Flawed advice from Transport Minister McCormack’s office regarding SBAS
Thread Starter
Flawed advice from Transport Minister McCormack’s office regarding SBAS
The Australian newspaper on Friday April 13, 2018 in a major article headed “Satellite system heralded for its safety benefits” stated the following:
Surely that is a load of codswallop as it would be possible to put Baro-VNAV approaches in remote and regional Australia. The only advantage SBAS would have would be a lower minima – I think it works out to be about 100 feet.
Does anyone have any idea of how this lower minima is going to “transform air transport in remote and regional Australia”?
The last figures I saw is that SBAS is going to cost about $150 million. The only way you could go ahead is if there are many other industries in Australia, other than aviation, who are going to receive a financial benefit from it. I would love to know what they are and I would also love to see the proper figures.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m a really strong supporter of SBAS as long as it reflects a positive cost benefit study. Otherwise, I would like the Government to consider putting $150 million into the flight and LAME training industry. Now that could have a real benefit for aviation – both in participation and safety.
“A spokesman for the Infrastructure and Transport Minister Michael McCormack said an SBAS had “the potential to transform air transport in remote and regional Australia.””
Does anyone have any idea of how this lower minima is going to “transform air transport in remote and regional Australia”?
The last figures I saw is that SBAS is going to cost about $150 million. The only way you could go ahead is if there are many other industries in Australia, other than aviation, who are going to receive a financial benefit from it. I would love to know what they are and I would also love to see the proper figures.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m a really strong supporter of SBAS as long as it reflects a positive cost benefit study. Otherwise, I would like the Government to consider putting $150 million into the flight and LAME training industry. Now that could have a real benefit for aviation – both in participation and safety.
Baro-VNAV is only avialable to FMS equipped aircraft. LNAV-V is a different animal...non certified guidance. ...Advisory vertical guidance...Dick, do not fall for that trap. The best way and the only way for vertical CAT 1 equivalent guidance for the likes of Lockhart river is augmented SBAS. Do not fall for the trap that only aviation benefits from a geostationary signal augmentation.
150 million is bs, by the way. Have another read on ground station coverage...other than the ADS-B sites and coms sites. Have another read of the trial under way, covering east coast...if you are being advised that Baro is the way...just turn quietly and walk away from these people. Baro was only instigated so CASA could tick an ICAO box to provide for vertical guidance about eight years ago. Baro is not the answer!
Dick, no one in DoT is going to listen to this truck driver. They will listen to you. Augmented SBAS is being trialled now. Agriculture, autonomous vehicles(NEVER, IF I HAVE A SAY!), individual tracking for detention purposes, more accurate gps guidance for transport, maritime, scientific surveys, local governments, asset management, basically any industry that doesnt require millimetre accuracy as provided by expensive DGPS systems.
DO NOT ALLOW ONLY AVIATION AS THE BENEFICIARY!
DO NOT ALLOW ONLY AVIATION AS THE BENEFICIARY!
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver you state:
I find this quite mysterious. Would you consider the Cirrus SR22 to be “FMS equipped”? I thought it had simple Garmin equipment and without doubt it provides Baro-VNAV.
Virtually all Garmin equipped aircraft from now on I understand will have Baro-VNAV – that is, including C172s, C182s and so forth.
So what are the facts here?
Ozbusdriver, if $150 million is not right, what is the correct figure? Surely someone must have done a figure. Has anyone put on the back of an envelope the actual cost to our country and the benefit?
It is a pretty simple request.
I think everyone will agree we have to make sure this is not another ADS-B fiasco. At that time, lots of boffins raved on about how fantastic ADS-B would be for general aviation in Australia. They tended to forget about the colossal cost of the installation.
Now that it is all installed, I have never been able to find anyone who has come up with one measurable cent of a cost saving. Also, people I have spoken to say there has been no measurable improvement in safety.
Of course, the $30 million that was claimed to have been spent on the early ADS-B mandate has nearly destroyed general aviation in this country – or it is the prime reason for the destruction. We don’t want more of that happening.
That is why I believe someone by now should have a very simple and accurate cost benefit study done in relation to SBAS. How many ground stations are planned for the system and where are the costings?
“Baro-VNAV is only available to FMS equipped aircraft.”
Virtually all Garmin equipped aircraft from now on I understand will have Baro-VNAV – that is, including C172s, C182s and so forth.
So what are the facts here?
Ozbusdriver, if $150 million is not right, what is the correct figure? Surely someone must have done a figure. Has anyone put on the back of an envelope the actual cost to our country and the benefit?
It is a pretty simple request.
I think everyone will agree we have to make sure this is not another ADS-B fiasco. At that time, lots of boffins raved on about how fantastic ADS-B would be for general aviation in Australia. They tended to forget about the colossal cost of the installation.
