ADS-B “IN” at Ballina?
I've been reading the grant information for the ADSB rebate. Its not at all straight forward on the face of it. You need to provide a compelling application for it to be accepted!
You need for the purchase to have been made AFTER 20th December 2021.
The crux of what you need on the form is here:
https://business.gov.au/-/media/gran...481FB9C7EE7268
Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS-B) Broadcast Rebate Program | business.gov.au
You need for the purchase to have been made AFTER 20th December 2021.
The crux of what you need on the form is here:
https://business.gov.au/-/media/gran...481FB9C7EE7268
Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS-B) Broadcast Rebate Program | business.gov.au
you're talking biiiiig dollars to purchase and install something in a certified aircraft though there's a few new ones popping up for Experimental's in the sub-$2000 range
Conversely, witness the extraordinary Dynon Skyview making its way into certified aircraft, bringing with it the ability to install ADSB IN at a reasonable cost. You've gotta laugh at the 'certified guru's' turning their nose up at Dynon!
Now that SIDS will no longer be compulsory there'll be a bit of money left over for avioincs!
Ironic? Certified aircraft are becoming relics, continually tarted up on the inside with 1930's, 40's etc technology, witness the continued stupidity of relying on vacuum pump run instruments, and the stupid cost of such.
Conversely, witness the extraordinary Dynon Skyview making its way into certified aircraft, bringing with it the ability to install ADSB IN at a reasonable cost. You've gotta laugh at the 'certified guru's' turning their nose up at Dynon!
Now that SIDS will no longer be compulsory there'll be a bit of money left over for avioincs!
Conversely, witness the extraordinary Dynon Skyview making its way into certified aircraft, bringing with it the ability to install ADSB IN at a reasonable cost. You've gotta laugh at the 'certified guru's' turning their nose up at Dynon!
Now that SIDS will no longer be compulsory there'll be a bit of money left over for avioincs!
I've got dual Dynon SkyViews in the RV and wouldn't even think about anything else in a certified aircraft I owned except perhaps a G3X system and only then if it offered an autopilot STC, however, I understand the blokes at Horsham (and others) are installing the Dynon AP under an EO across a range of certified birds. Being able to have a fully integrated system that monitors anything and everything you could imagine right down to something as simple as ignition switch state and then provides an spoken alarm if something upsets it is lightyears ahead in terms of safety than TSO'd equipment. Garmin is similar with their G3X system, but not quite as advanced as Dynon in terms of their alerts, IIRC, though I believe they do offer much better integration with their other products, but that's to be expected, I guess.
I understand the blokes at Horsham (and others) are installing the Dynon AP under an EO across a range of certified birds.
This is worth a read regarding issues in the USA and mid air collisions, particularly Alaska where the number of landing areas within a specified area makes the Ballina/Lismore/Casino area look desolate.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR2104.pdf
Here is Safety Alert 58;
https://www.ntsb.gov/Advocacy/safety...nts/SA-058.pdf
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR2104.pdf
2.3 Lack of Alerting This accident underscores the serious inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, which remains the primary means of collision avoidance in VFR conditions. Scientific literature on human performance in aviation (Gibb et al 2010b) and previous NTSB accident reports (discussed below) have described these limitations and argued that they cannot be overcome simply by pilot diligence in scanning for traffic. In previous midair accident investigations, the NTSB has noted that CDTI can supplement pilots’ visual scans and provide awareness of conflicting traffic targets minutes before these targets become a collision threat. In 2015, a Cessna 150M and a Lockheed Martin F-16CM collided in flight near Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Because of the high closure rate involved, each pilot had a limited opportunity to see and avoid the other airplane. A postaccident simulation showed that devices in the cockpit that display or alert to traffic conflicts might have provided both pilots with clear traffic depictions and aural alerts as the conflict developed and could have enabled them to avoid the collision.62 In addition, in 2015, a Cessna 172M and an NA265-60SC Sabreliner collided while maneuvering for landing at Brown Field Municipal Airport, San Diego, California. A postaccident simulation showed that a CDTI in one or both of the airplanes could have provided a traffic picture that likely would have allowed the pilots to become aware of and look for the other airplane and may have prevented the accident.63 As a result, in 2016, the NTSB issued Safety Alert 58, “Prevent Midair Collisions: Don’t Depend on Vision Alone,” to inform pilots of the benefits of technologies that provide traffic displays and alerts in the cockpit to enhance safe separation from traffic.64
https://www.ntsb.gov/Advocacy/safety...nts/SA-058.pdf
This is worth a read regarding issues in the USA and mid air collisions, particularly Alaska where the number of landing areas within a specified area makes the Ballina/Lismore/Casino area look desolate.
