. Reason: spelling...ooopppsss...
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 11:47
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,414
Did I read somewhere the Canadians I think it was were developing
a satellite based ADSB that will make the current stuff obsolete?

If this is true then one screaming skull desperate to big note himself to ICAO in Montreal should have to explain why he and his minions squandered hundreds of millions of our money to be "First in the world" and achieving absolutely nothing.

Tragic really.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 13:56
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,244
How long will it be until Dick segues this topic to MDX?
gerry111 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 14:00
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Dick, just keep pushing. I applaud you.
vne165 is online now  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 21:39
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,191
Gerry. Glad you mentioned MDX.

In that case the pilot was never able to communicate to a person with a radar screen that could have informed him in a timely fashion that he was heading at right angles to his desired direction.

Most importantly despite the expensive BASI investigation not at any time did they make a recommendation that direct access to radar be given to all pilots in radar coverage.

I had to bring that in about a decade later despite resistance from pilots like Bloggs.

This shows the resistance to copying the best from leading aviation countries.

On another thread you will see Mr Bloggs concerns about updating Ballina to class E. It was similar resistance to copying the best that resulted in this un affordable ADSB mandate.

See. Got back onto the thread message! Just.
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 22:31
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,707
The beauty of ADSB from a CASA perspective, is that it functions as a giant surveillance system and automatic infringement generator.

Break the floor of controlled airspace for twenty seconds, "Ping".

Twenty metres the wrong side of Westgate, "Ping".

Decide to ramp check one particular pilot, "ping"

you get the drift.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 22:47
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,191
Good point

Is there any evidence that an ADSB return has been used in this way ?
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 22:57
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,483
Sunfish, it works the other way too. Having said that, if you are tracking that close to a VCA with your magenta line then maybe add a few hundred metres side track to be sure...as opposed to the old half mile map crawling.

Face it, you would trust the data +/- feet as opposed to a recording of a radar return superimposed on a map with no accurate reference points.

Leadsled and me used to joust on this exact subject over a decade ago...all I can hope for is the government doing the right thing because Leadsled's premise is 100% possible to re-introduce nm based nav charges for GA VFR using ADS-B recordings. Far more insidious than a VCA.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 23:08
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Hot Box
Posts: 432
Is there any evidence that an ADSB return has been used in this way ?
I've seen CASA FOI's directly comment on the proceedings of a flight test and upper airwork conducted purely on what they claim to have witnessed on third party data sites like Flight Aware.

Wouldn't stand up in court for a second I would imagine - but disturbing nonetheless they are willing to surveil and make conclusions based on unverified third party data
kingRB is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2018, 01:50
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,707
Dick:
Is there any evidence that an ADSB return has been used in this way ?
Given that CASA has a habit of prosecuting pilots from 'desk research" for example the case of John Quadrio and a YouTube video and, allegedly, drawing conclusions from Flight Aware data, it is hard to see why CASA would NOT avail themselves of ADSB data in a prosecution. In fact a good QC could easily make a case that CASA was delinquent in its pursuit of public safety if it did not surviel all data and prosecute detected infringements.

Given as you know, how easy it is to parse a stream of data with a computer,, it is childs play to filter the data for a set of conditions, for example commencing a turn at less than 500 ft and half kilometer from takeoff, low flying, etc., etc.

ADSB will be used exactly like an automotive speed camera. Being cynical, the prescription of high accuracy TSO'd GPS to drive ADSB for VFR is about evidentiary reliability from a judicial point of view for the purposes of prosecution.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2018, 02:14
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Good point

Is there any evidence that an ADSB return has been used in this way ?
Unless CASA has their own feed, ATC hasn't changed they way they report/don't report.
BlockNotAvailable is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2018, 04:47
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
Maybe. just maybe, the TSO requirement is for ATC separation purposes.....
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2018, 04:58
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
is about evidentiary reliability from a judicial point of view for the purposes of prosecution.
Folks,
After all, as a former head of CASA legal said, in my presence:

" Pilots and engineers are just criminals who haven't been caught yet" and;

"Aviation regulations are for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".

I haven't seen any evidence that that philosophy has changed much since that was said, except for the worse.

Just as well I am no longer a candidate for any CASA approvals, as posts like this are "evidence of not having the appropriate safety culture", that is, hanging off every CASA word as the safety gospel.

Tootle pip!

Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Mar 2018 at 04:24.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2018, 23:11
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Hobart
Posts: 36
The cost of ADSB, coupled with PBN has lead me to spend a significant amount of funds on my fleet, which has led to no benefits.

Hobart being non-radar airspace, the tower controllers aren't even allowed to use it, and to keep the jets happy, we now have SID / STARS which have added significant track miles for GA aircraft wanting to what they could have simply done through a DME descent ... we are starting to enter the control zone from OCTA rather than remain in CTA because of the buggering around with the approaches.

There was a video out there of john mccormick saying essentially any airline which makes a profit, is at some level, deciding to cut back on safety (the video has been removed from the CASA website but a transcript is here Philosphical Ramblings Post AVSafety srfc.org.au) ... my concern is that this midset still exists at the upper echelons, and rolling out Part 135 could make or break GA
swells is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2018, 23:33
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,707
Penguin. I know accuracy and tolerances are the reason for IFR aircraft needing the TSO'd units for separation purposes, but why VFR?

The ADSB out message includes data about its own reliability and accuracy SIL, etc., so why the need for a one size fits all requirement?

In addition Dynon has a unit for around $800 that meets FAA requirements.

CASA appears to deliberately ignore costs to the industry. I don't know if this is because of a RAAF / Public servant mindset or just pure envy of anyone owning an aircraft.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 00:43
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
VFR fly in CTA and how do we separate IFR aircraft from you using ADS-B if you aren't flying to the same tolerances? Add in an extra couple of miles for Mum?
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 01:15
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,191
Surely you would only have to add a few extra metres?
Dick Smith is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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