Mr Skidmore unmovable on ADSB
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
no one
And CTR
You guys need to do more research before you post. I am not the ADSB guru of Australia, but I was an early adopter, ditching my GTX327 for a 330ES and now an integrated unit after that. I am not a mega millionaire either, but I see value especially longer term.
GTX335 is available as a standard transponder (like the 330ES) or with an optional built in GPS for ADSB out.
There would be many IFR aircraft who can live with the lack of a TSO146 navigator (say older G1000 or 430/530) or a VFR machine, that can fit these readily.
And the list price is USD$3795 so on the street less. As for EO's that argument has been done to death before.
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod140939.html
To which you need to add the approved GPS. The GTX345 is $5k
You guys need to do more research before you post. I am not the ADSB guru of Australia, but I was an early adopter, ditching my GTX327 for a 330ES and now an integrated unit after that. I am not a mega millionaire either, but I see value especially longer term.
GTX335 is available as a standard transponder (like the 330ES) or with an optional built in GPS for ADSB out.
All-inclusive 1090 MHz ADS-B “Out” Transponder Solution
Satisfies NextGen equipage requirements for ADS-B “Out”
1090 MHz output enables aircraft to operate at any altitude, in airspace around the globe
Combines Mode S Extended Squitter (ES) transponder and optional WAAS/GPS position source in a single unit
Useful display features include flight time, count-up and count-down timers, plus current pressure altitude readout
Easy replacement for your existing transponder, with common 1.65-inch tall form factor
For aircraft operators looking to satisfy the ADS-B “Out” equipage rules as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, the Garmin GTX 335 ES transponder offers the ideal one-box, one-swap solution. It’s optionally available with a built-in WAAS GPS position source – so everything needed to meet compliance standards for a certified ADS-B “Out” solution can be provided with this simple all-in-one package installation.
Satisfies NextGen equipage requirements for ADS-B “Out”
1090 MHz output enables aircraft to operate at any altitude, in airspace around the globe
Combines Mode S Extended Squitter (ES) transponder and optional WAAS/GPS position source in a single unit
Useful display features include flight time, count-up and count-down timers, plus current pressure altitude readout
Easy replacement for your existing transponder, with common 1.65-inch tall form factor
For aircraft operators looking to satisfy the ADS-B “Out” equipage rules as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, the Garmin GTX 335 ES transponder offers the ideal one-box, one-swap solution. It’s optionally available with a built-in WAAS GPS position source – so everything needed to meet compliance standards for a certified ADS-B “Out” solution can be provided with this simple all-in-one package installation.
And the list price is USD$3795 so on the street less. As for EO's that argument has been done to death before.
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod140939.html
I say, bull****, Dick.
In the locations where I was, given the aircraft I was flying (neither aircraft of a type usually associated with ATSB, particularly given the opposition to ATSB) ATC knew exactly who I was, and exactly where I was by Lat and long. I disagree strongly with your claim that I got lucky to be in the line of sight, at least twice (it has happened more often but these are the most recent examples) in such remote locations at such a low level. Hell, in both cases when I confirmed my location by giving the nearest airstrip, they required the code, as they didn't recognise the name / weren't sure of pronouncing the name as it doesn't occur often.
I note the comment that this might be a revenue raising exercise, but has anyone also thought it might get you out of the poo? Joe Bloggs, while flying ABC, you are penalised for infringing R123 at this time / date. Your honour, ATSB shows I was outside the boundary by the accepted margin at the stated height, so, not guilty.
Yes, I accept that installing ATSB might be (is) eye-wateringly expensive, and we might be 5 or more years ahead of the rest of the world, but so? I am snarly about the fact that when it was first mooted, there was going to be rebates for operators / owners who complied, and that promise has vanished into the ether, never to be seen again. Why can't we get Senator X onto reviving that promise? Would we then still be so resistant to the introduction, or insisting on delaying the introduction of ATSB until the units get cheaper?
And before anyone starts, no I don't work for CASA / the media.
In the locations where I was, given the aircraft I was flying (neither aircraft of a type usually associated with ATSB, particularly given the opposition to ATSB) ATC knew exactly who I was, and exactly where I was by Lat and long. I disagree strongly with your claim that I got lucky to be in the line of sight, at least twice (it has happened more often but these are the most recent examples) in such remote locations at such a low level. Hell, in both cases when I confirmed my location by giving the nearest airstrip, they required the code, as they didn't recognise the name / weren't sure of pronouncing the name as it doesn't occur often.
