PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Amazing Spin by Airservices re. Lack of Radar in Tasmania (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/564227-amazing-spin-airservices-re-lack-radar-tasmania.html)

Dick Smith 8th Jul 2015 06:54

Amazing Spin by Airservices re. Lack of Radar in Tasmania
 
Following the article on Monday 6 July in The Australian, “Pilots Told to Switch Off $6m Radar System” (see below), the spin doctors at Airservices have come up with the most extraordinary claims. In effect they are saying that the multilateration system was never designed to work below 6,000 feet - see HERE. I reckon if you’d believe that you’d believe anything!

I love it! They also say,


Procedural separation of aircraft is a procedure used at a number of airports around the country where traffic volumes permit, including many large regional airports.
Yes, but they don’t mention that every other capital city airport has a proper radar control service right to the runway. Why would you bother to spend $6 million on a radar service for Tasmania and not actually provide a separation service below 6,000 feet?

The most likely truthful explanation is that the contract did not go as planned. I can imagine the low morale associated with working for such an organisation. They simply fib their way out by stating the ridiculous.

The contractor for the multilateration system, upon its completion, stated what they thought was the truth. These are their words from their website (see Tasmania Airspace Now Controlled With High Accuracy Wide Area Multilateration | Brolair International ) :


Enroute surveillance of air traffic across the island and down to the surface at Hobart and Launceston Airports
Watch this space … we’ll try and get the truth to come out. But it may be difficult.

Surely someone must know what is going on? Presumably they did not put enough multilateration stations in or could it be that they located them in the wrong areas?

To spend $6 million of the industry’s money and not even get a service below 6,000 feet is totally ridiculous.

What do others think?

Here is the article from Monday’s newspaper:


Tasmanian pilots told to switch off $6m radar system

A multi-million-dollar, state-of-the-art navigation system installed by Airservices Australia in Tasmania still leaves pilots at the mercy of pre-radar, 1950s-era, air traffic control procedures which are considered inefficient and not as safe.

Aviation industry figures say the failure to use the system for radar-style surveillance approaches to Launceston and Hobart makes it a waste of money and makes those airports virtually unique among big Australian cities.

Some sources said Airservices had intended to use the system for surveillance approaches but was knocked back by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority because it was not reliable enough, while others said Airservices did not want to take on the air-traffic controllers union, which would resist such a move. Airservices has denied both these suggestions.

The Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration system, or TASWAM, was introduced after a near midair collision at Launceston between a Virgin Blue airliner and a light aircraft years ago.

After the near miss, CASA insisted on the installation of transportable radar at Launceston, while Airservices worked towards a long-term solution.

In 2006, Airservices announced TASWAM, which uses triangulation from radio transmitter ground stations to pinpoint aircraft through their transponders, and the system was made operational five years ago.

But rather than guide aircraft all the way to the runway, pilots are told as they descend through 7000 feet that they are no longer covered by radar-standard surveillance. Instead, they are required to switch to the local towers in Launceston and Hobart for procedural approaches.

Whereas under “radar certif*ied surveillance approaches” aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers using precise positioning on radar screens, procedural approaches require the controllers to rely on the pilots informing them of their positions.

Procedural separation is far less efficient because controllers have to allow much greater distance between aircraft, often about 20 nautical miles, rather than five miles under radar surveillance separation.

The president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain David Booth, said procedural separation meant it was more likely aircraft would exper*ience air-traffic delays in Tasmania.

While he insisted the procedural standard was entirely safe and equipment on modern airliners provided excellent and reliab*le situational awareness, he said “a radar environment would probably give you a higher level of safety”.

Captain Booth, who has been flying to Tasmania for more than a decade, said he understood TASWAM had been commissioned to introduce radar-*style air-traffic control in Tasmania, but “it never worked well enough for CASA to sign it off”.

A CASA spokesman said the authority had approved Air*services to use TASWAM above 7000 feet, but “the surveillance coverage below this altitude does not meet the coverage requirements to allow air-traffic control to apply surveillance procedures”.

When TASWAM was announced, media releases from Airservices and the manufacturers of the system, Sensis Corporation — which is now part of the Swedish Saab group — gave a clear impression that surveillance approaches were the objective, talking about “accurate coverage of 150m or better from the ground level”.

