There has been a big benefit to Airservices, but benefit/cost and cost/effectiveness are not the same thing.

As I am quite certain you are aware, and something hardly kept secret, was that mandating ADS-B as has been done in Australia forced many aircraft to be re-equipped with C-145/146 receivers, when they had perfectly good, for their purposes, C-129.

But, the big "but" was that the forced upgrade enabled the program to withdraw ground aids.

Remember, in benefit cost, you incur a cost, for a benefit.
In cost/effectiveness, you incur a cost, somebody gets the benefit.

Or put another way, poor old Australian aviation gets slugged, Airservices reaps the benefits.

Tootle pip!!

Leadsled...calling furphy, murphy. ADS-B requires the engine, not the navigator. The withdrawl of ground based aids is a separate issue...even if we only flew behind C129 gear

Leadsled, we are wasting energy arguing about ADS-B. The real game is getting the feds to look at the big picture.

That is nothing more than an asinine statement.:ugh:

Check the AIP requirements for Navaids. LS is spot on, by forcing everyone to have 146 GPS units, ASA can justify turning off Navaids.

And ASA has no interest in SBAS, can’t charge for it, unlike ADSB where they can use it to make money via NAV charges for IFR aircraft

Our FMS (TSO 146) customer service rep told me last week that the transponders on the Geoscience Aus satellite currently up there are 'permanently' switched off to aviation. The handshake protocol is disabled and won't be available for the foreseeable future.

So either the rep, the Minister, ASA or Geoscience Australia has got it wrong and the press release is incorrect.

TSO146 was not the "excuse" for removing nav aids. Those removed were at or past the ends of their service lives and would have to be replaced. The IFR community said that they were not needed because of the availability of GNSS and inertial nav systems. As a result they were not prepared to pay for them.
The consultation and discussion went on for several years more than a decade ago.

TSO C129 navigators were still acceptable but with limitations due to absence of fault detection & exclusion. TSO146 was required for sole means nav because it includes FDE. See CAO20.18.

ADS-B only needs the "engine" as noted above and that is available at lower cost than the navigator box.

I realise that this is a rumour site site but slagging off as a result of ignorance just belittles the slagger.

That’s why some are anonymous! So they can’t be held accountable and may have an agenda to damage aviation in our country.

OZ, Surprising as it may be to some, I do know how these systems work.

For obvious reasons (they are still working for airservices, or around the Canberra) one of the clearly stated (in "private conversation) benefits at the time was the forcing of the fitment as I described.

At the time, there were no transponders on the market that had their own inbuilt GPS receiver, and the "considered opinion" was that the cost of a FreeFlight receiver was not economic, owners/operators would upgrade a whole navigation box.

The PR of ADS-B was an easy sell --- just remember the members of the aviation community who were suckered in, at the time --- remember the PP slid that showed how cheap and simple it all was, just a wire from a GPS box to a transponder box -- too easy!!

Believe me, those "responsible" saw this as a tricky way to force nav. system upgrades and reduce opposition to navaid withdrawal.

Vag277,
I was there at the time, heavily involved in several technical sub-committees, and other regulatory matters,when what I have just described was common currency, where you??

I even still have some of the PP slideshows that ever so clearly state that a "benefit" of the adoption of ADS-B (viz. C-146/146 GPS) was closing down navaids.
Tootle pip!!

Gents,

SBAS has not been introduced in Australia. The signal is a trial signal and will not be used by certified avionics. The aviation trial is being conducted using non certified systems to demonstrate benefit to Gov't.

Dick, the purpose of the trial is to let all industry sectors try SBAS and develop their own cost/benefit studies. This will be put together by GeoAus for a nation wide cost/benefit study to aid the decision makers on SBAS post trial.

Bograt, the release information is correct.

Vref+5 you are incorrect in your assertions on AsA.

My two cents, SBAS is a trial, across both Australia and New Zealand. NZ cannot afford the system in isolation, but can by partnering with Australia.

