Tasmanian Multilateration and ADS-B
Thread Starter
Tasmanian Multilateration and ADS-B
I flew out of Hobart yesterday to Bankstown in the CJ3. I noticed we were held at 280 until we got into the coverage of the mainland radar. This is, no doubt, because I have not yet updated the CJ3 to ADS-B as the Collins/Cessna cost is just on $132,000 (including GST) whereas the real cost should be about $15,000.
I wasn’t in the cockpit but I asked the pilot to check if there was any aircraft above 290 in Tasmania at that time – he was told that there were none.
When it was decided to spend tens-of-millions-of-dollars on a multilateration system for Tasmania, I am sure we were told that it would be as good as – or better than – secondary surveillance radar. I that case, why don’t they allow non-ADS-B fitted aircraft which have a dispensation for radar airspace to operate above 280?
There must be a reason for this. Could it be that the multilateration doesn’t work?
When flying into Hobart from Bankstown I often notice that the radar service is terminated on descent over Flinders Island. Once again, this seems strange if the multilateration is working as it should.
I look forward to some accurate advice on this.
I wasn’t in the cockpit but I asked the pilot to check if there was any aircraft above 290 in Tasmania at that time – he was told that there were none.
When it was decided to spend tens-of-millions-of-dollars on a multilateration system for Tasmania, I am sure we were told that it would be as good as – or better than – secondary surveillance radar. I that case, why don’t they allow non-ADS-B fitted aircraft which have a dispensation for radar airspace to operate above 280?
There must be a reason for this. Could it be that the multilateration doesn’t work?
When flying into Hobart from Bankstown I often notice that the radar service is terminated on descent over Flinders Island. Once again, this seems strange if the multilateration is working as it should.
I look forward to some accurate advice on this.
All good questions Dick.
We are bringing a used jet into Australia from Europe where it has been safely operation all over some of the world's busiest airways and we need to spend hundreds of thousand updating to ADS-B et al....[not mandated until 2020 over there]
The rhetorical question is why is aviation so different and costly here????
We are bringing a used jet into Australia from Europe where it has been safely operation all over some of the world's busiest airways and we need to spend hundreds of thousand updating to ADS-B et al....[not mandated until 2020 over there]
The rhetorical question is why is aviation so different and costly here????
Multilateration works Dick but occasionally there's an outage - once more than a certain number of the multilat sites are unavailable it can't be used. Not sure if that was the case yesterday.
How did your pilot know what else was out there? Assuming multilat was unusable you would have been procedurally separated & the tolerances on that are on the huge side i.e. TCAS wouldn't have the range.
How did your pilot know what else was out there? Assuming multilat was unusable you would have been procedurally separated & the tolerances on that are on the huge side i.e. TCAS wouldn't have the range.
I wonder if there is a big cover up re the Multilateration.
I dont see a conspiracy, RPT jets to and from HBA before and after MIF were above FL290. It was a quiet time of day.
The Virgin flight that left 1 hr before you was up at FL380 over Tassie, JST715 was up at FL330, VOZ702 was up at FL360, they were the closest to your departure time.
20 minutes according to flight tracker Flight Track Log ? VH-MIF ? 11-Feb-2015 ? YMHB / HBA - YSBK / BWU ? FlightAware
The Virgin flight that left 1 hr before you was up at FL380 over Tassie, JST715 was up at FL330, VOZ702 was up at FL360, they were the closest to your departure time.
Just out of interest Dick, how long did you get held at your non planned level?
Thread Starter
Swh. Why were we held down if the multilateration works?
What was the point in spending tens of millions if it can't be used like a SSR?
When we climbed above 10,000 why were we not given a radar separation service ?
What was the point in spending tens of millions if it can't be used like a SSR?
When we climbed above 10,000 why were we not given a radar separation service ?
Here's your answer Dick:
CASA EX56/14 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace
Look at the chart. You couldn't operate above F280 until you were north of FLI as you weren't in ADS-B exempt airspace.
For us to use WAM you need to be between multiple receivers (to give sufficient accuracy - think triangulation) which is clearly only possible over central Tassie due to the lack of receivers positioned out in the ocean. No usable WAM coverage means procedural separation and no ADS-B exemption.