“Sensis WAM’s precise surveillance of aircraft enables air traffic controllers to implement five nautical miles of aircraft separation for safer, more efficient use of the airspace in a region that was previously controlled with procedural separation standards,” a Sensis press release said.

Asked the separation standard in Tasmania below 7000 feet, an Airservices spokesman said “in most cases, 20 nautical miles”.

However, Airservices said it had never intended to use TASWAM, which cost $6 million, for surveillance approaches, saying it had achieved the goal of “improved situational awareness for controllers”.

Saab spokesman Sebastian Carlsson declined to comment.

Jabawocky 8th Jul 2015 10:31

Dick, I could give you a bunch of really good answers, from accurate and reliable sources in both places.

But, who am I and what would I know about aviation….. :E

Dick Smith 8th Jul 2015 11:03

Jaba. Could you send me a private message. Or even give me a phone call?

A free jar of OzeNuts would be coming you way!

I would imagine there must be plenty of glowing statements about 7 years ago re how fantastic the multilateration system was going to be.

Dick Smith 8th Jul 2015 11:50

If AsA ordered a new "terminal area survailance system" for Hobart and Launy what airspace dimensions would that normally cover?

What is the "Terminal Area" for an airport? Surely someone can help with this?

alphacentauri 8th Jul 2015 12:41

Terminal area is normally considered to be 30nm, well at least that is where the automated nav spec changes in most rnav systems.

PLovett 8th Jul 2015 13:09

Dick. The tower controllers have the screens for the TASWAM but not the training to be able to use them. So centre can use it for separation but for the handover to the towers at around 45 miles traffic has to be at procedural spacing. I have heard that there have been issues with its accuracy preventing its use for terminal separation. I have no idea whether that is true or not, just what I heard.

Jabawocky 8th Jul 2015 21:17

Class C into D, you get what you get because of the airspace and not because of the multi-lat. The MLAT does give the tower guys and girls greater confirmation, comfort and assurance that what they are doing to D rules is working now, and in a few minutes time because they have good SA.

What about YBSU? I think they were the first D to get a feed after a CHOGM event.

Broome ? do they have anything at all?

Whats the point here?

rr007 9th Jul 2015 00:18

Happy with procedural separation if it means not equipping ADSB but claim it's not safe in TAS and Ballina?

Capn Bloggs 9th Jul 2015 00:20


Whats the point here?
Dick is continuing his publicity campaign for president. That's the point.


they don’t mention that every other capital city airport has a proper radar control service right to the runway.
Hobart is not a capital city and plenty of towers have identification services down to the top of D.


Why would you bother to spend $6 million on a radar service for Tasmania and not actually provide a separation service below 6,000 feet?
Because of the extra millions it'll cost to provide a "radar" approach service! Have you ever flown in a procedural environment during climb and descent?

Ever heard of affordable safety? :rolleyes:

Dick Smith 9th Jul 2015 00:35

Bloggsey. I love the way you always support the status quo.

"We have never had a terminal radar service in Tassie so we never need to"

Forget that the most common form of fatal accident by airline pilots is a controlled flight into terrain and the best way of preventing such accidents as per the NTSB is to use ATC with radar.!

And what is the capital city of Tasmania?

Capn Bloggs 9th Jul 2015 00:58


Originally Posted by Dick
"We have never had a terminal radar service in Tassie so we never need to"

Clean your glasses, Dick, I never said that. When all of you lighty jokers get your ADS-B, we can have REAL safety improvements, which will include big-brother monitoring to prevent CFIT by private pilots.


Originally Posted by Dick
Forget that the most common form of fatal accident by airline pilots is a controlled flight into terrain

No it isn't. LOC is. Stick to the facts or step out of the way.


Originally Posted by Dick
And what is the capital city of Tasmania?

That place just down the road from where your famed Class E airspace nearly creamed hundreds of Virgin passengers because a private pilot thought he was better at ATC than ATC themselves.

