Airservices’ Western Australian ADS-B Mandate
 

Do I read the mandate correctly which CASA has introduced – at the pushing of Airservices Australia – for ADS-B in the Perth area as follows? i.e. from 4 February 2016 any aircraft that flies IFR – even in Class G airspace – within the arc that starts 500 nautical miles true north from Perth Aerodrome and finishes 500 nautical miles true east from Perth Airport – must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment.

Am I correct in surmising that if you have ADS-B equipment in Class G airspace you will still fly in the Airservices 1930s airspace system where the controller will just give traffic information and pilots will have to use a Marconi-like system of calling each other in cloud and self-separating? Is it true that Airservices have put this cost onto the industry but haven’t bothered to put in any Class E controlled airspace so they actually provide a control service to the aircraft that have expended the extra money?

I understand this is because they don’t want to spend a few dollars in training the controllers on how to do approach work at these airports. The higher risk is clearly in the terminal area where no control service will be provided.

Isn’t it amazing that in the USA every single instrument approach is in a minimum of Class E controlled airspace and you get a superb separation service in IMC. However, in Australia it’s not possible to do this - even if ADS-B is fitted to the aircraft. Crazy! And not even at one airport in the whole country. Are we that inferior?

Then again, Capn Bloggs will be delighted because we are still keeping a 1930s system. He will no doubt be in raptures!

2016 – IFR for Western Australia: On and after 4 February 2016, an aircraft that is operated under the IFR in Airspace that is Class A, B, C or E and within the arc of a circle that starts 500 NM true north fromPerthaerodrome and finishes 500 NM true east fromPerth Airport must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with Civil Aviation Order 20.18


So no, not in Class G.
Why would you want an En route controller separating aircraft in sometimes massive sectors, focused in on Terminal areas, surely you should be pushing for stand alone Terminal Controllers (or Towers?) Take a visit to one of the centres and see what kind of range controllers have to work with.

What about just one non tower terminal area to see if it could work like it does in USA , Canada France and lots of other countries ?

And they do it there without any survailance requirement. Are these countries so much wealthier than ours? I don't think so.

Come on Aussie Controllors. Why not show you are as good so that we pilots don't always have to be our own controllors in all non tower terminal airspace. We luv ya all !

And it reads in class G within 500 nm to me ?

And in the USA and Canada one en route controllor can handle approaches to lots of non tower airports. Yes. No doubt they are very capable people .

What have you got against controllers?
 

I've written and deleted more than a few time but I settle simply on the question. What have you got against controllers? In this, and many other, posts I have seen you calling into question the skill and the resolve of the coal face controllers in these matters. I doubt they make the decision as to the ADS-b mandate, the structure of airspace or any of the numerous other things you accuse them of. If you have an issue with ASA management take it up with them and stop besmirching the name of the people who are probably just doing what they're told.

I'm not a controller but I'm over seeing you use your name and profile to kick the little guy. (That being the worker doind their job)

The text mentions A, B, C and E class airspace. Why would you think that reads G too (surely it would say D and G if it meant so).

Doesn't Mackay and Rockhampton provide E almost to the ground (700AGL from memory) during out of tower hours. The catch being it's actually done by a Terminal Controller, rather then an En-route controller looking after half of Queensland. What safety benefit has it provided and at what cost? I'm sure ASA would be happy to put in all the services you want, if your willing to pay for it.

The current ATC system doesn't really have much space for all these new "terminal E sectors" but now you also want to cancel OneSky that has the potential to expand and improve current practices.

PS: I'd be interested to hear about these US controllers who are doing Upper airspace sectors and terminal airspace, maybe you could fly a few of us over for a fact finding mission.

Anza. I make it clear that it is AsA that is not training controllors to provide a terminal service.

007. Yes. If I was in a position of influence that's what I'd do- fly a few controllors to North America to see how en route controllors provide multiple class E approach separation services.

I personally prefer the North American system than our " do it yourself system" in most terminal IFR approach airspace.. Why have controllors if they don't provide an approach service at busy non tower IFR airports but provide a full service right across the country in en route airspace where the experts say collision risk is lower?

