Sunfish..........

Despite your overwhelming logic and evidence all you will get is excuses. The only defence I've seen so far is;

-Who's going to pay for it?
-Nobody wants to pay for it.

PM me your email address, the reason being I have absolutely no trust in your good self with your postings thus far.

I will answer this the best I can.

It is my personal opinion and in no way representative of Airservices that ADSB mandate was introduced unnecessarily early. I would have waited until about 2022. However that is only my opinion. Others will certainly disagree.

I did no such thing. I pointed you to a piece of information that is in the public domain that I thought answered the question being asked. You can draw whatever conclusions you wish from that information. However I think saying it wasn’t expected to provide any safety benefit would be twisting the facts. The benefit is certainly limited compared to at higher levels.

I don’t think ADSB is the solution to this. The only form of ATC I can think of that would work in the circuit area is tower. You don’t want radar standards applied in the circuit at anything other than the busiest aerodromes. Circuit areas are too dynamic and the scale doesn’t work at the enroute level. When you are responsible for 400SQM of airspace with dozens of aerodromes you can’t watch every circuit area. Some form of ADSB in may be useful here, but I suspect in non controlled aerodromes lookout and listen out will be the best we have for quite a while. Outside the circuit area and in what you could probably call the terminal area I think there are viable solutions that could definitely help.

CASA and Airservices as a whole? No, that would be totally unjustified. Certain elements within each organisation? Well this forum isn’t anonymous so I will let you all draw your own conclusion.

As for ADSB, calling it useless is unjustified. Like any technology, it has limitations. The people relying on it have to know the limitations to know what it can and can’t do. The more appropriate question would be did the benefit justify the cost. When ADSB mandate first happened and ADSB cost $40k or more to fit? My answer would be no. In the next few years as the install cost falls, the technology and system improves, and coverage gets better, absolutely I think ADSB is appropriate.

The answer to your final question that you weren’t going to ask but then half a sentence later asked would be I don’t know any better than you do.

We have a saying about that down here in Aus. It’s something to do with pots calling kettles a certain colour.

Sunfish. The answer is ADSB-In.

Work with what we’ve got, as in the system we have. Don’t try to reinvent the wheel. ADSB out has been chosen.

Spend your own money to be as safe as you can, because other than your loved one, nobody else really cares if you live or die!

The same goes with cars. Buy the biggest most heaviest and safest car with the most airbags, because if you buy a tiny little thing, the laws of physics are not on your side!

Track Shortener, this may sound strange but I am on your side. When you look at incidents involving CTAF or uncontrolled aerodromes it muddies the water.Benalla and Hotham come to mind. This incident is enroute with active IFR flightplans in the system. I am asking, is it possible for the system to be a bit more active using the data available? Otherwise Squawk7700 is on the money, look after yourself first, put in the tools and maintain your own SA...DTI breaks down with exactly this situation, one or both aircraft actively changing altitude in proximity.

Yes it's possible, provided the surveillance coverage exists to the a low enough level. But if it's separation that you want, the airspace classification would need to change.

Thank you for your considered answer OCTA and Squawk. I am debating with myself the advisability of spending about 2k to give me complete ADS-B in and out. I already have the transponder.

Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, two pilots who have been given traffic on each other could communicate and self separate.

Or does Hoosten and squawk think pilots aren't able to do this?

iron jayeh , Pilots are capable . But when you’re in an RPT and the traffic is a 200 hour Private Pilot with sweat on his brow in a non-towered environment the risk is real.
ATSB files are full of such incidents . See my previous link.
Its a fail-dangerous system , pure and simple.
We have been very , very lucky.

You say pilots are capable, then you say they aren't. I only have about 100 hours and I can stay out if the way. Surely ifr pilots are capable

Ah yes the good old they only have a PPL, they must be incompetent. I remind you that 200 hours is enough to be in the right hand seat of an RPT jet, so that pilot is not inexperienced. Also I would love to know how you determined their experience level, do you ask them to give their hours with their callsign?

Also the main solution everyone on here seems to want to propose is class E down to 1200ft. Which is not going to protect you from that VFR pilot. In fact to an extent it may make it harder. The solution for this would be a tower. In most occasions that would be overkill.

Iron, yes IFR pilots should be able to separate themselves. At the worst just fall back to putting 1000ft between you and the other guy until you have something else.

Not just PPL OCTA Aus. I’ll rummage around and see if I can find my copy of the ASIR I lodged when I , commanding an RPT Jet , almost came nose to nose with a light aircraft doing a scenic at Ayers Rock . Thankfully he had his transponder on . I had a chat to him on the ground . He could hardly stand , his knees were shaking so much . Turned out he was simply looking in the wrong place. It was his first professional job. He had a CPL and 300 hours.
Sounds like your are with the Department , OCTA Aus. Its a pity you guys don’t get to spend much time in the jumpseat anymore. Guess it costs too much.
I recall AirServices did a review recently on airspace around Ayers Rock and decided , once again , not to instal a tower. A courageous decision . Hope another shoe doesn’t drop.
By the way I have other ASIRs like that as well.
We have been very , very lucky.
Robust systems tolerate failure.
Fail-dangerous systems fail to disaster.
What sort of system do you think non-controlled CTAFs are OCTAS Aus ?

So George pilots can't separate themselves?

I guess it boils down to how many times you want to roll the dice with RPT jets with150 plus pax on board.
AirServices review of airspace around Ayers Rock is a revelation into the way they think.
Fortunately , in some cases such reviews have reversed previous idiotic decisions such as the reopening of the tower at Karratha.
But its still rolling the dice. Personally I think all non-radar CTAFs servicing RPT jets with over 100 seats should have a tower. Period.
But , of course , this is Australia.
Its never going to happen.
Until..............

Re rpt jets, maybe you're right, because they aren't only mixing it with other ifr pilots but people like me in a tecnam.

However that is consistent separate from this incident involving two small ifr aircraft.

Again are you saying that given a similar situation, two ifr pilots don't have the knowledge to self separate ?

The more cta you put in, the less airspace I can use etc. That then creates what Dick calls roadblocks in the sky. Which then forces other aircraft into unsafe situations.

As the airspace regulator, CASA conducts airspace reviews, and determines the appropriate class of airspace and whether TWR or other services are required, not Airservices.

I wish I had a dollar for every pilot who doesn't know the division of responsibilities between the two, and thinks Airservices decides classes of airspace and level of ATS.

I take direct debit, or Paypal :)

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...ember-2018.pdf

buckshot1777 , you are right . Happy to be corrected. I just did a google search and didn’t pay enough attention to the header.
By the way I don’t think too many Pilots really care much about bureaucratic architecture.

True. My post was in the interests of directing blame where it is due :)

Understood