Capt Claret 9th Jul 2015 01:03


And what is the capital city of Tasmania?
Hobart, the only capital city in Australia without an AFP presence at the airport, thanks to federal govt. funding cuts.

swh 9th Jul 2015 03:24

Dick,

They would probably install a combined Thales STAR2000 + RSM970S, giving around 250 mn of secondary radar, and 60-90 mn of primary radar. The primary radar is what most people call terminal radar, not to be confused with terminal airspace.

Claret,

The AFP seen at most airports in the states are state police dressed in AFP uniforms.

Capt Claret 9th Jul 2015 04:21

That may be so SWH but at HBA we have neither AFP officers dressed as AFP officers. TasPol officers dressed as AFP officers, nor TasPol officers dressed as TasPol officers.

Unless on a routine pass through, the airport is void of a police presence, which probably persuaded a recalcitrant passenger yesterday to utter words to the affect, "you've got no effin' police here so what are you effin' gunna do about it"?

Fortunately, at the time, there was a large police presence nearby in Cambridge and said 'lady' and her family are enjoying a 48 hour travel ban. However, most times, if the authorities are required, it's a phone call to Police Comms, and get into the queue.

sunnySA 9th Jul 2015 07:40

Dick Smith

We have never had a terminal radar service in Tassie so we never need to"

Forget that the most common form of fatal accident by airline pilots is a controlled flight into terrain and the best way of preventing such accidents as per the NTSB is to use ATC with radar.!
SWH

They would probably install a combined Thales STAR2000 + RSM970S, giving around 250 mn of secondary radar, and 60-90 mn of primary radar.
Yep, can just see Emirates and all the other International airlines agreeing to that one. You only have to look at their submissions to the current debate about the Long Term Pricing Regime and network costs.

I'm sure the boys and girls in LT & HB would love the extra surveillance capability of primary radar but at what cost? And what other projects would have to be delayed or cancelled to provide sufficient project resources, technical staff and $$$.

Dick Smith

Presumably they did not put enough multilateration stations in or could it be that they located them in the wrong areas?
There is some truth to this, remembering that Tasmania has large areas of National Park and wilderness (I've seen all the glossy pictures in Australian Geographic) and so sometimes the locations might be a compromise, next best option. And with ADSB sites, more is better but once again $$. Contractors usually underestimate the number of sites required, often this is a "ploy" to gain contract variations, a bit like building a swimming pool and the contractor saying we needed extra steel, extra concrete, extra tiles, larger pump, higher pool fence.

CaptainMidnight 9th Jul 2015 09:31

I'm told by someone who doesn't wish to be identified that the reason TASWAM doesn't deliver is because to save money and increase their bonuses, Airservices managers deliberately had it installed without a key piece of equipment, a Gonkulator.

Capn Bloggs 9th Jul 2015 14:01


Originally Posted by Capt Mid
to save money and increase their bonuses, Airservices managers deliberately had it installed without a key piece of equipment, a Gonkulator.

Typical, although can you blame them? They cost the earth at Dick Smiths. I can get them on Ebay for half that; if you're prepared to run them on MEL occasionally (ie you get what you pay for/affordable safety) I'll do you a deal!

Dick Smith 10th Jul 2015 01:20

The last two posts are rediculous and probably intended to get the thread locked so the truth is not exposed.

This is a hidden bomb. AsA have expended millions of dollars on a system that was purchased to provide terminal survailance but clearly does not work as planned.

Why was SAAB SENSIS paid for this? Who was responsible for this major waste of industry money? Were AsA performance bonuses paid that year?

Let's hope SAAb are not being considered for other Government work until this is resolved.

Capn Bloggs 10th Jul 2015 01:40

Shock! Horror! Humour is not permitted on Prune!

Lighten up, Dick. Laughter is the best medicine.