Here is Safety Alert 58;
https://www.ntsb.gov/Advocacy/safety...nts/SA-058.pdf
Here is Safety Alert 58;
https://www.ntsb.gov/Advocacy/safety...nts/SA-058.pdf
"ADS-B is transforming all segments of aviation. Real-time precision, shared situational awareness, advanced applications for pilots and controllers alike – these are the hallmarks of ADS-B NextGen surveillance.
- Real-time ADS-B is now the preferred method of surveillance for air traffic control in the NAS
- General aviation is safer with ADS-B traffic, weather, and flight-information services
- Safety and efficiency improve with advanced ADS-B applications
POB JQF and AEM near Mangalore on 19 Feb 2020 might beg to differ from that rosy message, but we'll never know. And there's no detail of the extent to which the claimed improvements rely on the 'IN' capability.
Jeez, if it's only an extra USD500, the idiom 'no brainer' comes to mind.
The report regarding the Hudson river collision is pretty defining. Basically says the controllers can't watch you all the time (happened in RADAR controlled airspace) and if they had proper training and had heeded the conflict warnings from their own systems it would have been a different outcome. The floatplane collision was another where one aircraft had its altitude readout 'switched off', had it been on, the other aircraft would have received an aural and visual alert to the conflict.
The technology is more than capable of saving lives, however the persistence with RADAR controllers and see and avoid being 'enough' works against it's proper use.
As for rejigging CTAFs for radio broadcasting changes, it's moving deck chairs on the Titanic. In Alaska they tried the multicom thing, combined frequencies, so on, and found no real reduction in the rate of Midairs in high traffic zone (16 since 2005, 4 more since the CTAF changes in 2014). Suprise, suprise, the big finding is if you don't mandate calls, most don't talk, and if no one talks and you rely on see and avoid, they hit each other.
WRT to JQF vs AEM, if only one of those aircraft had a CDTI the incident would most likely not have happened as at least one of the pilots would have been alerted to proximity.
The technology is more than capable of saving lives, however the persistence with RADAR controllers and see and avoid being 'enough' works against it's proper use.
As for rejigging CTAFs for radio broadcasting changes, it's moving deck chairs on the Titanic. In Alaska they tried the multicom thing, combined frequencies, so on, and found no real reduction in the rate of Midairs in high traffic zone (16 since 2005, 4 more since the CTAF changes in 2014). Suprise, suprise, the big finding is if you don't mandate calls, most don't talk, and if no one talks and you rely on see and avoid, they hit each other.
WRT to JQF vs AEM, if only one of those aircraft had a CDTI the incident would most likely not have happened as at least one of the pilots would have been alerted to proximity.
An RPT jet collision with a Jizzler 700 in the vicinity of Ballina (or Mildura or...) will sink the Titanic.
Broadcast (ADS-B) Study and Implementation Task Force (ADS-B TF/3)
"Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) is a key element of the proposed Australian ADS-B Lower Airspace Program currently under consideration by the country’s aviation industry."
Are there any EFBs that display ADSB traffic over their 4G connections?
I know of countless pilots who frequently switch between OZRunways and Flight Radar 24 to check on the traffic situation (and try to visualize the traffic from one map to another). I know the EFB providers enable ADSB-IN receivers to be connected to the iPads but the majority of pilots do not have this. I think it would be a pretty good option if EFB providers had some kind of arrangement to buy data from Flight Radar 24 and display it via the 4G cellular connection. I know this isn't perfect as cellular and FR ADSB coverage isn't everywhere, but it would be a hell of a lot safer than what we have now...
I know of countless pilots who frequently switch between OZRunways and Flight Radar 24 to check on the traffic situation (and try to visualize the traffic from one map to another). I know the EFB providers enable ADSB-IN receivers to be connected to the iPads but the majority of pilots do not have this. I think it would be a pretty good option if EFB providers had some kind of arrangement to buy data from Flight Radar 24 and display it via the 4G cellular connection. I know this isn't perfect as cellular and FR ADSB coverage isn't everywhere, but it would be a hell of a lot safer than what we have now...