I note the comment that this might be a revenue raising exercise, but has anyone also thought it might get you out of the poo? Joe Bloggs, while flying ABC, you are penalised for infringing R123 at this time / date. Your honour, ATSB shows I was outside the boundary by the accepted margin at the stated height, so, not guilty.
Yes, I accept that installing ATSB might be (is) eye-wateringly expensive, and we might be 5 or more years ahead of the rest of the world, but so? I am snarly about the fact that when it was first mooted, there was going to be rebates for operators / owners who complied, and that promise has vanished into the ether, never to be seen again. Why can't we get Senator X onto reviving that promise? Would we then still be so resistant to the introduction, or insisting on delaying the introduction of ATSB until the units get cheaper?
And before anyone starts, no I don't work for CASA / the media.
Jesus Dick you really must stop smoking whatever it is that's inducing the paranoia or stop listening to the paranoid idiots who are feeding the "it's industrial" tripe to you.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penguin, it's not paranoia. I know of 2 instances of CASA contacting pilots asking them how they got visual on approaches when other aircraft haven't. Some clown sitting at a desk in prime real estate, not in the cockpit of the aircraft concerned. First, where'd they get this 'data' from? Second, how is this clown in a position to judge a pilot's actions unless they are in the right seat, looking out the windscreen at the minima?
Just to clarify this is the tripe I'm referring to: "A number of months ago I was told that part of an industrial agreement AsA had with the ATC Union Civil Air resulted in the IFR mandate being used as a bargaining tool. That is less workload for ATCs if aircraft have ADSB."
The trouble with ADS-B is that the associated legislation has a "barbed hook" in it.
Once you have it, you must always use it. There is a Three day grace period if it fails before you are grounded. That will be "fun" if you are touring.
Furthermore, it is extremely simple and easy to program an "automatic infringement generator" that identifies ANY transgression of restricted areas, controlled airspace and some regulations and automatically issues a show cause notice or penalty notice without further human intervention if so desired. Speed camera systems already do exactly that.
Unfortunately human nature is such that once that capability exists it will be used. WHen one takes into account the incomprehensibly subjective nature of the regulations, the capricious, vindictive, unjust and vicious behaviour of the regulator then the capability is going to be used to kill what little is left of GA.
To put that another way; ADS - B bias the ability to single out and watch each of Dick Smiths aircraft every time they fly, provided they are in range of a receiver, and automatically follow and examine his conduct for the slightest deviation from regulations.
To put that yet another way, turn left at 499ft after takeoff? Here is your penalty notice!
Once you have it, you must always use it. There is a Three day grace period if it fails before you are grounded. That will be "fun" if you are touring.
Furthermore, it is extremely simple and easy to program an "automatic infringement generator" that identifies ANY transgression of restricted areas, controlled airspace and some regulations and automatically issues a show cause notice or penalty notice without further human intervention if so desired. Speed camera systems already do exactly that.
Unfortunately human nature is such that once that capability exists it will be used. WHen one takes into account the incomprehensibly subjective nature of the regulations, the capricious, vindictive, unjust and vicious behaviour of the regulator then the capability is going to be used to kill what little is left of GA.
To put that another way; ADS - B bias the ability to single out and watch each of Dick Smiths aircraft every time they fly, provided they are in range of a receiver, and automatically follow and examine his conduct for the slightest deviation from regulations.
To put that yet another way, turn left at 499ft after takeoff? Here is your penalty notice!
Thread Starter
Le Ping
Is this what I stated that you are objecting to?
"At the Tamworth meeting the CASA Chairman stated that he understood that the February ADSB mandate could not be put off to 2021 because Airservices had made plans which would preclude this."
The previous CASA Director made a similar statement.
Can you throw any light on why Airservices won't allow any delay on the implementation?
Is there a particular safety problem that exists in Australia at the present time that Airservices has kept secret that requires this mandate three years before the US mandate and 4 years before the NZ mandate?
If so why is this being kept secret?
Or is the Airservices position totally based on ego- that is so they can win an international award for being first to have an ADSB mandate for all IFR aircraft.
Is this what I stated that you are objecting to?
"At the Tamworth meeting the CASA Chairman stated that he understood that the February ADSB mandate could not be put off to 2021 because Airservices had made plans which would preclude this."