OZBUSDRIVER 10th Jul 2015 02:12

Dick, are you inferring raising HB and LT to class C airspace?

growahead 10th Jul 2015 02:46

Dick Re #18

TASWAM was not intended to provide terminal surveillance at HB and LT.
It's main purpose was provide an en route and arrivals function, feeding to the procedural Class D towers. Generally, a reasonable plan. As I remember it, ASA decided to try and save some money on the installation by using fewer ground stations than recommended by the suppliers. You get what you pay for. Despite a common view, procedural approach at Class D towers works pretty well, especially as the controllers can monitor the display, for monitoring and adjusting sequences. Procedural control, Class D can often be more efficient and flexible than radar separation.
However, I agree that surveillance is overdue at places like these. ASA pays the government a handsome "dividend" every year. That dividend should be going to fund relevant infrastructure(such as surveillance), not general revenue.
The danger is that, ASA being a (ATC) Centre centric organisation, will be pushing for approach controllers based in Melbourne doing multiple approach functions, down to about 1500 ft, and handing over to tower for basically an aerodrome/circuit function. A better solution would be to train and rate the tower guys/gals on radar, and still retain enough vertical airspace (around 6000 ft) to be able to manage and integrate traffic. This is particularly important when you have a wide range of performance mix, from ultralights, to slow lighties, turboprops, jets, military, etc. HB also has CBG, how would the sep be done on radar with that? Very clumsily. Sadly, very few if any senior management have any experience in stuff like this.
You can guess what we'll get in a few years, bet it won't be HB/LT (i.e. tower) based.

Dick Smith 10th Jul 2015 04:19

GROWAHEAD - re your post #21 - at last the truth starts to come out.

First of all, your statement


Procedural control, Class D can often be more efficient and flexible than radar separation
Growahead, that is simply ridiculous! Can you give me one example of where it is more efficient?

It sounds as if the radar standards that are used by Airservices are probably as out-of-date as just about everything else in Airservices other than, perhaps, the ADS-B mandates.

I love your view that it’s a better solution to train tower controllers (who are not even there 24 hours per day) to do radar approach work rather than use people in the centre who are there 24-hours a day. This is classic resistance-to-change.

Surely you understand that over twenty years ago we decided to follow other leading aviation countries and have controllers who operate the low level enroute airspace to also do approach work. That is, we could start dropping the E airspace down to low levels at non-tower airports and give a superb separation service when IMC exists.

Of course, this has never happened. One of the reasons, I would imagine, is it means if you provide the service also to Class D towers it requires a certain amount of de-skilling – that is, the Class D tower controllers become VFR controllers as they are just about everywhere else in the world and the IFR separation duties are done from the centre.

And before you jump in and say we don’t have the radar coverage – that has nothing to do with it. In the USA, every single IFR approach is in a minimum of Class E airspace and 50% of the approaches have no radar coverage at the initial approach fix.

To train the tower controllers on radar would simply be ridiculous because they are not there 24-hours a day.

Growahead, I know your intentions are good but can you tell me if you have ever looked at how other modern aviation countries maximise the use of their radar and separation services for aircraft that are in IMC?

And OZBUSDRIVER – no, I’m not suggesting that you change Hobart and Launceston to Class C airspace. You would only need to do that if you stuck with the old Australian 1950s way of doing things. No-one can tell me that Aussie enroute controllers cannot be trained to do approach work - both procedural and radar - as happens in every other leading aviation country I know of.

advo-cate 10th Jul 2015 04:31

asa provides money
 
The industry does not want a dividend of it's money going to the government at the distinct dis-benefit of the aviation industry.


ASA pays the government a handsome "dividend" every year. That dividend should be going to fund relevant infrastructure(such as surveillance), not general revenue.
The dis-benefit could not be shown more clearly than in Edward's case as exposed by the Australian article.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

