ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
 

It is now becoming obvious that after Australia led the United States and other leading aviation countries by six years in the ADS-B mandate that there are now business jets which are flying non-ADS-B compliant and are being forced by Airservices Australia Air Traffic Controllers to fly at flight 290 or below in the non-radar airspace. Already I have heard that one plane was forced into very bad weather.

I just wonder how long it will be before there is a serious accident causing multiple fatalities because a business jet is not able to fly above the weather but is being forced by the Air Traffic Controller to fly in the middle of the worst weather possible. Especially with summer coming on and the wet season in the Northern Territory and some pretty horrendous weather conditions around.

I am sure there are those who will say that the pilot can use the radar to weave in and out through the big CBs, however it is not always possible to avoid the maximum turbulence this way.

If you look on Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! it’s obvious that about 98% of the time there are plenty of flight levels available in the non-radar airspace where these aircraft could operate and, once again, using Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!, it’s quite obvious that non-equipped aircraft would be able to climb and descend with procedural separation standard.

I understand it’s not the ATCs who have refused to accept these aircraft, but a small group of “concrete minded bureaucrats” within the upper echelons of Airservices and CASA.

Of course, when the inevitable accident occurs because a bizjet has had its wings pulled off, I bet it will be the ATC who will be blamed or will at least have it on his or her conscience that the aircraft could have flown above the weather and been separated in an acceptably safe way.

I operated F28s in the tropics for around 10 years at the levels you are so concerned about ie. FL280/ FL290 never came close to having the wings torn off Dick. In fact after the DC3 and F27 it was sheer luxury to be at those Flight Levels, as always I suspect you have an alterior motive for raising the issue,I wonder what it is ?

Just pay for the upgrade and abandon your infantile sense of entitlement Dick.

I am still working around compromises in the airspace made to suit your personal wants.

It's irrelevant what Dick's agenda is, all of us have "agendas in life", anyone who says otherwise is a liar. The point of Dicks comment is there in plain English. A good post that certainly gives good food for thought.

And finally, Creamie would be most disappointed if I didn't fire a shot across CAsA's bow, so here it is - Indeed, there are concrete minded idiots at the helm of these organisations that are pulling these ridiculous strings.

Dick. I'll probably get the blame for this, being one of many who fought to stop the mandatory installation of ADSB for every aircraft. (like my Piper Colt). I suppose I inadvertently got a 50% win. Airservices and CASA felt duty obliged to mandate it elsewhere, (above FL290), where the poor bloody fare paying travelling public, (read voters), matter, who if asked would support it 100%. (even in the circuit at Oodnadatta). Of note however is the opposite of those who vehemently proposed its introduction everywhere got 50% of what they were looking for. As we all know compromises rarely work except to keep the peace.


I didn't intend for this to happen, but those concrete minded supporters did and still need more. Not all are Bureaucrats either.

You have got to be joking...

Dick, I thought you were a founder of the Australian Sceptic’s society - remember all those logical fallacies your railed against? Here's a wall chart in case you forgot: Your Logical Fallacies

Your post ticks the strawman & appeal to emotion fallacies as you have framed it.

I have spoken to controllers who reckon they can easily handle the small number of aircraft that havn't yet been able to get a manufactures service bulletin for the upgrade.- just as they did with non RVSM compliant aircraft.

If I was a professional controller I would not like to be told that I had to force business jets to low levels( up to $1000 per hour extra fuel cost as well as the WX worries) unless there was a good reason for it.

I would want to provide a professional service to all that were paying my salary- not force their passengers into operations with lower levels of safety.

Australo, what compromises?

I havn't been involved for a decade so why havn't you had the problems rectified?

Or have you fabricated a story? I challenge you to give a bit more info on the changes you do not like.

Back to your Aussiemite Richard. Stop stirring up the pot for you entertainment.

"Forced into bad weather...." Give me strength....:{

p.s. Don't tell the poor Q400 drivers in QLink about the possibility of having their wings torn off mate, they too fly in those dangerous Flight Levels because they can't get any higher!!

Drivel, utter tosh.

You are joking. You're a numbers-man, Dick; prove your claim.

I think what Australo is probably referring to is the CTA steps Australia wide that have been compromised for the benefit of a few GA aircraft to avoid paying airspace charges.
For every other minute of the day there is a high capacity jet flying a compromised descent profile burning excess fuel and pumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere.
The problem is getting worse as a result of newer aircraft types with lower descent (more efficient) profiles.
This problem rarely exists anywhere else in the world.

Really?? If you were a professional controller you wouldn't like to do anything that doesn't have a good reason for it explained to you? What would you do if no one could explain a 'good reason' to you, break the rules on your own authority or suck it up and do what you are told? That's how Aviation in this country works now Dick. You should know, you started it. The only difference is back then we all thought your ideas were ****, but you didn't, so we had to do what you wanted even though there was no 'good reason' for it to anyone other than you. Its still the same today...people making arbitrary decisions without consultation.