Aviation is probably not the main beneficiary, it is the trucking industry, mining industry, road vehicles, autonomous (in the future) vehicles, agriculture industry, Geo-science. The cost to aviation should only be a percentage, once they validate or not, through the trial, the implementation of SBAS.

One further point, the introduction of RNP/RNAV approaches improves safety approximately 20x on approaches and departures and with vertical guidance a further 8x.

That's great but how many Regional Airlines/Charter/Aero Medical/Private aircraft can actually use it?

Neville, no idea, I would assume the trial will evaluate that type of detail.

How many ground stations approximately would be required so all IFR airports in Australia could benefit from the service?

How much approximately does a ground station cost?

Yes I realise the ground station sends the reference signal to the satellite- not to the aircraft directly!

Dassault

Surely the lower cost ( for equipped aircraft ) Baro VNAV must be almost identical in safety improvement.

Do you agree?

I have recently received a copy of a final dissertation entitled “Financial analysis of vertically guided approach solutions for Australia”. Here is a copy of it and I have a precis here.

It really does bring in some problems in relation to the cost of SBAS.

Whilst Baro VNAV has almost the same benefits as SBAS, the reality is that the vast majority of charter operators are unlikely to retrofit the hardware that will be needed to fly BARO VNAV. Most will have just upgraded avionics to equipment that already has LPV capability due to the ADSB mandate. If the 8x safety improvement for approaches with vertical guidance is correct, the value of lives needs to be considered before deciding not to implement SBAS in Australia. Sometimes the role of governments is to do things that don't stack up on traditional commercial criteria.

Does anyone know of any retrofitable BARO VNAV equipment available for GA aircraft? Given the availability of SBAS in the larger aviation markets it wouldn't surprise me if there is not, and if there is it will be at a premium price due economies of scale associated with limited markets.

LS ....involved fromthe earliest trials in the mid 90s

Vag277,
If that is the case, all I can say is that you must have been part of the cheer squad that didn't let the facts spoil a good party.

But where is the history of lives lost to validate the "assumptions" of lives saved?? This is a seriously big problem in aviation in Australia, all benefit/cost studies should be carried out by unrelated and genuinely independent bodies.

For example, in pushing one particular barrow years ago, Airservices "risk assessments" had pilots making an error in a clearance between 100% and 50% of the time --- ie: pilots got it wrong between always and every second airways clearance. By contrast, the claim was that controllers only got it wrong in less than 1: 1,000,000 times --- the world's most perfect people.

All the CASA ADS-B benefit/cost "studies" where laughably incompetent.

But virtually all the real benefits are already available from existing services, other than aviation. I can already plough to +/- about 200mm, I can already survey to around 20mm.

So I ask again, what is the catch, we know the capabilities of SBAS/WAAS, have done for years, we learn nothing of practical value from this "trial" ---period, not just aviation.
Who is pocketing quite large amounts of money to tell us what we already know.
Remember that definition of a "consultant": "Somebody who borrows your watch to tell you the time -- then send you a big bill".
Tootle pip!!

Without giving out free information....Leadsled, you would be wrong in your assumption on inaccuracies.

Regulation written with the blood of victims has no meaning in your world, I would guess.

By Dick's find...well done, sir. You are learning. However, the author appears to be a vested interest pushing one side of an argument. Why would you have two different cfit rates and, by extension, costs. All the fatalities are in small rpt or ga. No argument is made for a general benefit...then again, outside of aviation what use is a barometric correction, so why cloud your thesis with contradictions?

Since the MTSAT was available over our skies...according to Dick's author and to "plagiarise" his calculations for another purpose...we have cost our economy over $44,000,000 in approach cfit deaths...considering the authour says some $216,000,000 to set up a SBAS and run it...20% of the cost in deaths that would have been needless...blood of victims! Enough emotion...pay up, you are running out of time! Or would you prefer your arguments in more than 14000 words?