growahead 10th Jul 2015 04:46

Dick,
1/ Class D, controllers can use profile separation, basically using judgement, vs 5 min ring.
2/ Ever heard of Visual separation? You can get aircraft much closer than a radar standard.
3/ Use of geographic features can allow acft to operate much closer than a 5 mile radar standard (or even a 3 mile approach radar).
There are other flexiblilties available to D towers that the radar towers can't use. I suggest you book a visit to Hobart for a couple of hours, watch and ask for explanations of how D really works in practice.
I have visited control centres and towers in a few overseas countries. I know that tower based radar services are used in many places. I know that US has some great practices, but equally, some not so good. Personally, for example, I don't like a landing clearance being issued when the runway is occupied. That one has gone wrong a few times.
US has many differences, which makes ADSB a far better option than trying to install radars everywhere in Australia.
IFR calling VFR, climbing through traffic, see and be seen, how often has that gone wrong? How many jets have been lost due to the pilots thinking they are visually self separated from VFR traffic?
How many times have pilots on this forum been given specific traffic in close proximity, and either never seen it, or seen it at the last minute, causing a bit of a shock? Be honest! See and be seen shouldn't be relied on, especially when it involves large capacity jets, or even turbo props.
From listening to tapes, watching videos, I'd also say that non standard phraseologies, and extremely rapid speech are among other features I don't like in the US system.
What we should be doing is taking the best from everywhere, not just cloning the US.
When centre gets the approach function, you will have someone who is swapping chairs frequently, multi skilling, or combining as it is known, to save money, and little local knowledge. But, centre mandarins will get another bonus, more underlings and a bigger empire. Good luck to you.

Capt Claret 10th Jul 2015 05:35


Growahead, that is simply ridiculous! Can you give me one example of where it is more efficient?
YMHB - Hobart. Never get asked to lose 10 minutes or more to fit into the sequence into HBA, unlike MEL.

YMHB - Hobart. Not often MEL Approach will approve a late offer of a left circuit to facilitate a departure.

Dick Smith 10th Jul 2015 06:11

Growahead

Don’t get me wrong – I think Class D towers are fantastic, especially Hobart. Some of the best movement of lots of traffic including helicopters I have seen anywhere in the world. I’d love to see those procedures used in another Class D tower in Australia but I won’t mention where because I might get delayed next time!

Yes, I have heard of visual separation of course, but how I understand the US system works is that if you are in IMC you remain with the centre controller who has the radar. The minute you are visual you go to the tower and the tower uses all of the visual techniques that we have in our Class D towers now – and more.

From my experience there are no Class D towers with tower-based radar services in the USA. Yes, places like Aspen have a small TRACON in a separate room in the tower and that gives a full approach service. However, what I am talking about is Class D towers offering visual separation and doing it in a really effective way and when IMC exists using the 24-hour controllers in the centre. From my experience it works superbly in the USA, however in Australia we have pilots changing to the tower frequency when they are in good radar coverage and in IMC. This seems ridiculous to me.

Re. the USA – yes, I am sure there are some things we do better. If you remember when I was CAA Chairman in 1990 I arranged for air traffic controllers to go to San Francisco and look at the systems there and then write a report. Many came back with lots of suggestions and lots of comments on what they thought the US does better and what we do better. My success in life is simply the result of going around the world and copying the best of each. If we could do that in aviation we would become leaders in the world.

I would love to see a really good multilateration system working in Tasmania that gives (as was planned) a radar-like surveillance service right to the runway. That is actually what was originally intended if you look at the old Airservices Annual Reports. If it needs a few more multilateration transceivers, let’s wack them in and get a really good service.

It only needs a minor error on the part of a pilot and the ground proximity system not working properly and we could have a classic controlled flight into terrain – say, an aircraft coming in from Flinders Island to Launceston over Mt Barrow.

They don’t swap chairs frequently in the USA – they use the enroute controller to do the approach work and it works superbly.

Dick Smith 10th Jul 2015 06:25

And if you wish to rely less on see and avoid in Australia put in some lower class E airspace. This brings in a mandatory transponder requirement fo all aircraft so you get the double extra safety of mandatory radio and mandatory transponder so the TCAS will work.

Dick Smith 10th Jul 2015 10:21

Growy. You state

" TASWAM was not intended to provide terminal survailance at HB and LT. "

Why wasn't it? It's completely against commonsense to spend $6 m on the latest form of Multilateration in Tasmania and then not use it for control purposes where the risks are highest- that is closer to the aerodrome .

Sounds to me more like a deal has been done to keep the local controllers with the maximum amount of airspace .

As a pilot I want to be under radar control when in IMC whenever possible because I know that will make my flight safer.

It's not logical that Airservices would spend so much of our industries money to provide a surveillance service for en route aircraft above 8000'. Where are they going? Antarctica?

