Mr Skidmore unmovable on ADSB
The MAIN reason Jeff Boyd gave for not being able to roll back the ADSB mandate was 'other agencies are involved' i.e. ASA.
You get no argument from me that AsA could be doing more to facilitate the ADSB mandate. AsA are under prepared for what is coming (in my opinion). But again, if the mandate was pushed so hard by AsA why are they so under prepared? Second, with the level of under preparedness now on display, what is the big risk with pushing the mandate out? I just don't buy that the road block to pushing the mandate out is AsA. I also cannot see that CASA would defend AsA.
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.
Fact is ASA are turds...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'm at the coalface of APV implementation and the delay has absolutely nothing to do with AsA, and everything to do with the safety regulator not being prepared or willing to roll them out".
Is that the reason the rest of the world has had low vis approaches quite safely for over 40 years and Australia is only now begrudgingly fiddling around the edges?
Third world infrastructure for a third world country.
Is that the reason the rest of the world has had low vis approaches quite safely for over 40 years and Australia is only now begrudgingly fiddling around the edges?
Third world infrastructure for a third world country.
Yes, in a nutshell. We DO NOT have a progressive regulator. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming to allow operations in this country that have been done successfully overseas for years.
Totally agree.
...and third world regulator for a third world country.
Third world infrastructure for a third world country.
...and third world regulator for a third world country.
Thread Starter
I believe the CASA Chairman at the Tamworth meeting made it very clear it was Airservices that would not budge on the ADSB mandate.
On this site a year or so ago an email from the last CASA Director to Brad Edwards was quoted which made it clear that it was Airservices that prevented the Director from giving promised ADSB dispensations .
There is something going on here that is being kept hidden.
Surely someone who posts on this site must know the facts- why won't the Canberra bureaucracy support an entirely reasonable request from AOPA and other industry organisations to postpone the mandate until 2021 as per NZ.?
Free invitation and beer at the next Bowylie fly in on Sunday May 22nd for the Pruner with the most likely correct answer!
On this site a year or so ago an email from the last CASA Director to Brad Edwards was quoted which made it clear that it was Airservices that prevented the Director from giving promised ADSB dispensations .
There is something going on here that is being kept hidden.
Surely someone who posts on this site must know the facts- why won't the Canberra bureaucracy support an entirely reasonable request from AOPA and other industry organisations to postpone the mandate until 2021 as per NZ.?
Free invitation and beer at the next Bowylie fly in on Sunday May 22nd for the Pruner with the most likely correct answer!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AsA produced the Safety Case, and gave it to CASA. The SC stated that the risk would not be tolerable in the upper level airspace if non ADSB aircraft were permitted to operate in it once ADSB was implemented. The only reason non ADSB aircraft got the exemption to operate in the J curve was due to CASA involvement. CASA politely pointed out that there wasn't an increase in traffic numbers, so the risk could not have gone up in airspace under radar coverage. So don't bag them all the time.
The problem is when AsA produce a SC using their airspace modelling tool (s) with certain assumptions inputted, with no basis in reality, for the purposes of achieving their own aims, it's very difficult to provide a rebuttal, unless industry get involved. My previous post regarding the E over D rollback was another example of this.
The rest of the developed world has gone SBAS before ADSB, safety before efficiency. The sensible approach. The reason we haven't is that, if AsA install it, they can't charge for it's use, as the charging model is based on a user pays principle, not their fault but the Federal Government's policy. CASA isn't responsible for it's installation, it's national infrastructure therefore the Federal Governments problem.
So let's hit Nick X up for an SBAS, the new government will be looking for new national infrastructure initiaves. It ticks all the boxes, latest technology, country/regional benefits etc etc. Probably a couple of overseas trips for managers in AsA and CASA as well
The problem is when AsA produce a SC using their airspace modelling tool (s) with certain assumptions inputted, with no basis in reality, for the purposes of achieving their own aims, it's very difficult to provide a rebuttal, unless industry get involved. My previous post regarding the E over D rollback was another example of this.
The rest of the developed world has gone SBAS before ADSB, safety before efficiency. The sensible approach. The reason we haven't is that, if AsA install it, they can't charge for it's use, as the charging model is based on a user pays principle, not their fault but the Federal Government's policy. CASA isn't responsible for it's installation, it's national infrastructure therefore the Federal Governments problem.
So let's hit Nick X up for an SBAS, the new government will be looking for new national infrastructure initiaves. It ticks all the boxes, latest technology, country/regional benefits etc etc. Probably a couple of overseas trips for managers in AsA and CASA as well
Sunfish:
With reference to your comment that there is only 3 days grace to fix a U/S ATSB for IFR flight:
There have always been instruments required for IFR flight which, if U/S, can ground an IFR flight. As the first example that comes to mind, I refer you to AIP ENR 1.7 1.2 IFR Altimeters, which stipulates checks for altimeters to be used in IFR flight, and the tolerances. If the altimeter doesn't meet the requirements for IFR, go VFR or stay on the ground.