Now that it is all installed, I have never been able to find anyone who has come up with one measurable cent of a cost saving. Also, people I have spoken to say there has been no measurable improvement in safety.
Of course, the $30 million that was claimed to have been spent on the early ADS-B mandate has nearly destroyed general aviation in this country – or it is the prime reason for the destruction. We don’t want more of that happening.
That is why I believe someone by now should have a very simple and accurate cost benefit study done in relation to SBAS. How many ground stations are planned for the system and where are the costings?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Ozbusdriver wrote, it is not just aviation that will benefit from SBAS, but many sectors.
So to write that the cost is on aviation to justify is hard to disingenuous.
Also, you have used a figure of $150M - where does that figure come from and how reliable is it, and what does it include when adding up to the $150M?
So to write that the cost is on aviation to justify is hard to disingenuous.
Also, you have used a figure of $150M - where does that figure come from and how reliable is it, and what does it include when adding up to the $150M?
Last edited by rjtjrt; 17th Apr 2018 at 05:23. Reason: Typo
Originally Posted by Dick
Now that it is all installed, I have never been able to find anyone who has come up with one measurable cent of a cost saving. Also, people I have spoken to say there has been no measurable improvement in safety.
Thread Starter
Yes. I understand this. My C 208 has LNAV + V using Garmin 750 equipment
But the aircraft I have mentioned are Baro V Nav equipped.
I understand all new Garmin equipped IFR aircraft in the near future will have full Baro V nav at no extra cost.
So how will SBAS transform aviation in the outback?
But the aircraft I have mentioned are Baro V Nav equipped.
I understand all new Garmin equipped IFR aircraft in the near future will have full Baro V nav at no extra cost.
So how will SBAS transform aviation in the outback?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets just get the tried and tested SBAS for which extensive equipment already exists and has for years, and have something that works, not pie in the sky.
Also, as above, SBAS also will benefit wide ranging areas of the community other than aviation.
Thread Starter
Very strange. All these anonymous posters pushing for this new expensive system but not one giving a hint of what the cost benefit shows.
I wonder who is going to make money out of this?
I suggest some figures are necessary.
The Sirrus Sr 22 has Baro V Nav now at no extra cost. Why wouldn’t other manufacturers follow?
I wonder who is going to make money out of this?
I suggest some figures are necessary.
The Sirrus Sr 22 has Baro V Nav now at no extra cost. Why wouldn’t other manufacturers follow?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very strange. All these anonymous posters pushing for this new expensive system but not one giving a hint of what the cost benefit shows.
I wonder who is going to make money out of this?
I suggest some figures are necessary.
The Sirrus Sr 22 has Baro V Nav now at no extra cost. Why wouldn’t other manufacturers follow?
I wonder who is going to make money out of this?
I suggest some figures are necessary.
The Sirrus Sr 22 has Baro V Nav now at no extra cost. Why wouldn’t other manufacturers follow?
Where did the $150m you put forward come from, and what does it include?
In past I have admired you but now I just wonder if you are just a contrarian by nature.
I am happy to PM you with my name and contact details if you wish.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 17th Apr 2018 at 10:28. Reason: Spelling
Satellite technology pinpoints regional pilots in new aviation trial
Announced yesterday...
Announced yesterday...
A pioneering new trial led by Airservices Australia will use advanced satellite positioning to guide aircraft to within a few metres, improving safety and efficiency in our skies.
The trial is one of more than 25 being undertaken across multiple sectors, funded through a $12 million Australian Government program. The projects are looking at the benefits of Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) technology.
Australia currently depends on the satellite navigation systems of other countries such as the United States’ GPS, which provides less accurate positioning.
Geoscience Australia is the lead agency for the multi-million dollar program with Airservices Australia overseeing the new aviation project announced today.
Airservices Chief Executive Officer Jason Harfield said the new technology will greatly benefit regional carriers such as REX, QantasLink and the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
“This trial will test three new technologies, first generation SBAS, second generation SBAS and what’s known as Precise Point Positioning,” Mr Harfield said.
“It will improve safety, guiding pilots with greater accuracy, especially those flying into regional aerodromes operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).
“SBAS assisted approaches are eight times safer than those which use ground-based navigation aids.
“This extraordinary new technology, which provides improved navigation and timing over GPS, will also decrease the likelihood of ‘go-arounds’ and cancellations or diversions due to variable weather,” he added.
The broader SBAS program will assess the benefits of improved access to satellite positioning technology across the country, helping many industries which rely on GPS such as agriculture, mining, transport, construction and utilities.
The program is Australia’s first step to joining countries such as the United States, Europe, China, Russia, India and Japan, which are already using SBAS technology.
The two-year program of work is in partnership with global technology companies GMV, Inmarsat and Lockheed Martin.
The Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information (CRCSI) is managing the industry trials, along with evaluation and reporting.