Answer don't deflect.
 

Quoting your second post on this thread,
'Come on Aussie Controllors. Why not show you are as good...'

That is this thread. I've nearly written this post dozens of times over the past while but thought maybe I've misunderstood because of similar out of place comments in numerous threads.

If I were a controller I'd think you had it out for them.

Take a moment to re-read your posts before you hit enter if you don't want to attack them because I've seen it a hell of a lot from you.

I'd almost be inclined to suggest bully like activity on your behalf.

I guess I am hoping that after 25 years since the AMATS decision decided to introduce North American type class E terminal airspace that a number of dynamic controllors would tell their bosses at AsA that they would like have a test of this system!

Well Dick, I'd suggest you're going the wrong way about that because any controller reading your comments on here would probably not have that high an opinion of you.

Might need to take it up with CASA, they decide what airspace is required. They also set the rules regarding doing an en route function and terminal function at the same time, last I heard it wasn't allowed (you can be dual rated but can't exercise both functions at the same time).

As has been pointed out many times, controllers will do whatever is asked from them, but time after time we see these "great ideas" turn to poo due to lack of resourcing (be that training, equipment, staff etc) and understanding on what is actually involved.

My bl@@dy oath! ADS-B? Bring it on! Should be mandated in F (G) as well. Then we'll have the increased safety of ADS-B (SIS) with the flexibility of F (we don't have G in Australia, as you know, Dick :=)

No if only I could have ADS-B in...nirvana! :D

Where does the FAA get it's money from, again?

You're the businessman: cough up your CBA. Truth is, you have no idea what all your Class E (err VFR-exempt) will cost, do you?

So is ADSB required for IFR aircraft in the G airspace within 500 miles? -no

But

In about 18 months ADSB is required for all IFR aircraft everywhere in Australia ?

ANZ. Most controllors I know realise that I want aviation in Australia to boom.

That can only help the entire industry.

Bloggs,
Do you know how FAA ATC and most of FAA is funded??
Taxpayers??
User pays??
Tootle pip!!

Dick and Leadie. I have a quote for you-

You guys have a think about what you have been pushing for the last twenty five years or more. Cart before the horse!

Dick, they might realise you want the industry to boom but that doesn't excuse you bullying them on a public forum.

Well, derr, why do you think I asked?? :rolleyes:

Bloggs,
Answer No.3, user pays.
For airlines, a ticket tax, for the rest, fuel tax, is the short summary.
Tootle pip!!

ANZ. Surely you are pulling my leg.

What's wrong with controllers publicly stating that they can provide the same service as US controllers if the workloads are similar?

And I don't blame our controllers for having lousy leadership - you are clearly being let down.

Why not copy the best from around the world?

Why can't controllers actually " control " aircraft in IMC at places like Ballina - anyone can give traffic information!

Let's see: Radar coverage at Ballina is patchy and despite getting down to under 1000' AGL in some parts of the circuit, it reliably gets down to only 5000' for the "terminal area" around Ballina (have a read of this: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/file...lina_byron.pdf . For instrument approaches, the LSA from the northwest west is 5000' and lower elsewhere. So how are they going to help you, Dick? The radar won't help and procedurally it'll be one in, one out - pretty much just the same as if you actually talked to the very very very occasional aircraft that might arrive within the same timeframe as you in IMC and then mutually arranged that one of you would hold (either at a designated hold, waypoint or distance/bearing) until the other lands, goes missed or is happy to continue visual. And you'd still have to be aware of any aircraft operating visually within the circuit area below the cloud base, aircraft that ATC would not be aware of.....

Of course, if everyone had ADSB OUT and IN..... :} (but I digress).

Mutual self-separation works fine in low traffic IFR environments in IMC. In your original whinge on another thread about operating into Ballina and having to self-separate, you had the luxury of a very experienced pilot in the right seat of your private jet - should have been a piece of cake for you, if I can do it single pilot IFR. If you can't manage it under those conditions, then I would suggest that it is not Ballina in particular or the presence or absence of radar in general to assist you that is the hazard......