No conspiracy, no outage, just lack of WAM coverage (simply due to the way WAM works) and you not being ADS-B equipped. Them's the rules!
If you download the PDF copy of the instrument you should be able to see enough detail to plan a suitable route to remain in exempt airspace next time: CASA EX56/14 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace
CASA EX56/14 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace
Look at the chart. You couldn't operate above F280 until you were north of FLI as you weren't in ADS-B exempt airspace.
For us to use WAM you need to be between multiple receivers (to give sufficient accuracy - think triangulation) which is clearly only possible over central Tassie due to the lack of receivers positioned out in the ocean. No usable WAM coverage means procedural separation and no ADS-B exemption.
No conspiracy, no outage, just lack of WAM coverage (simply due to the way WAM works) and you not being ADS-B equipped. Them's the rules!
If you download the PDF copy of the instrument you should be able to see enough detail to plan a suitable route to remain in exempt airspace next time: CASA EX56/14 - Exemption - temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace
Why is it that there is a huge debate about whether ADS-B implementation should proceed in the US for 2020, but not so much as a whisper from any of our "representative" bodies about Australia's more stringent 2016 implementation??
Australia is the only country in the world mandating ADS-B for ALL IFR flights at ALL levels in ALL airspace types. We seem to be the only country NOT listening to industry in an attempt to reach practical compromises.
See Flying Magazine:
ADS-B Revolt: AOPA Responds | Flying Magazine
Flying Sparks ADS-B Conversation | Flying Magazine
GA Groups Press Case for Lower-Cost ADS-B Gear | Flying Magazine
See US AOPA
GA groups urge FAA to lower barriers to ADS-B - AOPA
AOPA ready to work with FAA on ADS-B Out mandate - AOPA
see AVWEB
ADS-B Summit: 'Irreparable Harm' Seen - AVweb flash Article
Australia is the only country in the world mandating ADS-B for ALL IFR flights at ALL levels in ALL airspace types. We seem to be the only country NOT listening to industry in an attempt to reach practical compromises.
See Flying Magazine:
ADS-B Revolt: AOPA Responds | Flying Magazine
Flying Sparks ADS-B Conversation | Flying Magazine
GA Groups Press Case for Lower-Cost ADS-B Gear | Flying Magazine
See US AOPA
GA groups urge FAA to lower barriers to ADS-B - AOPA
AOPA ready to work with FAA on ADS-B Out mandate - AOPA
see AVWEB
ADS-B Summit: 'Irreparable Harm' Seen - AVweb flash Article
Thread Starter
Old Akro
You have an extremely good point. It has come about because those who introduced the mandate – a combination of the boffins at ASA and some of the bureaucrats at CASA – have simply no idea of the effect of cost on the industry. Most importantly, the regulation impact statement (“RIS”) which was performed was a total con – one of the most dishonest documents I have ever seen.
I have been in touch with the RIS people in the Productivity Commissioner's Office and they have said that a RIS must clearly state the “winners and the losers”. In this case, the RIS which was prepared by CASA implies that everyone is a winner when, in fact, it’s only the airlines who are likely to get a win in relation to cost and that depends on them getting more direct tracking and saving fuel.
In fact, I have spoken to some of the senior airline people and they have said that since the ADS-B mandate came in a little over twelve months ago they haven’t seen any measurable saving from direct tracking.
The mandate for all IFR aircraft flying at all levels in all airspace is going to be the death knell of the IFR trainers who are located at places like Bathurst and other country towns. In effect, they are going to have to spend between $10,000 and $20,000 for no measurable saving at all. And there is no measurable safety improvement as Airservices don’t separate IFR aircraft in G airspace – they just simply give traffic information.
Now I can assure you the Controller will not be calling out with the latitude and longitude of the aircraft from the ADS-B paint; no, the traffic information will be the same as always given and then the pilots will have to talk to each other to arrange their own self separation as per the 1930's
More importantly, this has been a giant move of costs from the service provider to the customer. In effect, Airservices will achieve an enormous saving by not having to put secondary surveillance radar in airspace which is now to be mandated for ADS-B.
