Dick, seriously?

A very quick google got me to Geoscience Australia's website on SBAS and answers several of your questions regarding spreading the cost.

ga dot gov dot au /scientific-topics/positioning-navigation/positioning-for-the-future/satellite-based-augmentation-system/profiles

crcsi dot com dot au

Geoscience Australia are a very approachable department, it would be very easy to get in touch with them and the CRC to find out estimated project costs for the options considered. GA on their website state that they are investigating a number of technology options, and they would have that costed. They've engaged EY to do an economic analysis of the options, so maybe give GA a call? Or an email? Or walk in the front door next time you're in CBR?

GA's website list the industries as:
- Agriculture
- Construction
- Consumers and Utilities
- Resources
- Spatial
- Transport

So I'd guess that maybe, if that $150million is accurate (which one of the three technologies they are testing does that number come from?) it could be spread across those industries?

Also I'm not a remote positioning expert, but unlike ADS-B, for SBAS to work you wouldn't have to mandate it. Not like every lil C152 tacking along needs it. but I'm sure that REX, RFDS et al would love it. To me this feels like an opt-in system, where people that would get the benefit out of improved positioning can buy the equipment.

Either way, go chat to Geoscience.

Dick

With reference to the statement below:


"I find this quite mysterious. Would you consider the Cirrus SR22 to be “FMS equipped”? I thought it had simple Garmin equipment and without doubt it provides Baro-VNAV.

Virtually all Garmin equipped aircraft from now on I understand will have Baro-VNAV – that is, including C172s, C182s and so forth.

So what are the facts here"?

Can you provide me with the literature where it states Garmin equipment (excluding G1000 avionics) is Baro VNAV capable?

From what I understood most Garmin TSO-C146 receivers are LNAV/VNAV capable with SBAS (WAAS) coverage. Without, its LNAV+V (VNAV advisory) where the approach is flown to LNAV minimums.

With reference most TSO-C146 receivers out there in Aus GA or Regional turboprop, would it be safe to suggest most of those are not Baro VNAV capable? Only LPV or LNAV/VNAV with SBAS (WAAS) coverage.

Yes you are correct. Nearly all existing garmin in GA are not BaroVNAv.

In the future this is changing. The Cirrus is equipped with Baro VNAV. Suggest you check with them.

If anyone is purchasing a new aircraft they should insist on Baro V Nav. It probably won’t cost any more .

Dick.

Your comments in regard to new aircraft owners is correct. If they were purchasing a new aircraft, it would be unwise to not request Baro VNAV capable avionics. Especially if it came at no extra cost.

From the existing owners perspective, where operators have already installed TSO-C146 equipment, having SBAS in this country for aviation is a no brainer. Withstanding your comments about the $150m for the country to achieve this mandate. Why don't you wait until the costs are made public so you can make comment?

As stated from previous posts, aviation will not be the only industry to benefit.

The Regional Carrier I work for has looked at Baro VNAV in the past (currently operating Legacy 1990's type Honeywell FMS). To equip for Baro VNAV is for more costly than equipping for SBAS (WAAS) LPV approaches if that service were to become available.

There are many operators who would benefit from SBAS. Perhaps a more positive outlook for it, whilst the trial is in progress would achieve a more useful discussion than just stating on Prune that there is $150m price tag attached?

Folks,
I smell a rat somewhere, why all the sudden bureaucratic interest in SBAS/WAAS, what has changed, leading to one of the most bulldust laden Ministerial press releases I have seen in a long time.

Reducing some minima from GNSS to GNSS/WAAS “transforming “ aviation --- somebody had the “superlatives” switch turn too high, when the “bull sh*t generator” was switched on.

Years ago (early 2000’s) the various relevant organs of Can’tborough conducted a very extensive investigation of SBAS/WAAS, including a quite reasonable benefit/cost analysis, it was a non-starter.

Nobody argued that there was not some theoretical benefit to rural and regional aviation, but a benefit/cost justified by aviation use was a non-starter. As for all the other uses, more accurate GPS was well on the way.

However, “Regionals” at the time had no interest in the up-front and ongoing costs, for a small saving possibly generated by the occasional diversion avoided.

The majors had no interest, they had GBAS coming up for quite specific local purposes, the savings then came from reducing alternate minima, not reduction of normal approach minima.

All the uses of very accurate positioning for agriculture/shipping/transport are generally available now, have been for years.

Interestingly, the use of GPS in high speed train control was discounted at the time, based on the view that would be no high speed rail in the near future --- almost 20 years later that has not changed.

Where “centimetre” accuracy is required, that is mostly already available, and has been for years, for surveyors or the like. Where it might be needed at a mine site for auto-navigation of mine vehicles, that can be provided by local GBAS, bought and paid for by the mining company.

As I read it, the satellite being used for the “trial” is time expired, putting two new ones up just for SBAS is not a goer, it will be a package hoisted on another launch.

The only obvious savings I see “to Government” is possibly closing down the existing AMSA system?? We know SBAS/WAAS all works, a trial is going to prove nothing we don't already know.

So, WHAT IS THE CATCH?? What has changed since the last big study, now that SBAS/WAAS is “old hat”.

Tootle pip!!

Leadsled...it is plainly simple. You have a newly minted Nat deputy PM who has just inherited the transport portfolio. Before the ink is dry on his ministerial declaration he has the AOPA and Dick becoming very political. The new minister gives the usual boilerplate answer and finds his portfolio erupting...so...now...he trundles out a trial operation to investigate a geostationary satellite equipped with a bent pipe transponder to enhance the gnss network over the eastern seaboard. An appeasment? Not to Dick and you.

