Airservices ADSB con - Sydney and Canberra.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was flying along one night YBRK-YBTL and asked how if my ADSB was being received (at FL125), and was told that there is no ADSB below FL200 north of Gladstone...
Hi Leadie,
Did I phrase that badly?
I was responding to Mr CS's remark;
"you will have massively improved situational awareness of all aircraft around you."
Only if he has -'in'. And,
VFR would not necessarily be 'seen' of course, as they don't need to have the stuff.
On the other hand, if they met the conditions dated 6 Feb 2014, they would have it.
Do ya feel lucky Mr CS?
Nuthin' on the 'in' screen? Good, I can read the paper....
Cheers
We won the footy, by the way. Good Game.
Did I phrase that badly?
I was responding to Mr CS's remark;
"you will have massively improved situational awareness of all aircraft around you."
Only if he has -'in'. And,
VFR would not necessarily be 'seen' of course, as they don't need to have the stuff.
On the other hand, if they met the conditions dated 6 Feb 2014, they would have it.
Do ya feel lucky Mr CS?
Nuthin' on the 'in' screen? Good, I can read the paper....
Cheers
We won the footy, by the way. Good Game.
Ex FSO Griffo,
Yeah I know, I've already been lectured to about the evils of having a tool for self separation - apparently it leads to an decrease in SA like ABS caused more car crashes or something. As long as VFR have OUT then IFR can maintain SA on them by fitting IN, as opposed to R/T now or relying on an RA. It has to be better than see and avoid.
I don't feel lucky at all. Australia, big country, lots of airspace, nil sig wx, and GA dying. Its a travesty. DS has my support on getting something done, but not sure on the method.
But I do think that ADSB is the way of the future - some are arguing that is of little benefit to VFR and how its wrong that Australia is leading the way in mandating its use. Its a question of how, not whether to have/use it. Hopefully costs will come down quickly.
Do ya feel lucky Mr CS?
Nuthin' on the 'in' screen? Good, I can read the paper....
Nuthin' on the 'in' screen? Good, I can read the paper....
I don't feel lucky at all. Australia, big country, lots of airspace, nil sig wx, and GA dying. Its a travesty. DS has my support on getting something done, but not sure on the method.
But I do think that ADSB is the way of the future - some are arguing that is of little benefit to VFR and how its wrong that Australia is leading the way in mandating its use. Its a question of how, not whether to have/use it. Hopefully costs will come down quickly.
That's fine Mr S, IF one WANTS to install it - NOT to have it 'mandated' i.e. rammed down one's throat at huge expense.
Some of us fly aeroplanes in which the complete installation would be 'over the top'.
In the Good Ole USA, competition between brands will probably bring the price down a bit with time, but right now, the prices are 'up'....Hence some are querying, 'why the rush from CASA'.... (including moi....)
Some of us fly aeroplanes in which it would probably be relatively easy, but costly, IF one can afford it, or WANTS it.
Like I have said, I have recently been quoted just under $10K for a '172' type.
I can buy a Trig for around $4K, but that then requires an 'approved' GPS source, plus installation etc etc. So, we're back up to around the $10K again.
I have no idea of what might be 'required' vs 'desireable' for a DH-82 Tiger Moth....
And re 'it has to be better than see and avoid' - its just another 'tool' to assist in 'see and avoid'.
I believe it 'compliments' the eyeball mk 1, but it will never 'replace it'....
Beware the unexpected - like the huge wedgetail eagle I encountered once at 8,000ft north of Normanton, Gulf Country.
He had neither 'in' nor 'out' - and neither did I !
Anyway, we are all entitled to our own opinion.....
Cheers
Some of us fly aeroplanes in which the complete installation would be 'over the top'.
In the Good Ole USA, competition between brands will probably bring the price down a bit with time, but right now, the prices are 'up'....Hence some are querying, 'why the rush from CASA'.... (including moi....)
Some of us fly aeroplanes in which it would probably be relatively easy, but costly, IF one can afford it, or WANTS it.
Like I have said, I have recently been quoted just under $10K for a '172' type.
I can buy a Trig for around $4K, but that then requires an 'approved' GPS source, plus installation etc etc. So, we're back up to around the $10K again.
I have no idea of what might be 'required' vs 'desireable' for a DH-82 Tiger Moth....
