Why are we so different to Canada re ADS-B?
 

I’m just reading the June 2017 issue of AOPA Pilot (USA) magazine. It lists the requirements for ADS-B.

Under Canada it says:

Quote:

---

“Canada has no mandate, but operators who voluntarily equip with 109ES (particularly in the Hudson Bay and nearby Oceanic Airspace) can receive a high level of service. However Nav Canada is a lead partner in Aireon, the joint air traffic surveillance venture, installing ADS-B equipment on low Earth orbit satellites.”

---

What a pity Airservices was not similarly minded here. The Aireon ( iridium based) is going to be equipped on the next satellites that are going into orbit and of course gives coverage everywhere.

It is so sad that this huge impost was put in the industry in Australia, doing untold damage. Whereas a country like Canada, which is very similar to Australia in physical size and radar coverage, can be so sensible.

Hear, hear Dick, a complete cockup much like the so called
"regulatory reform" program, hundreds of millions of dollars expended
for NO result except an industry bought to its knees. Add in the loss of PAYE taxes and company taxes lost to GDP over the past thirty years and CAsA and Air services are responsible for quite possibly billions of dollars that should have been accrued by government.
My thoughts are this is as big a scandal as the money wasted on the "Building the Education Revolution", "Pink Batts", and more recently the rorting of child care, the NDIS, the ATO scam, the privatisation of airports scam etc etc. This all leads one to conclude that either the public service is completely and utterly incompetent, or corrupt or both.

thorny....Yes! To all

Thornbird:

Not corrupt and incompetent, merely powerless and fearful.

The public service used to be able to offer "frank and fearless advice" to Ministers, safe in the knowledge that they couldn't be fired for anything short. of criminal misconduct, and that the PS Mandarins would protect their own from the wrath of a thwarted Minister or tycoon. Those days are over.

Staff are mostly on fixed term contracts and businesses practice "matrix marketing" where they target each decision maker from the Minister down to humble project leaders. With an intimate knowledge of each of the decision makers in a decision tree, it is not hard to threaten, bully, intimidate, blackmail, bribe, browbeat and cajole to get the result one wants if you have the money. Public interest be damned.

I have had a taste of matrix marketing applied to me and I can assure you it is extremely destabilising and unpleasant to be the target when you stand between a company and a bucket of public money. If you don't understand what I am talking about, I would be happy to explain exactly how its done.

The Aireon system will only work with aircraft fitted with ADSB out antennas on the top and bottom of an aircraft. (The aircraft will shield the signal from satellite). Testing once hardware is flying will determine the effectiveness of single antenna installations.

Bevan..

I'm not sure that is necessarily true. GPS works quite well in many orientations. I expect it will be more a case of how big the constellation is.

While we're on this, why can Experimentals and RAAus not equip with non-TSO'd GPS' like the Dynon -2020 and the Garmin -20A that provide better performance than a Garmin 430?

The US approves it, and they're the damn country that invented the TSO's. The UK has recommended such an approach there too, but here we have to have a GNS-430W at better than $10K or a Trig TN70 for well over $3K

A big thing missing here is that the Government and CASA hailed harmonisation with other countries for certification and standards many years ago and published those countries however nothing really implemented. The PR at the time stated that our industry would align with the rest of the world now here we go back to the nasty 70-90's...

It's a pity that industry cannot fund an all out challenge to CASA over these issues. We are left in a shambles because of the divisions in our industry and CASA laps this up!

Aireon LLC, a 2012 joint venture between Iridium and Nav Canada, with the Canadian ANSP contributing $150 million for a 51% ownership. Since then, Aireon has raised an additional $120 million by signing additional partners Irish Aviation Authority (6% ownership), Italy’s ENAV (12.5%) and Denmark’s Naviair (6%)

Aerions and Nav Canadas ADSB coverage.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a...Map-rev-EN.jpg

In addition:

From 2015

In early October, Aireon and Airservices Australia jointly announced that their MOU would not only explore facilitating smoother transitions with neighboring FIRs, reducing costs to operators and enhancing safety, but introducing ADS-B services to the majority of the 20 million sq. nm. (51.7 sq. km.), or eleven percent of the globe, that Airservices manages that constitutes oceanic airspace. (As the accompanying sidebar explains, Australia was the first nation to install a network of ADS-B ground stations across its continent. Currently, more than 60 percent of aircraft operating under IFR in Airservices Australia airspace are ADS-B-equipped.)