The previous CASA Director made a similar statement.
Can you throw any light on why Airservices won't allow any delay on the implementation?
Is there a particular safety problem that exists in Australia at the present time that Airservices has kept secret that requires this mandate three years before the US mandate and 4 years before the NZ mandate?
If so why is this being kept secret?
Or is the Airservices position totally based on ego- that is so they can win an international award for being first to have an ADSB mandate for all IFR aircraft.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th May 2016 at 22:15.
Thread Starter
Sunfish. In the USA you only have to have the extended squitter ( which sends out the aircrafts registration ) on when in "ADSB mandatory" airspace.
In Australia CASA has mandated ( I am told) that if an aircraft is fitted with ADSB it is illegal at any time to turn off the extended squitter.
Can an expert on complex CASA regs , like Bloggs , confirm this?
In Australia CASA has mandated ( I am told) that if an aircraft is fitted with ADSB it is illegal at any time to turn off the extended squitter.
Can an expert on complex CASA regs , like Bloggs , confirm this?
There would be many IFR aircraft who can live with the lack of a TSO146 navigator (say older G1000 or 430/530) or a VFR machine, that can fit these readily.
Thread Starter
Maybe that's the answer. Airservices management believe they may not be able to turn off the ground aids if the ADSB mandate is delayed.
This is not true.
I am amazed that this is supposed to be a rumour network and no one even has heard a rumour on why AsA won't budge on this.
This is not true.
I am amazed that this is supposed to be a rumour network and no one even has heard a rumour on why AsA won't budge on this.
Putting aside personal vendettas and conspiracy theories against the 'military', there seems to be three main arguments against ADS-B:
1. The cost
2. Reduced privacy
3. Possible infringements
The cost wouldn't have been as big an issue, if those against ADS-B hadn't fought so hard to have the subsidisation of fitment quashed, never to be seen again.
Reduced privacy is a double edged sword as outnabout has already described.
If you can't accept that infringements for violating CTA or active prohibited/restricted areas might be good for safety, then you are a danger to us all. God forbid the onus falls on the PIC to do their preflight planning, to avoid an infringement and ensure they don't put themselves or anyone else in harms way.
1. The cost
2. Reduced privacy
3. Possible infringements
The cost wouldn't have been as big an issue, if those against ADS-B hadn't fought so hard to have the subsidisation of fitment quashed, never to be seen again.
Reduced privacy is a double edged sword as outnabout has already described.
If you can't accept that infringements for violating CTA or active prohibited/restricted areas might be good for safety, then you are a danger to us all. God forbid the onus falls on the PIC to do their preflight planning, to avoid an infringement and ensure they don't put themselves or anyone else in harms way.
The costs argument is a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that.
The costs argument also takes into consideration that mandating fitment ahead of first-world aviation countries mean Australian aircraft owners will not have the benefit of economies of scale. If 40,000 GA aircraft in the USA were fitted first, the rounding error fleet in Australia would get the benefit of the development and other fixed costs of the manufactured avionics being spread far more broadly.
And don't forget: In the USA the ANSP is funded as a common good, whereas in Australia the ANSP execs write their own salary checks for being smart enough to make money out of a monopoly gouging industry.
The airspace infringement argument is also a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that. It's the difference between a system that facilitates punishment rather than education and a 'just culture'.
However, I do think the privacy argument has no legs. Australians already have no privacy from governments.
The costs argument also takes into consideration that mandating fitment ahead of first-world aviation countries mean Australian aircraft owners will not have the benefit of economies of scale. If 40,000 GA aircraft in the USA were fitted first, the rounding error fleet in Australia would get the benefit of the development and other fixed costs of the manufactured avionics being spread far more broadly.
And don't forget: In the USA the ANSP is funded as a common good, whereas in Australia the ANSP execs write their own salary checks for being smart enough to make money out of a monopoly gouging industry.
The airspace infringement argument is also a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that. It's the difference between a system that facilitates punishment rather than education and a 'just culture'.
However, I do think the privacy argument has no legs. Australians already have no privacy from governments.
I've heard through a reliable source that some of the navaids to be decommissioned later this month may not be shut down on the day. They will continue transmitting/radiating until they fail, maintenance falls due or they are physically switched off.
I assume that ASA will issue NOTAMs to reflect this at the time. Effected aids probably won't be able to be used for navigation, similar to how they manage an aid on test.