I believe the people of Tasmania have been conned. I will do everything I can to get the equipment working properly and a proper surveillance service going. Hopefully before another accident like Lockhart River.

thorn bird 10th Jul 2015 10:23

Unfortunately Dick unless we fix up our regulations first, there won't be any aviation left to use the airspace, only things flying will be the RAAF and RPT, no doubt flown by ex RAAF pilots, because nobody will be able to afford to learn to fly.

Dick Smith 10th Jul 2015 11:44

Ah yes. That's why they have ex military people running everything!

Capn Bloggs 10th Jul 2015 11:54


Originally Posted by Dick
And if you wish to rely less on see and avoid in Australia put in some lower class E airspace. This brings in a mandatory transponder requirement fo all aircraft so you get the double extra safety of mandatory radio and mandatory transponder so the TCAS will work.

Mandatory Radio? Announce in potential conflict? Based on what information? All those self-announcements that IFR are making in E?

Glad to see you have finally admitted that TCAS is an integral component of the safety of your Class E...because See and Avoid doesn't work!

Dick Smith 10th Jul 2015 12:36

You are so positive it doesn't work that no doubt you don't bother to keep a good lookout.

Your poor passengers !

Capn Bloggs 10th Jul 2015 13:23

Lookout? I'm a realist, Dick. If my passengers knew the primary method of preventing midair collisions was me looking out the window, they wouldn't be happy.

So how about answering the question? How does VFR "Continuous Two Way" work in Class E?

sunnySA 11th Jul 2015 00:15

Dick Smith

I would love to see a really good multilateration system working in Tasmania that gives (as was planned) a radar-like surveillance service right to the runway. That is actually what was originally intended if you look at the old Airservices Annual Reports. If it needs a few more multilateration transceivers, let’s wack them in and get a really good service.
I looked at some old Airservices Annual Reports, creative writing perhaps.

Annual Report 2010-2011

Airservices also introduced the first phase of surveillance approaches to Launceston and Hobart airports in June 2011. These enhanced air traffic control services build on the introduction of advanced air traffic control surveillance technology known as Wide Area Multilateration (WAM), which was commissioned in Tasmania in June 2010.
Not entirely sure what is meant by surveillance approaches, open to debate, interpretation and mis-interpretation.

Annual Report 2009-2010

In June 2010, Airservices commissioned Australia’s first Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) radar system in Tasmania. The $6 million system is one of the largest geographical deployments of WAM in the world. The system provides enhanced en route surveillance of air traffic across Tasmania and radar-like coverage down to the surface at Hobart. The same technology will be deployed in Sydney later in 2010 to enhance parallel runway operations.
En route surveillance and radar-like coverage down to the surface at Hobart. Whilst this is true, the statement is silent on who would be providing the service, Centre vs Tower. Once again, open to debate, interpretation and mis-interpretation.

Airservices is very Centre-centric, two major centres - that is where the $ are earnt (en route charges), Towers have been the poor cousins, in fact for a number of years the Towers were a separate business unit (to the rest of the ATC Group). As I recall, they had been set-up as a separate business unit (Airport Services - Towers and ARFF) as there were indications that the Towers and ARFF could be sold to the highest bidder (Serco, DSE et al) or at the very least "Airport Services" would be contestable. It didn’t happen but there was a huge and expensive divide that needed to be repaired and during the "lost years" there was very little spent on the Towers.

Going from TSAT (the Tower Situational Awareness Tool) to CASR Part 171&172 compliant radar displays in all Towers wouldn’t be cheap. I guess INTAS (Integrated Tower Automation Suite) will deliver that technology but a retro-fit into all existing Towers will be a long and painful process.

Annual Report 2004–2005

During the year, we began setting up Australia’s network of Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B) ground stations. When the network is complete early in 2006, ADS–B will allow high quality surveillance of suitably equipped aircraft in upper airspace (above 30,000 feet) over the entire continent.
We are working with the industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) towards mandatory ADS–B in certain airspace from 2009. CASA published a regulatory change discussion paper for comment late in 2004, and a notice of proposed rule making is expected in 2006. With ASTRA and Access Economics, we developed a cross-industry business case and cost–benefit analysis for mandatory ADS–B in Australia, changes to navigation equipment of smaller aircraft and extended comprehensive surveillance coverage. Subject to government consideration, this could extend ADS-B into lower airspace.
CASA has approved a five nautical mile separation standard for aircraft operating in the Burnett Basin trial whose positions are derived from ADS–B. This is a significant milestone in our objective to introduce ADS–B surveillance nationally.
Annual Report 2005–2006