Blaming the ATC's is infantile and something I would have honestly thought was beneath your level of intelligence...ATC's are given rules to follow, if they don't follow them in todays highly regulated workplace they get stood down and potentially lose their livelihoods. If you want to bitch about the ADS mandate take it up with the rule makers not the poor bottom feeders at the console. Feeling irrelevant as you get older Dick? Reap the whirlwind..

It's because those manufacturers sell the vast majority of their aircraft to customers in the USA, Europe, and other places where ADS-B mandates are either a few years away, or there is currently no mandate at all.

The only reason Australia is rolling in ADS-B before the rest of the world, and therefore before the market is ready for it is to give senior CASA staff something to brag about to their mates in Montreal.

Dick you are joking, again? CTA Steps?? Every time I hear an A330 or 777 being told "further descent in XX miles" and I think what that crew is going through getting high on profile, I think of you, Dick.

AngryRat, ask Dick what his total fuel flow is at 350 verses 290. Then see how that matches this extra $1000 per hour claim. Maybe challenge him "to give a bit more info"...

Whilst I see your point, the mandate for ADS-B has been out there for a while, and there is a process to give yourself more time to become compliant. If a pilot of a bizjet can't follow that process, that's negligence on their part. Whilst it is expensive (I think around 50K?) and it does take the plane out of service, if you can afford to own and maintain a biz jet, you can afford to upgrade to ADS-B. They aren't Commodores.

About 400lbs/hr difference at 280 v say 410. At the current Shell price for A1, 182kg is about $350 an hour. And that's on what are probably less efficient turbines than on newer jets.

Planes fly at 280 and below all over Australia, Dick. I don't see the problem.

Without entering the debate..........

I don't believe it is a matter of affordability or cost, rather that Service Bulletins are not yet available to install ADSB in many pre-existing aircraft types, including certain models of the Cessna Citation series.

As someone who spends most of the time in the mid-F300s to low-F400s, the idea that I can be safe by flying above the worst of the NT wet season weather is a complete fallacy. Even FL500 is nowhere near good enough. Unless you're in something like a U2, the only way to be safe with that stuff is to not be in the same place.

Thanks for that Tail Wheel. I'd not considered that. There is still the exemption process until that happens.

I was referring to the CTA steps primarily, but also the arbitrarily high floor of controlled airspace over most of the continent. Often times dispatch at FL250 or below is required by DDG requirements. The FL240 floor leaves little scope for operation.

The BBJ would not burn an extra thousand an hour...and I have often opted for FL280 in similar types with negligible change to SFC.

I will add my voice to the many pointing out that the mid-levels were fine for the first half of aviation's short history. And still are too for huge fleets of aircraft daily.

RVSM and ADSB are modern advances. If you don't like them maybe you should trade in your A340* executive jet for something more appropriate like a Howard 500 or Beech 18

*no wait...that'd be compliant, and STILL wouldn't burn $1000hr more 6000' lower than optimum.

An emotive lot of claptrap Dick. ATC can't force any pilot to do anything. Self serving sensationalism at its worst. What's next a gig in journalism? :ugh:

You give notice of your flight a fortnight in advance... and it will be considered!

Not very helpful for any operator really, be it private, corporate or charter!

Bravo
 

Well said Capt Claret. Unless ATC is going to suddenly materialise on a flight deck and wrest control of the aircraft from the pilot in command, then there is no way to force crew to enter any situation they deem unsafe. Let alone one that might "rip the wings off".

Has anyone noticed that it is currently full moon!!

Astralo, you can thank Class E Airspace and Dicks love of everything VFR for the 'base'. It wasn't about safety, it was about doing it on the cheap (for said VFR's anyway)

I seem to recall from an earlier thread that Dick was denied an exemption by CASA (for I think a flight to Western Queensland?) and was looking to a Court challenge.

I suspect the primary issue here is that Australia has imposed an ADSB requirement ahead of most of the rest of the world, before all manufacturers have developed compliant Service Bulletins for ADSB installations in existing aircraft? I don't think it is not a matter of cost, rather having available an approved installation method?

Exemptions are unavailable: one day a number of Australian corporate and private aircraft are safe to operate above FL290, but the next day they becomes a threat to airline safety?

Still not entering the debate. Only observations. :)

When the well-laden 737-800 I fly won't burn an extra $1000 per hour of fuel if kept down at FL290 (or FL250 for that matter) i call bullsiht on your claim Dick. You're doing your argument no favours resorting to specious reasoning.

I thought the point of ADS-B implementation was to increase airpace efficiency? ADS-B allows AsA to fit alot more aircraft within a volume of airspace then they had with procedural airspace.

The problem is not that it is unsafe to let Dick in, the problem is now it is impractical and less efficient to let Dick in...as an example 10min longitudinal separation is approx 50-80nm...with ads-b it is now only 5nm (corect me if I am wrong). So now ATC have to find/make a 50-80nm hole to fit him in. Who do they penalise to do this? Someone has to cop a speed/alt/tracking hit to fit him in. Would the airlines think this was fair?

Of course you have Dick, because it fits nicely with your argument. Provide details or it didn't happen. There isn't an ATC in this country that would force an aircraft into "very bad weather".