If Dick wants researched answers, he can hire me. I am sick to death of finding information pertinent and relevant for free...he has my number. His figures are miles out and information at least two decades old. You are a vested interest, you are on record opposing ADS-B as a means of reinstigating a nm based nav charge. Your information is suspect and biased.

Please note....it is lame of the transport minister to make light of this demonstration as it has been in operation for considerable months before his elevation. He must have an impression that we do not read anything and are quite gullible...not a good look for both side

It appears that Australia will once again end up as an Aviation Galapagos. Unfortunately where most of the sales for airborne equipment is there is SBAS in place, so I can't see manufacturers such as Garmin racing to add BARO VNAV as an option let alone a free option to their TSO146 retrofit equipment (ie Gtn750 etc). IMHO 3D guidance is far safer than 2D approaches.

It seems that the GTN750/650 does not offer the +V option where there is a LNAV/VNAV approach in the database, such as for RWY11 at Darwin.

I have to agree with Dick. There is no technology, no system, that the Australian Government will not corrupt or allow to be corrupted in support of private profit or personal gain. Based on experience, there is no chance a universal SBAS based positioning system will be delivered as a public good to Australians at all.

The system will either be:

1. A prohibitively expensive 'for profit" subscription based business model developed by the financial leaches at Macquarie Bank.

2. A bizarre Australian implementation requiring special equipment at stratospheric costs to satisfy academic, defence and OH&S requirements unknown to the rest of the world.

3. A bean counters implementation providing services on a 9 to 5pm basis on the eastern seaboard.

4. A product of a "National Geospatial Commission" yet to be established, who will "roll out' the system at glacial speed over the next 50 years, a la NBN.

FFS give it to Dick Smith and some hobbyists and we will have a working system in 12 months.

To put that another way, buy it off the shelf and just do it.

Sunfish...exactly! The issue is benefit. When a PM can splash around 5billion on boondoggles as a skin saving measure this benefit ,in cost terms, is small cheese.

Dick, you refer to the Garmin Perspective suite. Not sure this does the deal. Suggest you talk to a dealer and ask them where it states BARO-VNAV as a selectable approach and where you input the data and where it excludes all other approaches.

Sunfish, given the information I possess, the costings are way out. The easy bit is the transponder. The other easy bit is the surveyed receiver stations and uplinks...the hard bit is the bureaucracy. Think DSTO on steroids.

Agreed OZbusdriver. I havent even watched "utopia" but the foul ups start;

"we need a diverse management committee with transgender, Aboriginal and female buy in".

"The system must have an Aboriginal name, hire consultants!"

"The ground station locations are potential nuclear targets on aboriginal soil or marginal electorates".


"What good will this patriarchal system do for abused mothers and autistic kids?


"This system can be used by terrorists".

"Where is 'user pays' in all this"?

"Governments always stuff things up, leave it to the private sector"..

"This isn’t a free market solution".

"we have a simple cost recovery system".

"Nobody has researched the privacy implications of accurate personal tracking".

"The legal implications regarding liability in the event of system malfunction are considerable".

"criminal penalties must apply to the maintainers of such a system."


it surprises me that we even have NDB and VOR. The current GPS IFR navigators are nothing to do with us, the systems are all American. We have no liability.......

End result "we spent the capital budget on administrative costs, we have no money for satellites or ground stations". Problem solved.

All the Garmin units have been WAAS capable for years now and even the old original 400 series can be upgraded to WAAS if required.

Unless you happen to have a new cirrus there is no way that Baro VNAV is the cheaper option for the GA pilot.

Oz,
Spot on about the charging for VFR, but you know bleeding well that my objection to ADS-B, Australian style, was because it was never subject to any risk management justification and benefit/cost analysis, just a crazy determination by a small group, mostly in Airservices, to be "first".

As a good mate from Cathay said to me just recently, ADS-B has done nothing for us, we fly the same routes, speed and levels as we always did, the return on investment is zero.

Likewise for most airlines and GA, with the possible exception of a small area in WA, the return on ADS-B investment is zero.

Tootle pip!!

Kimberly:Aviation will probably benefit the least. Miners and Farmers are already trialling robot mining trucks*, agricultural tractors and harvesters, that is where the big money savings are to be made.

* Rio apparently trialled one that ended on its back very quickly.

A simple search will tell anyone what coverage there is already over the entire continent for SBAS...and it is not from a soon to be decommissioned bird. In fact, there is a constellation of four already up there doing their thing.

PS, With the new minister. He was at the national press club today. Whilst he didn't spend too much time on aviation REFORM, he did mention it.

Dear Leadsled, you do realise there was an ICAO imperative to instigate positive control within our airspace responsibility by a certain date? As pointed out years ago, the only differences to pilots was a few less calls on the radio. Doesn't mean that there was no benefit.

So “ourmutchisit”

A bit but not that:E

Of course I want SBAS. Who wouldn’t. It’s fantastic

But I would also like a Gulfstream however it would not satisfy a proper cost and benefit study.

How can they be spending millions on this demo when we all know it will work well.

The only catch is cost. But that’s been kept hidden. I say hidden because I bet proper cost benefit studies have been completed.

Kimberly. It doesn’t sound if your regional airline can change that easily to Aus WAAS equivalent..
I understand Baro VNAV would be too expensive. What would the upgrade cost to use SBAS be?