Unless I am missing something (and, as always, I am willing to be corrected), the same rule applies to ATSB. Not in a position to get it fixed in 3 days, then fly VFR or stay on the ground.
If Skidmore has put his foot down, and the introduction of ATSB will happen by whenever (for whatever reason) then how can we (as an industry) work it to our advantage? How about getting pollies to put on pressure to bring back the rebate that was originally promised? How about saying to CASA or ASA, and to pollies, OK you have told us the date that you want the industry to comply. For those operators / owners who comply, how about a 100% rebate if there is not 100% coverage (or whatever they are promising) of Australia. Otherwise, businesses and individuals will have wasted money on a government mandated safety feature but because the government hasn't met their side of the bargain (ie provided maximum coverage) then we are entitled to our money back. And, to my mind, it will be serious egg on face - we complied, they didn't, therefore who here is really taking aviation safety seriously?
With reference to your comment that there is only 3 days grace to fix a U/S ATSB for IFR flight:
There have always been instruments required for IFR flight which, if U/S, can ground an IFR flight. As the first example that comes to mind, I refer you to AIP ENR 1.7 1.2 IFR Altimeters, which stipulates checks for altimeters to be used in IFR flight, and the tolerances. If the altimeter doesn't meet the requirements for IFR, go VFR or stay on the ground.
Unless I am missing something (and, as always, I am willing to be corrected), the same rule applies to ATSB. Not in a position to get it fixed in 3 days, then fly VFR or stay on the ground.
If Skidmore has put his foot down, and the introduction of ATSB will happen by whenever (for whatever reason) then how can we (as an industry) work it to our advantage? How about getting pollies to put on pressure to bring back the rebate that was originally promised? How about saying to CASA or ASA, and to pollies, OK you have told us the date that you want the industry to comply. For those operators / owners who comply, how about a 100% rebate if there is not 100% coverage (or whatever they are promising) of Australia. Otherwise, businesses and individuals will have wasted money on a government mandated safety feature but because the government hasn't met their side of the bargain (ie provided maximum coverage) then we are entitled to our money back. And, to my mind, it will be serious egg on face - we complied, they didn't, therefore who here is really taking aviation safety seriously?
Outnabout, the ADSB rule about three days etc. unless I am mistaken, does not just refer to IFR aircraft, it refers to ANY aircraft fitted with ADSB out, that includes VFR. Hence once you fit it as a VFR aircraft, you cannot turn it off.
Thread Starter
VRef Can you give me a link to the safety case that shows if an aircraft without a fitted ADSB flys above Fl 290 in the GARA that the risk will " not be tolerable"
Sounds like a complete con to me .
Or is the safety case a secret document.?
Sounds like a complete con to me .
Or is the safety case a secret document.?
Sunfish, Just to follow up here is the extract from CAO 20.18. It mentions the 3 days in 9B.12. The way I read it though is that 9B.8 to 9B.11 only apply to IFR or to flight above FL290 and requires ADS-B. 9B.12 then allows for IFR flight with the ADS-B unserviceable under certain conditions(3 days CASA permissions). I interpret that as if you don't fly IFR you can continue to fly VFR with the ADS-B unserviceable beyond 3 days. Perhaps I am miss understanding.
9B.8 On and after 12 December 2013, any aircraft that is operated at or above FL 290 must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.9 An aircraft:
(a) that is first registered on or after 6 February 2014; and
(b) that is operated under the I.F.R.;
must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.10 On and after 2 February 2017, an aircraft:
(a) that is first registered before 6 February 2014; and
(b) that is operated under the I.F.R.;
must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.11 On and after 4 February 2016, an aircraft that is operated under the I.F.R. in airspace:
(a) that is Class A, B, C or E; and
(b) that is within the arc of a circle that starts 500 NM true north from Perth aerodrome and finishes 500 NM true east from Perth aerodrome;
must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.12 Paragraphs 9B.8 to 9B.11 do not apply to an aircraft if:
(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting equipment; or
(b) the equipment is unserviceable for a flight, and each of the following applies:
(i) the flight takes place within 3 days of the discovery of the unserviceability;
(ii) at least 1 of the following applies for the flight:
(A) flight with unserviceable equipment has been approved by CASA, in writing, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies;
(B) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of CAR 1988 have been complied with;
(iii) ATC clears the flight before it commences despite the unserviceability.