It will be interesting to compare the new published LSALTs with the current ones.
Don't take this as correct, as the information is 3rd hand.
I assume that ASA will issue NOTAMs to reflect this at the time. Effected aids probably won't be able to be used for navigation, similar to how they manage an aid on test.
It will be interesting to compare the new published LSALTs with the current ones.
Don't take this as correct, as the information is 3rd hand.
Thread Starter
The privacy argument has lots of legs. It's not so much a lack of privacy from governments. It's a lack of privacy from everyone including nutters.
As I explained before the general public would not accept that there every drive in a car could be followed by anyone keying their car rego into an iPhone.
Lead . I bet you wouldn't accept for your family members where ever they went. Remember this is not tracking by police. It's tracking by anyone with a free app.
But why won't Airservices see reason on this? Must be an explanation . Interesting no one knows or is game to say.
Prime reason the subsidy did not go ahead is that it was to be funded by removal of all the SSR heads. No way this could happen in the short term. No removal meant no cost saving therefore no subsidy.
As I explained before the general public would not accept that there every drive in a car could be followed by anyone keying their car rego into an iPhone.
Lead . I bet you wouldn't accept for your family members where ever they went. Remember this is not tracking by police. It's tracking by anyone with a free app.
But why won't Airservices see reason on this? Must be an explanation . Interesting no one knows or is game to say.
Prime reason the subsidy did not go ahead is that it was to be funded by removal of all the SSR heads. No way this could happen in the short term. No removal meant no cost saving therefore no subsidy.
I've heard through a reliable source that some of the navaids to be decommissioned later this month may not be shut down on the day. They will continue transmitting/radiating until they fail, maintenance falls due or they are physically switched off.
Considering these navaids are spread out over 5000km of the Australian continent I am surprised you seem to think AsA are going to send out 180 add technicians to sit there with a screw driver to power these things down on the same day. Considering they won't be part of the airways network what is wrong with letting them sit there until they can get to them?
I assume that ASA will issue NOTAMs to reflect this at the time
It will be interesting to compare the new published LSALTs with the current ones.
Question for you Dick. Do you actually have evidence that shows the main driver for the ADSB mandate is AsA? There seems to be a idea that AsA can ask the regulator to introduce mandate for something and they will do it. I can tell you now there is no love lost between AsA and CASA. CASA rarely consider anything AsA has to say on face value. If AsA is the main proponent then Mark Skidmore's insistence that he is sticking to the ADSB mandate is effectively going in to bat for AsA. Why would he defend AsA? The current relationship between then 2 organisations is nowhere near mature enough for that to happen. That's why I think this is actually a CASA initiative....
Originally Posted by Dick
I challenge Airservices to publish the ADSB coverage at typical VFR helicopter levels of 1000'.
Originally Posted by Dick
The US has 90% coverage at 1000' agl and that required over 600 stations- not a pathetic 60.
Relevance, Bingi??
via Dick Smith:
The privacy argument has lots of legs. It's not so much a lack of privacy from governments. It's a lack of privacy from everyone including nutters.
As I explained before the general public would not accept that there every drive in a car could be followed by anyone keying their car rego into an iPhone...
The privacy argument has lots of legs. It's not so much a lack of privacy from governments. It's a lack of privacy from everyone including nutters.
As I explained before the general public would not accept that there every drive in a car could be followed by anyone keying their car rego into an iPhone...
https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2...e-issue-13.pdf
Various articles about bomb making, god is great, etc, etc.
Near the end of the magazine one of the articles covers the targeting of "Economic Personalities", "Wealthy entrepreneurs or company owners"
I think our Mr Smith probably ticks all those boxs..
ADS-B - a terrorists delight..
.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for you Dick. Do you actually have evidence that shows the main driver for the ADSB mandate is AsA? There seems to be a idea that AsA can ask the regulator to introduce mandate for something and they will do it.
If 350 odd VOR's & NDB's are being decommissioned by ASA why aren't 350 odd ADSB ground stations being commissioned in better locations? Why isn't there an ADSB ground station at Albury? ATC's are still procedurally separating aircraft 180nm from the second biggest city in Australia. Less than an hours flight.
Fact is ASA are turds, it's about one thing only: profit. If it was about safety we'd have RNAV approaches with vertical guidance, something that would cost stuff all in the great scheme of things.