I've heard of people wanting to take legal action for accusations less that this...on this site too.

Dick raises legitimate issues which deserve discussion rather than attacking Dick.

It is true that we are implementing ADS-B well ahead of the US (where the equipment is designed & made). Why?

It is also true that Australian has opted for a different system than the US which exacerbates that equipment availability issue.

It is true that many aircraft (from memory Dick's Citation is one), do not currently have a technical solution to fit ADS-B. I'd suggest that those with a chip on their shoulder about Dick being able to afford to run a Citation should read some of the previous threads first. Are we really trying to implement a system that is technically not yet possible for all aircraft?

I have heard (I do not know first hand) that some of the airlines are not ADS-B equipped and are operating with exemptions. It would be interesting to explore this. If CASA are selectively granting exemptions, then we are back to CASA at its best and we owe it to ourselves to highlight this.

The issue should not be that Dick (and others) can fly below FL290 and should put up with a workaround. The question should be why we are not able to facilitate the optimal operation of these aircraft?

And for Alfacentauri, you are unquestionably correct that not ATC would force an aircraft into very bad weather, however, I have witnessed them force aircraft into non-optimal weather for the sake of operational expediency. My question would be: are we making FL 280 & FL 290 unnecessarily crowded and does this diminish the safety in those levels? Without meaning to be alarmist, there is still an active ATSB investigation about ATC "losing" an airbus near Adelaide. Isn't it safer to have as many altitudes available as possible? Investigation: AO-2013-161 - Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013.

Dick..
Big Country...little radar coverage. You have tried (and made an absolute dogs breakfast) to get US type of airspace implemented in Australia, the critical shortfall in your plan was that we dont have a fraction of the radar coverage in Oz as the US have over the pond.

Simple solution: ADS-B installed in aircraft to make up the shortfall in ATC surveillance.

If you want to be separated from other aircraft efficiently, get this piece of equipment installed, from the costs you are talking about it will only take a few trips at correct flight levels to recover the costs.

As an ATC, I will tell you right now, I dont give a flying rats ass if aircraft are flying at their non planned levels if it is a requirement for me to have the aircraft separated, ADS-B equipped or not. I dont care if it costs them $1000 bucks an hour in fuel, as long as it doesnt cost them their lives.

If you are not flying under surveillance ATC separation standards become rediculously large (5 miles radar/ADS-B to upto 50nm co altitude) as it is impractical to launch aircraft out of terminals on the same route (into non surveillance airspace) 50nm apart....vertical separation needs to be applied.

Dick...get your aircraft equipped with the best technology available to ensure you get to your destination on time and on budget.

This is not ATC's problem. This is not CASA's problem, this is your problem, and a lot of it is of your own making because of you banging on about airspace.

Akro,
Sure, the non compliant aircraft can have his planned level. Now I will just put these 2 complient aircraft over 100nm apart so that he can have his planned level....

getting the picture?

Is this the separation that was used on Dec 11, 2013?

CASA granted Dick an exemption. With an exemption you can fly above F280 around the J-curve and off the coast from SW WA around to NE NT. Outside those areas you still have to operate F280 or lower, exempt or not.

CASA EX113/13 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace

There are very few aircraft regularly flying that aren't compliant and F280 is far from being crowded.

Would "operational expediency" mean "for separation"?

Because the US has blanket radar coverage, we don't. The US is replacing radar with ADSB so the gains are minimal. We are replacing nothing with ADSB so the gains are substantial.

Yes, some of the airlines aircraft are "ADSB Exempt". So is Dicks Citation. It allows the aircraft to fly above F280 in ADSB Exempt Airspace (very roughly the J Curve and the oggin).

It basically come down the the "greater good". ADSB only delivers its full potential if its exclusive. What the biz jets lose is less than everybody else gains.

However, this may be valid (pedant mode - its F280 and F270)

I do wonder if the powers that be have decided on a hard mandate so we avoid the situation of RVSM. Over 10 years later we have non RVSM aircraft using three times the airspace that otherwise would.

I would say that the 50nm standard gets used all the time Akro, daily and hourly.

If you are reffering to an incident on a specific date, unless you can link the ATSB report, I have no idea what you are talking about.

No. plus extra characters to make 10.

Akro, then what was it for?

So my question - and it was a genuine question - is whether the separation requirements for non ADSB aircraft (ie the 100nm you tabled) is more arduous now than before the Dec 12 ADSB requirement. If the answer is yeas, then Dick and others are being penalised because they are unable to comply with the regulation requirement due only to lack of equipment.

If the answer is no, then I struggle to see why he couldn't do the same flight on Dec 11 as Dec 12.

The other thing I don't understand is how overseas aircraft are treated. I presume all the bizjets with N tail numbers in hangars around Essendon do not have ADS-B and I also assume that International carriers do not have the Aussie ES ADS-B units. How are these handled and is it any different to how Dick is being directed to operate.

Duane

Forgot to add that I did link to the ATSB report. Just checked and it works on my computer.