And re 'it has to be better than see and avoid' - its just another 'tool' to assist in 'see and avoid'.
I believe it 'compliments' the eyeball mk 1, but it will never 'replace it'....
Beware the unexpected - like the huge wedgetail eagle I encountered once at 8,000ft north of Normanton, Gulf Country.
He had neither 'in' nor 'out' - and neither did I !
Anyway, we are all entitled to our own opinion.....
Cheers
Thread Starter
The CASA Regulation Impact Statement states that the ADSB mandate will cost GA over $30 million.
Yet no existing safety problem is being addressed . Next February all aircraft that fly in IMC must have ADSB fitted.
When have we had a mid air in IMC? Never!
Yet no existing safety problem is being addressed . Next February all aircraft that fly in IMC must have ADSB fitted.
When have we had a mid air in IMC? Never!
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
When have we had a mid air in IMC? Never!
Probably because no two pilots could fly such a precise track and hold such a precise altitude as does a 'locked on' GPS auto pilot 'these days'....
I believe its quite common for two aircraft on reciprocal tracks to fly one 'precisely' over the 'centreline' of the other 'these days'.
Thank goodness for the third dimension of altitude separation....
And, at times, thank goodness they WERE in IMC, no 'heart attacks' at not seeing 'that'.
As someone on these esteemed pages says...'Er... Traffic Was...'
Cheers
I believe its quite common for two aircraft on reciprocal tracks to fly one 'precisely' over the 'centreline' of the other 'these days'.
Thank goodness for the third dimension of altitude separation....
And, at times, thank goodness they WERE in IMC, no 'heart attacks' at not seeing 'that'.
As someone on these esteemed pages says...'Er... Traffic Was...'
Cheers
When have we had a mid air in IMC? Never!
Reminds me of a manager who said "the best outcome is the worst outcome" or similar such words.
Thread Starter
Incredible. It is ASA who are pushing the early ADSB mandate . The Chairman is ex RAAF head Sir Angus Houston.
Yet the RAAF hasn't spent the money on ADSB for their terminal airspace .
Nor have ASA for Sydney and Canberra. All a dishonest con that has ex military people further destroying our industry.
Yes I know it's unintentional. But it's happening!
Yet the RAAF hasn't spent the money on ADSB for their terminal airspace .
Nor have ASA for Sydney and Canberra. All a dishonest con that has ex military people further destroying our industry.
Yes I know it's unintentional. But it's happening!
At the risk of being 'boring'.....
From the post re Ballina;
"And those businesses, will all go 'broke' because they will be 'managed' - read 'mismanaged' - by the same skygods who think they know 'everything', but in reality are incapable of running a business in the commercial sense - which is the only sense when running a COMMERCIAL business.....
No 'taxpayers' funds in the commercial world!
No cheers, nope, none at all...."
S I G H .....
From the post re Ballina;
"And those businesses, will all go 'broke' because they will be 'managed' - read 'mismanaged' - by the same skygods who think they know 'everything', but in reality are incapable of running a business in the commercial sense - which is the only sense when running a COMMERCIAL business.....
No 'taxpayers' funds in the commercial world!
No cheers, nope, none at all...."
S I G H .....
Thread Starter
Le ping. Come on. Are you suggesting that after introducing the most expensive ADSB requirements in the world it's not actually going to be used by Airservices where the risk is highest.? That is in the terminal area.
You have got to be pulling my leg.
But I fear you are not. $30 million to be spent by GA and the savings from the removal of the ground aids to go 90% to the Airlines.
You have got to be pulling my leg.
But I fear you are not. $30 million to be spent by GA and the savings from the removal of the ground aids to go 90% to the Airlines.
I wonder whatever 'happened' to the 'proposal' that AsA would 'subsidise' the fitting of aircraft equipment??
They certainly $tand to make a HUGE $avings from now until FOREVER with the decommi$$ioning of the various ground ba$ed navaid$..??
Just $ayin'.....
No Cheers.....
They certainly $tand to make a HUGE $avings from now until FOREVER with the decommi$$ioning of the various ground ba$ed navaid$..??
Just $ayin'.....
No Cheers.....
I wonder whatever 'happened' to the 'proposal' that AsA would 'subsidise' the fitting of aircraft equipment??
From what I have been told and put simply, the operators of those aircraft knocked the proposal back......
Someone correct me if I am wrong?