Of course they did not ever put secondary surveillance radar in this airspace as it would never meet any cost/benefit study. However, by constantly stating that America has more SSR coverage (DERR! They have far more aircraft to justify it!), it allowed ASA to then state that ADS-B coverage needed to cover all of Australia.
I have tried to get the RIS looked at again but the lack of ethics in Canberra – no, not just at ASA and CASA but also in the Department – means that no-one is interested in looking at it. The reason organisations like AOPA are ineffective is the fact that ASA, CASA and the Department have made sure they are given no recognition at all if they make any statement which refers to cost misallocation.
Watch for further staggering damage to the industry as this next mandate comes in.
You have an extremely good point. It has come about because those who introduced the mandate – a combination of the boffins at ASA and some of the bureaucrats at CASA – have simply no idea of the effect of cost on the industry. Most importantly, the regulation impact statement (“RIS”) which was performed was a total con – one of the most dishonest documents I have ever seen.
I have been in touch with the RIS people in the Productivity Commissioner's Office and they have said that a RIS must clearly state the “winners and the losers”. In this case, the RIS which was prepared by CASA implies that everyone is a winner when, in fact, it’s only the airlines who are likely to get a win in relation to cost and that depends on them getting more direct tracking and saving fuel.
In fact, I have spoken to some of the senior airline people and they have said that since the ADS-B mandate came in a little over twelve months ago they haven’t seen any measurable saving from direct tracking.
The mandate for all IFR aircraft flying at all levels in all airspace is going to be the death knell of the IFR trainers who are located at places like Bathurst and other country towns. In effect, they are going to have to spend between $10,000 and $20,000 for no measurable saving at all. And there is no measurable safety improvement as Airservices don’t separate IFR aircraft in G airspace – they just simply give traffic information.
Now I can assure you the Controller will not be calling out with the latitude and longitude of the aircraft from the ADS-B paint; no, the traffic information will be the same as always given and then the pilots will have to talk to each other to arrange their own self separation as per the 1930's
More importantly, this has been a giant move of costs from the service provider to the customer. In effect, Airservices will achieve an enormous saving by not having to put secondary surveillance radar in airspace which is now to be mandated for ADS-B.
Of course they did not ever put secondary surveillance radar in this airspace as it would never meet any cost/benefit study. However, by constantly stating that America has more SSR coverage (DERR! They have far more aircraft to justify it!), it allowed ASA to then state that ADS-B coverage needed to cover all of Australia.
I have tried to get the RIS looked at again but the lack of ethics in Canberra – no, not just at ASA and CASA but also in the Department – means that no-one is interested in looking at it. The reason organisations like AOPA are ineffective is the fact that ASA, CASA and the Department have made sure they are given no recognition at all if they make any statement which refers to cost misallocation.
Watch for further staggering damage to the industry as this next mandate comes in.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 13th Feb 2015 at 00:59.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
my old pappy used to say, if you want a reason, follow the money.
I believe ASA and CASA executives are paid bonuses on what they can save the "guvmint".
A $170 million saving they engineered by forcing industry to pay should set them up nicely in retirement.
Imagine what McComic will be able to engineer as president of ICAO.
my old pappy used to say, if you want a reason, follow the money.
I believe ASA and CASA executives are paid bonuses on what they can save the "guvmint".
A $170 million saving they engineered by forcing industry to pay should set them up nicely in retirement.
Imagine what McComic will be able to engineer as president of ICAO.
OA,
A number of other countries currently have ADS-B mandates apart from Australia.
DS,
"Watch for further staggering damage to the industry as this next mandate comes in."
I find it disingenuous to suggest that anyone needs to spend enormous amounts of money to meet the ADS-B requirements. I could build a WAAS capable position source (even RTK) and 1090 ES mode S transponder with ADS-B out for less than $100 using a Raspberry Pi. It is really is not that complicated.
The manufacturers that have avionics installed as part of the type certificate in my view are price gouging, they are waiting for suckers to come along and pay them a heap of money for little work. The US$135k upgrade for your aircraft is probably going via Cessna, that is a consumer choice you may or may not elect to make.
There are much smarter ways to get ADS-B apart from going with the manufacturer. Many people with G1000 Caravans have realized they dont need to go to Cessna and pay 60k to get ADS-B, you can insert a WAAS position source rather inexpensively (i.e. a WAAS position source for less than 5k).