Are there any EFBs that display ADSB traffic over their 4G connections?
I know of countless pilots who frequently switch between OZRunways and Flight Radar 24 to check on the traffic situation (and try to visualize the traffic from one map to another). I know the EFB providers enable ADSB-IN receivers to be connected to the iPads but the majority of pilots do not have this. I think it would be a pretty good option if EFB providers had some kind of arrangement to buy data from Flight Radar 24 and display it via the 4G cellular connection. I know this isn't perfect as cellular and FR ADSB coverage isn't everywhere, but it would be a hell of a lot safer than what we have now...
I know of countless pilots who frequently switch between OZRunways and Flight Radar 24 to check on the traffic situation (and try to visualize the traffic from one map to another). I know the EFB providers enable ADSB-IN receivers to be connected to the iPads but the majority of pilots do not have this. I think it would be a pretty good option if EFB providers had some kind of arrangement to buy data from Flight Radar 24 and display it via the 4G cellular connection. I know this isn't perfect as cellular and FR ADSB coverage isn't everywhere, but it would be a hell of a lot safer than what we have now...
The best method is via an ADSB-in device, because the data can be controlled directly from the EFB, so they can decide what it shown and what isn’t. Have you ever noticed how FR24 or similar “estimate” where the other aircraft may be when signal is lost? Imagine if the feed from there was relied upon but was an estimate and the aircraft was not where the other pilot expected it to be!
A “Ping” or “Skyecho” is directly reading the info from the other aircraft, not via a website hosted on the other side of the world, via Cisco networks and an unreliable 4G connection.
Short of that, there is a 3rd party app available right now that does exactly what you’re suggesting and feeds traffic into the two EFB’s.
Do you mean like this proposal from 2005?
Broadcast (ADS-B) Study and Implementation Task Force (ADS-B TF/3)
"Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) is a key element of the proposed Australian ADS-B Lower Airspace Program currently under consideration by the country’s aviation industry."
Broadcast (ADS-B) Study and Implementation Task Force (ADS-B TF/3)
"Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) is a key element of the proposed Australian ADS-B Lower Airspace Program currently under consideration by the country’s aviation industry."
“The information can be shown on Eurotelematik’s certified CDTI 2000 multifunction display or, as a lower cost alternative, on a pocket PC“
Replace Pocket PC with iPad I guess.
It can't be stressed enough that traffic that comes from an 'internet' feed is not going to be real time, so you must not use it for separation. You could use it to get an idea who's in the area, but DO NOT use it for separation. Getting weather from internet broadcast 'radar' sites is the same, its past history, not current data. As said above it's very important to know the difference between how your traffic display derives it's information and training is essential to effectively use it. Most airlines consider TCAS a last line of defense, that is it's not the primary device to separate you from traffic. Your eyes, ears, information passed from ATS and brain are the primary separation, CDTIs are a fallback in case you fail.
Well said, 43. That’s why staring at gizmos - especially ones that are displaying delayed or estimated or potentially corrupted data - is risky.
It amazes me the number of people who say “I’ve got you on TCAS” like it actually means something. Unless it’s ADSB-IN, the lateral accuracy of TCAS is so rubbish, you’d be nuts to use it for anything other than vertical seperation.
The issue with displaying traffic via the internet is control and latency. There’s extra hops and latency between the two that can’t be controlled. For example, if an EFB took a feed from a 3rd party ADSB receiver network, what controls are around that data, what is the link latency and where is the data hosted (country)?
The best method is via an ADSB-in device, because the data can be controlled directly from the EFB, so they can decide what it shown and what isn’t. Have you ever noticed how FR24 or similar “estimate” where the other aircraft may be when signal is lost? Imagine if the feed from there was relied upon but was an estimate and the aircraft was not where the other pilot expected it to be!.
The best method is via an ADSB-in device, because the data can be controlled directly from the EFB, so they can decide what it shown and what isn’t. Have you ever noticed how FR24 or similar “estimate” where the other aircraft may be when signal is lost? Imagine if the feed from there was relied upon but was an estimate and the aircraft was not where the other pilot expected it to be!.
I agree that it is not a perfect solution and shouldn't be relied upon for separation but regarding your comment about an aircraft not being where the pilot expects it to be, isn't this the same problem with TCAS and all the other cheaper GA installations that try and display Mode C/S transponder returns on a map?