MORE EVIDENCE OF THE “IRON RING”
 

I think there is evidence that at the present time, the Director and the Board at CASA have very little say about what goes on. For example, John McCormick told many people – including myself – that in relation to the unique ADS-B mandate, five years ahead of the USA, dispensations would be available for non-radar airspace similar to the dispensation for RVSM.

At a later stage, John McCormick sent the following email to a well-known identity in the aviation industry:

When we pushed John McCormick on this email later, it was clear that he had been out-voted by the “Iron Ring” at CASA and no dispensations were to be given at all. The Iron Ring didn’t give a damn that the CEO had actually put in writing that there would be dispensations for the non-radar airspace. No - they had made up their mind and to Hell with fairness or keeping a promise or being ethical.

It now looks as if the dispensation which has been given in the radar airspace is to be removed in December. This can only be because of sheer bastardry because within the radar airspace the separation standards are the same for a Mode-S transponder as for an ADS-B fitted aircraft. Therefore there is no safety advantage at all.

Dick,

When ADSB was first announced, didn't Airservices say that they were going to pay for the unit to be placed in the aircraft as it would save them millions of dollars per year not to run the aging radar hubs?

There was a rolling payment schedule that reduced the amount they would pay depending on how close to the deadline you got the unit fitted!

So are we now expected to pay for a more expensive unit, AND Airservices reap the profits?

Doesn't seem fair.

DB

And now I believe the FAA has further delayed mandatory ADSB to 2020. I wonder how many integrated avionics manufacturers have now put that change on hold?

Dick,
the whole ADSB debacle was based on how big ASA managements bonuses would be for saving the guvmint $170 Mil or so, by getting the industry to pay.

Dangly Bits - The cross subsidisation was the original plan – that was to be paid for by the removal of the enroute secondary radars throughout Australia. That, in fact, was a ridiculous idea and never went ahead. No air traffic control service provider could ever rely on just one system – especially based on GPS which was still a pretty new technology. When it was decided that the secondary radars should remain, the economics of the cross-subsidisation were no longer viable.

QUOTE When ADSB was first announced, didn't Airservices say that they were going to pay for the unit to be placed in the aircraft QUOTE


They certainly did. I and many others will remember "Tammany Hall" at the AOPA AGM at Murray Bridge. Again after the AOPA AGM at the Bankstown Trotting Club and in brochures. These and many other meetings included a talk on ADSB free installation.


Not being the type of person to say I told you all over and over it would never happen, I won't. (but I'd love to).

Is that true ?

I thought some parts of the south pacific went to an ADS-B type system over a decade ago.

Whats is happening in Alaska ?

What is happening between Europe and the US ?

There was a significant RAIM failure event just recently. Enough to have two other IFR aircraft about to commence approaches report it.

It's being used to provide a surveillance service where none could be provided by radar.

Are you thinking of ADS-C for the Atlantic & South Pacific? Similar name, entirely different technology.

Reliance on GPS
 

and don't forget that atsb reported GPS outages around the time of the Lockhart River tragedy

and local pilots reported the same issue when tasked to find VH-TFU [The Metro]


?????????????????????????

A long time ago I remember seeing a number of aircraft coming into Brisbane from the South Pacific. Was told at the time they are installing a system to transmit gps position via VHF as they had no radar coverage. Was told this was due to them note having ground based radar, just procedural.

Not sure may have been Fiji, think they have gone with ADS-B now.

The American Solution
 

Low interest loans mandated by congress.

Congress Mandates ADS-B Loan Program - AVweb flash Article

No, they didn't, just some very tricky bait, and the gullible mob believed what they were intended to believe.

No, there wasn't.

What there was was a suggestion from CASA as to suitable amounts for private, charter and commuter operations --- as rough categories. The amounts suggested by CASA were laughable, in the case of commuter categories (-8 200/300) the CASA $$ figure was about one fifteenth the real cost --- AUD$25,000 versus $350 - 400,000.

Indeed, the figures in the FAA NPRM were in the ballpark of real costs, that CASA didn't even bother to look at the FAA numbers tells a story.

Yes!!

Yes, a massive cost shift to what is left of aviation in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

RAIM failure due to "black spots" is common. Australia does not have full coverage all the time.

But we tend to forget that GPS is just a radio signal and subject to most of the same vagaries as other radio signals - including interference and jamming.

But even then US will still not have mandatory ADS-B for all IFR at all levels in all airspace types, Australia is the only country in the world doing this.

Folks,


Re. Various comments about "over the Pacific", what you are referring to is FANS-1 and successors, which has been around for about 25 years, nothing to do with ADS-B.

Re. Alaska, the system originally installed in Alaska is the UAT version of ADS-B (much cheaper, and available throughout US) and not the seriously technologically challenged 1090ES adopted for all here, and adopted for larger aircraft ICAO wise. A very unmeritorious decision that was not based on technical superiority and forward requirements, but political lobbying by cash strapped airlines, and not only did it/does it not turn out cheaper, as advertised, but many times more expensive than fitting stand-alone UAT.

Re. The extent of the Australian mandate, even EASA-land will not require anything like the Australian mandate.

Just recently, face to face, the architect of ABS-B in Australia told me that the Australian mandate wasn't really any different to the US --- I wonder if he really believes that --- because he knows damned well that I am across, in detail, what the FAA requires.

What FAA does in the long run will be "interesting", based on the current rate of fitting of ADS-B to the US fleet, and the available resources -- including manufacturing the bits and pieces in the first place, there is no practical chance of the fleet (particularly airlines) making the deadline.

Tootle pip!!

Leadsled, you should come clean on this subject. You only prefer UAT because of the datalink. From an ATM point of view 1090ES is superior. 1090ES operates outside ground station coverage in real time with SSR and TCAS. UAT, by virtue of the datalink must be within range of a ground station. A Mode S transponder still must be carried because UAT is invisible to SSR and, more importantly, TCAS.

Your preferred position is and always has been no form of surveillance for GA PVT VFR!

Australia will never suffer from FRUIT, old fruit:E

The technology burden is most definitely bourn by the aircraft owner, no doubt!

However, that technology burden can be as simple as a blind GPS unit feeding a compatible mode S, 1090ES transponder.

What is concerning, is the very real holes in coverage adjacent to the J curve SSR envelope.

That ... and the exemptions for RPT aircraft to have unserviceable ADS for a few days.

Oh ... and the glitch in the 787 that provides the occasional incorrect position information.

And then there's the VFR traffic ...

But apart from the holes in coverage, the exemptions, the glitches and the invisible VFR aircraft, what has ADS-B ever not delivered for us?

Splitter! ;)