9B.9 An aircraft:
(a) that is first registered on or after 6 February 2014; and
(b) that is operated under the I.F.R.;
must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.10 On and after 2 February 2017, an aircraft:
(a) that is first registered before 6 February 2014; and
(b) that is operated under the I.F.R.;
must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.11 On and after 4 February 2016, an aircraft that is operated under the I.F.R. in airspace:
(a) that is Class A, B, C or E; and
(b) that is within the arc of a circle that starts 500 NM true north from Perth aerodrome and finishes 500 NM true east from Perth aerodrome;
must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in Appendix XI.
9B.12 Paragraphs 9B.8 to 9B.11 do not apply to an aircraft if:
(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting equipment; or
(b) the equipment is unserviceable for a flight, and each of the following applies:
(i) the flight takes place within 3 days of the discovery of the unserviceability;
(ii) at least 1 of the following applies for the flight:
(A) flight with unserviceable equipment has been approved by CASA, in writing, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies;
(B) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of CAR 1988 have been complied with;
(iii) ATC clears the flight before it commences despite the unserviceability.
no_one
I assume its tied up in the continuing airworthiness regulations. Once you fit something, it needs to function correctly, or be removed or replaced.
ADS-B is a good thing and you just need to get over the location thing.
My problems with ADS-B are:
Australia is the only country in the world mandating it for ALL IFR flight in ALL levels in ALL airspace.
CASA is mandating ADS-B 3 years before the country that makes the equipment is.
CASA just makes it hard with the requirements for engineering orders, etc
Introducing ADS-B under the guise of a safety case is a con.
I assume its tied up in the continuing airworthiness regulations. Once you fit something, it needs to function correctly, or be removed or replaced.
ADS-B is a good thing and you just need to get over the location thing.
My problems with ADS-B are:
Australia is the only country in the world mandating it for ALL IFR flight in ALL levels in ALL airspace.
CASA is mandating ADS-B 3 years before the country that makes the equipment is.
CASA just makes it hard with the requirements for engineering orders, etc
Introducing ADS-B under the guise of a safety case is a con.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick,
sorry, I'm not on the inside of either organisation, I'm guessing a FOI request should be able to retrieve it though. Or is it on the Dept's website?? Should have been available as part of the RIS
sorry, I'm not on the inside of either organisation, I'm guessing a FOI request should be able to retrieve it though. Or is it on the Dept's website?? Should have been available as part of the RIS
Australia is the only country in the world mandating it for ALL IFR flight in ALL levels in ALL airspace.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Skidmore would presumably have fitted ADSB to his own aircraft to lead from the front and demonstrate that ADSB is affordable and not a privacy issue. Wouldn't he?
And I assume all CASA operated aircraft also have ADSB fitted?
And I assume all CASA operated aircraft also have ADSB fitted?
Old Arko,
If you are flying Under private or Airwork and the equipment is not function, but it is not required for the proposed flight you can placard it as inoperative and carry on. See section 10 of CAO 20.18.
This allows for example a day VFR flight to occur if for instance the AH is inoperative.
I cant see anything that would mean that ADS-B is different but I could be wrong.
If you are flying Under private or Airwork and the equipment is not function, but it is not required for the proposed flight you can placard it as inoperative and carry on. See section 10 of CAO 20.18.
This allows for example a day VFR flight to occur if for instance the AH is inoperative.
I cant see anything that would mean that ADS-B is different but I could be wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people losing track of the discussion??
Who care's if it affects your privacy?? Big Brother is always watching anyway...even in your car...it will have been photographed somewhere some time without your knowledge.
ADSB -out even for a VFR can be a great safety tool. It identifies you and makes contact from ATC....to that random aircraft heading NNW from seymour, a lot less hit and miss. (ok fixed PRD's like that aren't such a problem, but pretty easy to miss the temporary ones in your flight planning)
You can be contacted BEFORE you make the mistake. (the next evolution will be for the data to include the frequency(ies) you are monitoring)
The real discussion is implementation dates and how that affects costs.
Who care's if it affects your privacy?? Big Brother is always watching anyway...even in your car...it will have been photographed somewhere some time without your knowledge.
ADSB -out even for a VFR can be a great safety tool. It identifies you and makes contact from ATC....to that random aircraft heading NNW from seymour, a lot less hit and miss. (ok fixed PRD's like that aren't such a problem, but pretty easy to miss the temporary ones in your flight planning)
You can be contacted BEFORE you make the mistake. (the next evolution will be for the data to include the frequency(ies) you are monitoring)
The real discussion is implementation dates and how that affects costs.
ADSB -out even for a VFR can be a great safety tool. It identifies you and makes contact from ATC....to that random aircraft heading NNW from seymour, a lot less hit and miss.