The New Zealand Government is also supporting the SBAS program contributing a further $2 million in addition to the $12 million from the Australian Government.
Over twenty other program trials are already underway, including several across the maritime and agriculture sectors.
For more information about the SBAS aviation trial see the Airservices website.
The trial is one of more than 25 being undertaken across multiple sectors, funded through a $12 million Australian Government program. The projects are looking at the benefits of Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) technology.
Australia currently depends on the satellite navigation systems of other countries such as the United States’ GPS, which provides less accurate positioning.
Geoscience Australia is the lead agency for the multi-million dollar program with Airservices Australia overseeing the new aviation project announced today.
Airservices Chief Executive Officer Jason Harfield said the new technology will greatly benefit regional carriers such as REX, QantasLink and the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
“This trial will test three new technologies, first generation SBAS, second generation SBAS and what’s known as Precise Point Positioning,” Mr Harfield said.
“It will improve safety, guiding pilots with greater accuracy, especially those flying into regional aerodromes operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).
“SBAS assisted approaches are eight times safer than those which use ground-based navigation aids.
“This extraordinary new technology, which provides improved navigation and timing over GPS, will also decrease the likelihood of ‘go-arounds’ and cancellations or diversions due to variable weather,” he added.
The broader SBAS program will assess the benefits of improved access to satellite positioning technology across the country, helping many industries which rely on GPS such as agriculture, mining, transport, construction and utilities.
The program is Australia’s first step to joining countries such as the United States, Europe, China, Russia, India and Japan, which are already using SBAS technology.
The two-year program of work is in partnership with global technology companies GMV, Inmarsat and Lockheed Martin.
The Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information (CRCSI) is managing the industry trials, along with evaluation and reporting.
The New Zealand Government is also supporting the SBAS program contributing a further $2 million in addition to the $12 million from the Australian Government.
Over twenty other program trials are already underway, including several across the maritime and agriculture sectors.
For more information about the SBAS aviation trial see the Airservices website.
Dick, I am confused by your stance on this subject.
On another certain topic you keep raving on how we should be copying the "best" and "proven" system and that you built up DSE also by copying the "best", however here regarding SBAS which is very well "proven" and is also used extensively throughout the airspace system that you wish for us to copy you are against it. Why?
On another certain topic you keep raving on how we should be copying the "best" and "proven" system and that you built up DSE also by copying the "best", however here regarding SBAS which is very well "proven" and is also used extensively throughout the airspace system that you wish for us to copy you are against it. Why?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LPV is different from Baro VNAV in that the vertical guidance is derived from GNSS information as well, so it’s the equivalent of an ILS glide path. Baro VNAV is a slope calculated by the internal NAV system based on altitudes and waypoint information in the NDB. Any SBAS enabled system (SBAS is the generic name, WAAS is the US’ SBAS, GAPAN, EGNOS are other countries SBAS ) can doLPV approaches, provided the aircraft AND pilot are suitably equipped, trained, qualified. The benefits for aviation are massive, why install an ILS at Wellcamp or the new runway at Brisbane when you can have a LPV to the same minimums? New mine and strip? No problem, LPV approach surveyed and in place straight away.
Thread Starter
Yep. It is great technology.
But what will the cost be and who will pay?
How many ground stations will be required for Australia ? What will they cost?
Very mysterious that the government would be financing this trial. I am a businessman and founder of the Australian Skeptics. So far I have never lost any appreciable amount of money on a business deal because I do my homework first.
A person in the industry gave me the $150 m estimate.
But what will the cost be and who will pay?
How many ground stations will be required for Australia ? What will they cost?
Very mysterious that the government would be financing this trial. I am a businessman and founder of the Australian Skeptics. So far I have never lost any appreciable amount of money on a business deal because I do my homework first.
A person in the industry gave me the $150 m estimate.
Does the minister even HAVE an Aviation advisor?
....other than the Dept weenie that has been keeping the seat warm for the last 4-5 months?
....other than the Dept weenie that has been keeping the seat warm for the last 4-5 months?
Thread Starter
This is really interesting.
It looks as if no cost benefit figures are available.
Imagine that. Even getting the Ministers spokesmen to spruke it up without any proper figures being available.
I think it’s obvious that self interest could be involved. Post anonymously when you have the potential to make millions!
Check Thrust. Yes I am consistent. I only copied the best when I could afford it
Many times I could not. That’s just life and the reason I never owned a Gulfstream!
It looks as if no cost benefit figures are available.
Imagine that. Even getting the Ministers spokesmen to spruke it up without any proper figures being available.
I think it’s obvious that self interest could be involved. Post anonymously when you have the potential to make millions!
Check Thrust. Yes I am consistent. I only copied the best when I could afford it
Many times I could not. That’s just life and the reason I never owned a Gulfstream!
whatever you do Minister, don't let anyone ever connected with managing NBN anywhere near the project.