Alpha
Thread Starter
The GA subsidy for ADSB would clearly result in the Airlines giving GA a $30 million + subsidy from their own profits.
They were never going to do this when they found there was no measurable safety benefit.
They were never going to do this when they found there was no measurable safety benefit.
Dick, my post had nothing to do with the airlines....but I'll play along
So what? The Airlines were fully aware of what was being proposed. They are not the ones that rejected it.
Again, they weren't against it, so they clearly saw a benefit or they would have been screaming the house down!
The GA subsidy for ADSB would clearly result in the Airlines giving GA a $30 million + subsidy from their own profits.
They were never going to do this when they found there was no measurable safety benefit.
I don't really follow you Dick,
We were always told that the 'stakeholders' were....
1 - The Industry,
2 - AsA,
3 - The Govt.
Not necessarily in that order.
i.e. ANY 'savings' or 'profits' were to be returned in equal 'shares' to these stakeholders for the future of the industry, and the AsA 'charges' to be adjusted accordingly.....annually??
Now, I am aware that some of the profit gets returned to the Govt each year, and the AsA charges to the Industry should be adjusted accordingly, so they also get to 'share' in this profit in the form of 'reduced charges'....allegedly.
Don't ask me 'how many millions of $'s' because I just don't know and cannot really be bothered to ascertain, but if you say its $30M, then its $30M.
$30M from AsA would put a LOT of 'Gear' in a fair number of acft., don't you think..??
Cheers
We were always told that the 'stakeholders' were....
1 - The Industry,
2 - AsA,
3 - The Govt.
Not necessarily in that order.
i.e. ANY 'savings' or 'profits' were to be returned in equal 'shares' to these stakeholders for the future of the industry, and the AsA 'charges' to be adjusted accordingly.....annually??
Now, I am aware that some of the profit gets returned to the Govt each year, and the AsA charges to the Industry should be adjusted accordingly, so they also get to 'share' in this profit in the form of 'reduced charges'....allegedly.
Don't ask me 'how many millions of $'s' because I just don't know and cannot really be bothered to ascertain, but if you say its $30M, then its $30M.
$30M from AsA would put a LOT of 'Gear' in a fair number of acft., don't you think..??
Cheers
Dick, the stated reason for the introduction of ADS-B has always been extending surveillance coverage beyond that provided by radar. That is the reality. Your faux outrage is just aimed at whipping up the troops, pushing your barrow. Show me where anyone has ever mentioned terminal use, besides yourself.
How is using ADS-B in current terminal areas covered by radar going to improve safety? We already have radar redundancy. Sure it would provide a degree of redundancy but that doesn't help with non-ADS-B equipped aircraft.
How is using ADS-B in current terminal areas covered by radar going to improve safety? We already have radar redundancy. Sure it would provide a degree of redundancy but that doesn't help with non-ADS-B equipped aircraft.
From what I have been told and put simply, the operators of those aircraft knocked the proposal back......
Someone correct me if I am wrong?
Someone correct me if I am wrong?
You really must have been in a galaxy far far away!!!
There never was a proposal for anybody to accept or reject, full stop -- and that is first hand from the Chairman of ASA at the time.
No proposal, not even a "preliminary" proposal, was ever presented to the CASA or Airservices boards, much less any proposal to Finance or Treasury.
What did happens was:
a) All sorts of promises to the gullible were made, a pitch somewhat less ethical, in my opinion, than the average used car salesman's spiel.
b) Via "the usual channels" the major airlines via AATA, QF direct and BAR made it very clear that they would not have a bar of any "GA" subsidy -- which included Regional airlines type aircraft.
c) Publicly, all the major will talk about for almost any regulation is "more safety" or words to that effect, they will not debate "safety" in public, for good and proper reasons. What is said behind closed doors is another matter entirely.
d) I saw the original ADS-B fitment proposal to the Virgin board, Flight Operations (or whatever it is called at Virgin) liked the "potential" but it was quite clear that it did not address any identifiable risk, and they could not find any of the ASA claimed savings to justify the costs.
e) There was considerable disquiet in Qantaslink about the cost to equip the -8s, about 15 times the CASA "estimate", but spot on with FAA NPRM estimate for installing ADS-B in similar aircraft.
That, my dear dweller from outer space, is part of the real story.
You must have been "told" by ASA's used car salesmen.
Tootle pip!!