During the year, Airservices continued the introduction of ADS–B aircraft surveillance technology, with five of 28 ground stations commissioned.
ADS–B technology provides:
• low-cost air traffic control that can replace en route radars and allow surveillance to be provided where there is none today
• for pilots, the ability to be aware of nearby air traffic, which reduces risk
• base upon which advanced air-to-air applications can be built, improving efficiency and safety.
ADS–B is an enabler for the future of air traffic management worldwide and will allow air traffic controllers to provide more efficient separation services to suitably equipped aircraft in upper airspace (above 30,000 feet).
After successful trials during the year in the Burnett Basin in Queensland, four new ADS–B stations came on line in June 2006 at Longreach, Bourke, Esperance and Woomera.
The introduction of ADS–B for lower airspace, in lieu of en route radars, is now the subject of consultation with the aviation industry and the government to consider the likely costs involved, the timeframe for introduction and the possible phasing of implementation.
The above two quotes highlight that ADSB has been discussed in the Airservices Annual Reports for more than a decade.

advo-cate 11th Jul 2015 01:35

Great research
 
Good on you Sunny

Capn Bloggs 11th Jul 2015 02:18


So how about answering the question? How does VFR "Continuous Two Way" work in Class E?
No answer yet, Dick? C'mon, you have plenty of criticism for me, help me to understand how Airpsace 2015 will work...

Dick Smith 11th Jul 2015 03:12

I simply don't understand the question. Under ICAO there is no mandatory radio requirement for VFR in E ,F or G.

It will work like the way it does in the USA. Canada and. Europe.

But safer because we have a mandatory transponder requirement for VFR in all E. And far lower traffic density.

Advocate " and radar like coverage down to the ground at Hobart". So why is AsA claiming it was never planned to work below 6000'? I know. They are not telling the truth.!

I hope I can get some support in getting that Tassie system to work as planned. Will make these places safer without doubt.

Capn Bloggs 11th Jul 2015 05:13

Somebody give me a slapping... :{

Dick, a few posts back you said:


Originally Posted by Dick
put in some lower class E airspace. This brings in a mandatory transponder requirement fo all aircraft so you get the double extra safety of mandatory radio

(my bolding)

and now you're saying

Originally Posted by Dick
I simply don't understand the question. Under ICAO there is no mandatory radio requirement for VFR in E ,F or G.

Are you serious? Are you saying that you really don't understand how to use the radio in Class E works here, the airspace you should be an expert in and which you are making so much noise about?

As an aside, ICAO needs it's head read if it thinks No-Radio should be mixing it with RPT jets in CTAFs. Or do you, Dick, think that ICAO assumes that RPT jets would always be operating in controlled airspace ie Class D, and would you support that for all of our RPT jet airfields in the regions?


I hope I can get some support in getting that Tassie system to work as planned. Will make these places safer without doubt.
Done your CBA on that?

PLovett 11th Jul 2015 05:50

Well according to Rupert's weekend rag we are all about to get the US system. Airspace that is, not regulations. Yes, it must be true, its on page 1, "Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies". All supposedly revealed to the rag by Jeff Boyd.

If true, if implemented and if it works like it says on the box we will have safer skies for less and less traffic. Those who are flying will be paying more (c'mon, the cost of all this has to be recovered you know) for the privilege of having controlled airspace down to an instrument approach.

What is so completely funny is that Rupert's rag is claiming the credit for their sustained campaign, along with several notable aviation figures (yes, you know who).

Without regulatory reform the rot will continue. Period.

Piston_Broke 12th Jul 2015 00:36

My interpretation of Mr. Boyd's comments is that he is an astute fellow, saying exactly what you would expect i.e. we'll look in to things (lowering CTA, ADS-B equipage, UNICOM etc. etc.) and on a case by case basis make a call what is appropriate or not.

All that is entirely appropriate for the regulator, and what they have been doing anyway with their aeronautical studies.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:18.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.