According to Airservices’ Greg Hood, executive general manager for ATC, the ANSP is interested in determining “the potential safety benefits and the technology and efficiency benefits [Aireon] may offer to our customers, especially for oceanic services and in cross-boundary coordination with our neighbors.”

Its not the GPS that is the problem, its the Aerion receivers on satellites being able to see a signal from a low power, bottom mounted antenna on an aircraft.

The aircraft will obscure the ADSB transmission.

Why would a gps antenna be bottom mounted? If better instalation is needed that is small change compared to new TSOd equipment.

"Why would a gps antenna be bottom mounted? "

Oh dear, is this the level of intelligence pilots have in Australia these days ?

The dear chap is of course talking about the transponder antenna, many aircraft only have them on the underside as radar is ground based. Aircraft fitted with TCAS or similar have transponder antennas on the top and bottom so aircraft above and below are within line of sight.

Why did Australia implement ADS-B before everyone else? Because we could. We have a lousy regulator and a rotten air traffic control system management, so nobody asked "what is the cost of this system and how will it affect the entire industry?".

There were no doubt some technical specialists with time on their hands who thought ADS-B would be "nice to do" and add a fillip to their careers - being able to go to International conferences and condescendingly say "my experience of ADS-b is....", "Our Australian system does....". Then there are all those technical papers to write and publish in support of a doctorate.

I have seen this behaviour before, also at great expense to the community, when Melbourne water outfitted its offices with optical fibre circa 1970. The IT folks admitted that they did it for their careers and out of curiosity. Damn the expense. The technology was then so new that they had to get American defence department clearance to buy the fibre and equipment...

So now the Australian aviation industry is saddled with expense and most probably a substandard implementation of ADS-B that will never fulfil its promise to anyone but a few, and will probably have to be reworked again at great expense as the technology matures. I thought of fitting it, but it makes no sense.

Just another rort Sunnie,
along with Pink Bats, School Halls for all, Airport privatisation et al.

I think you mean why did "Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Cambodia, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Kiribati, Korea, Hong Kong, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vietnam, and UAE" implement ADS-B before everyone else?

ADSB mandated in PNG by April 2017.

Good to see Australia joining with dozens of other third world countries!

Rubbish Sunfish. ADS-B has ben a safety godsend over here. Get out of your Sydney mansion and smell the bush roses.

Bloggsie
Iszzatso, could you please provide the statistics/reports/justification for your assertion.
It wouldn't just be personal perception, by any chance??
I didn't realise WA airspace was so dangerous before ADS-B, I wonder why the various airspace reviews in recent years have not picked up such a critical situation.
Just in your case, how many near hits (I prefer that to near misses, seems to me that a near miss is an almost miss, a hit) have you avoided thanks to ADS-B, that you wouldn't otherwise have avoided, and does your aircraft have ADS-B in displayed on the flightdeck?.
Tootle pip!!

This is misleading.

Australia is the only country in the world implementing ADSB for ALL IFR aircraft in ALL airspace types at ALL altitudes.

Other countries have exempts below a specific altitude, in class G airspace and or for private IFR flights.

Pretty much 12 months on after we spent $40k to fit ADSB to be compliant with the original deadline, what benefit have we seen? PRECISELY NONE. We still get messeed around in CTA frequently routed around the light aircraft lane but just above it to be in CTA. We are not seeing any benefit from reduced separation (in fact I'm told that has never eventuated) and we are not getting any benefit from traffic advisories because in class G about 99% of traffic is non ADSB equipped VFR traffic (even in IMC).

ADSB has been another debacle, along with ELT's and Part 61.