Have you asked anyone if you can install a Freeflight 1203 position source via the Arinc 429 bus to the Pro Line 21 ? What about a different position source for your transponder ?
My aircraft cost less than 5k to upgrade to ADS-B, I sent my GPS back to Garmin for a WAAS upgrade, that was 3k, and a software update to the transponder (free download), plus 4 man hours.
Dont forget as an industry we decided many years ago not to accept a payment from Airservices to have ADS-B installed.
A number of other countries currently have ADS-B mandates apart from Australia.
DS,
"Watch for further staggering damage to the industry as this next mandate comes in."
I find it disingenuous to suggest that anyone needs to spend enormous amounts of money to meet the ADS-B requirements. I could build a WAAS capable position source (even RTK) and 1090 ES mode S transponder with ADS-B out for less than $100 using a Raspberry Pi. It is really is not that complicated.
The manufacturers that have avionics installed as part of the type certificate in my view are price gouging, they are waiting for suckers to come along and pay them a heap of money for little work. The US$135k upgrade for your aircraft is probably going via Cessna, that is a consumer choice you may or may not elect to make.
There are much smarter ways to get ADS-B apart from going with the manufacturer. Many people with G1000 Caravans have realized they dont need to go to Cessna and pay 60k to get ADS-B, you can insert a WAAS position source rather inexpensively (i.e. a WAAS position source for less than 5k).
Have you asked anyone if you can install a Freeflight 1203 position source via the Arinc 429 bus to the Pro Line 21 ? What about a different position source for your transponder ?
My aircraft cost less than 5k to upgrade to ADS-B, I sent my GPS back to Garmin for a WAAS upgrade, that was 3k, and a software update to the transponder (free download), plus 4 man hours.
Dont forget as an industry we decided many years ago not to accept a payment from Airservices to have ADS-B installed.
Dont forget as an industry we decided many years ago not to accept a payment from Airservices to have ADS-B installed.
What ever you are on, can I have some, it must be good sh1t.
Seriously, wherever did you get that idea, there might have been much loose talk, but the facts are that no offers of real money were ever made to anybody.
Just for starters, the airlines flatly refused to participate in any subsidies to GA, that might have impacted cost reductions for them, based on the ASA/AATA pricing formula.
For those of you who are upset about the cost of ADS-B --- have a look at the proposed equipment requirements for Draft Part 135 --- they will really make your eyes water.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled,
I seem to recall 15k per aircraft being offered, and as an industry we rejected it so the money could be spent on a refurb of the J SSR radar coverage.
Can you show me where I am wrong ?
Let me guess, similar to what the EU have already got in place for new aircraft from Jan this year ?
I seem to recall 15k per aircraft being offered, and as an industry we rejected it so the money could be spent on a refurb of the J SSR radar coverage.
Can you show me where I am wrong ?
have a look at the proposed equipment requirements for Draft Part 135
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Let me guess, similar to what the EU have already got in place for new aircraft from Jan this year ?"
Guess that's why general aviation in the EU is pretty much non existent, most of the heavy metal end is on foreign registers and sane countries in the EU are frantically writing their own reg's in an attempt to resurrect their GA industries.
Guess that's why general aviation in the EU is pretty much non existent, most of the heavy metal end is on foreign registers and sane countries in the EU are frantically writing their own reg's in an attempt to resurrect their GA industries.
There is a new market developing for the avionics world to find a solution.
L3 have just released their Lynx range which is a S Transponder with WAAS GPS. So options are becoming available as the USA marches to 2020!
The question has to be why did Aussie go earlier that the largest market?
L3 have just released their Lynx range which is a S Transponder with WAAS GPS. So options are becoming available as the USA marches to 2020!
The question has to be why did Aussie go earlier that the largest market?
Thread Starter
Re the multilateration - do planes get radar vectored to the approach at Hobart?
If not is that the result of our en route controllers not being rated to do radar based approach work as U.S. and Canadian controllers are ?
Or doesn't the multilateration work properly?
If not is that the result of our en route controllers not being rated to do radar based approach work as U.S. and Canadian controllers are ?
Or doesn't the multilateration work properly?