Mr Skidmore unmovable on ADSB
To be fair, when I put this question of 'strict liability' etc to Mr Skidmore, he responded that it is a Govt. requirement.
It is simply NOT TRUE that "the Government" requires most offenses to be strict liability.
The "instructing agency", as the subject matter experts,(in this case, CASA) advises the OPC ( and before that, OLDP) of the standard of proof required, and the penalty. As we know, CASA now routinely advises the maximum penalty (50 penalty units) for the most minor of offenses, to maximize the "administrative fine" that CASA may levy.
Further, CASA routinely advises OPC to apply "strict liability" where there is a mental element ( usually a decision to be made -- am I visual a minima?) contrary to the Australian Law Reform Commission recommendations, the A-Gs and other bodies guidelines for regulatory development.
The only "bit" that is "Government policy" is that the standard of proof and the penalty follow each regulation --- and that is negotiable.
I doubt Skidmore understands any of this, as a good "commander", he relies on his "staff officers".
Tootle pip!!
Controllers monitoring with ADSB
Hempy,
Thanks for your post a while back on some advantages of ADSB in G in the eyes of a controller.
From memory you used the example of a GNSS approach at YOOD.
You stated that if an aircraft deviated on approach the pilot could expect a call.
Is this some new functionality in TAAATS that alerts the controller as I don't think any of us have heard about it before?
This might (maybe) go some of the way in supporting the CASA mandate.
Why was it not put explicitly in the briefing material as a pro?
Thanks,
GF
Thanks for your post a while back on some advantages of ADSB in G in the eyes of a controller.
From memory you used the example of a GNSS approach at YOOD.
You stated that if an aircraft deviated on approach the pilot could expect a call.
Is this some new functionality in TAAATS that alerts the controller as I don't think any of us have heard about it before?
This might (maybe) go some of the way in supporting the CASA mandate.
Why was it not put explicitly in the briefing material as a pro?
Thanks,
GF
Frank,
Hempy included Benalla in his comments but he seemed to imply things were different these days. Which is great if ADSB offers such advances, I just wanted some more info and why was it not pushed (publicised) as a safety advantage?
GF
Hempy included Benalla in his comments but he seemed to imply things were different these days. Which is great if ADSB offers such advances, I just wanted some more info and why was it not pushed (publicised) as a safety advantage?
GF
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GF, yes, TAAATS has a tool that warns ATCs when an aircraft with a submitted flight plan, under surveillance (radar or ADS) coverage, 'strays' outside it's cleared (or planned, in class G) route. The parameters vary, but generally it's 7.5 miles. It gives an alert tone and attaches a visual cue to the aircrafts track label. It needs to be manually acknowledged before the tone stops, and manually cancelled before the visual cue disappears.
If you read the literature, you'll find that it has been mentioned as a safety enhancement outside SSR coverage for ADS-B equipped aircraft.
Some here think that ADS-B is simply for collision (with other aircraft) avoidance. Obviously that's not true until all aircraft are equipped with it. It still enhances safety regardless.
Frank. As per the ATSB report into the Benalla accident.
If you read the literature, you'll find that it has been mentioned as a safety enhancement outside SSR coverage for ADS-B equipped aircraft.
Some here think that ADS-B is simply for collision (with other aircraft) avoidance. Obviously that's not true until all aircraft are equipped with it. It still enhances safety regardless.
Frank. As per the ATSB report into the Benalla accident.
An internal investigation was conducted by Airservices Australia into the air traffic system aspects of the accident. The investigation report made recommendations that related to The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) Alerts refresher training, human factors awareness training, enhancements to TAAATS software, and greater clarity of instructions related to aircraft track deviation and route adherence monitoring (RAM) alerts. On 31 March 2005, Airservices Australia issued National Instruction NI 06/2005 Aircraft Track Deviations and RAM Alerts, to all air traffic service units. Included in that instruction were amendments to the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS) that clarified controllers’ actions in respect of aircraft track deviations.
An amendment to the MATS stated:
When ATC becomes aware of an aircraft diversion that has not been previously approved or advised, subsequent tracking intentions must be obtained from the pilot prior to modifying the FDR route.
An amendment to the MATS stated:
When ATC becomes aware of an aircraft diversion that has not been previously approved or advised, subsequent tracking intentions must be obtained from the pilot prior to modifying the FDR route.
Last edited by Hempy; 16th May 2016 at 15:49.
Hempy,
Thanks for the all the info and the speed of reply.
I'm on a quick turn around so at this time of the morning the coffee maybe is not yet kicking all my logical extrapolation skills along so if I make a mistake please point it out.
1. The tool you use to warn pilots of a lateral deviation (including on a GNSS approach) is not new but the RAM tool (as per much discussion at the Benalla Inquiry).
2. The controller interface ?MMI appears to be logical in sequence and functionality.
3. Only when a pilot deviates laterally by more than 7.5 nautical miles off route does the warning go off at the controller console and only then you are required by ?SOPS (whatever), that you query tracking with the pilot.
4. You mentioned in your first post
So I have to fly 8nm left or right of track on a GNSS approach before you warn me? Surely not....I must have missed something here?
If that was the case it would be next to useless? Tell me where my logic has gone wrong?
GF
Thanks for the all the info and the speed of reply.
I'm on a quick turn around so at this time of the morning the coffee maybe is not yet kicking all my logical extrapolation skills along so if I make a mistake please point it out.
1. The tool you use to warn pilots of a lateral deviation (including on a GNSS approach) is not new but the RAM tool (as per much discussion at the Benalla Inquiry).
2. The controller interface ?MMI appears to be logical in sequence and functionality.
3. Only when a pilot deviates laterally by more than 7.5 nautical miles off route does the warning go off at the controller console and only then you are required by ?SOPS (whatever), that you query tracking with the pilot.
4. You mentioned in your first post
Equip with ADS-B and fly off track on a GNNS approach at YOOD today and you will certainly hear about it over the radio.
If that was the case it would be next to useless? Tell me where my logic has gone wrong?
GF
Last edited by Gentle_flyer; 16th May 2016 at 19:42. Reason: Grammar, punctuation and clarity.
I am not a TAAATS user but I am pretty sure it doesn't show your flight route via an approach, just a direct line from the last waypoint to DEST. Unless the approach is wholly contained within 7.5nm of that line, you would get a warning.
Hempy included Benalla in his comments but he seemed to imply things were different these days. Which is great if ADSB offers such advances, I just wanted some more info and why was it not pushed (publicised) as a safety advantage?
So, ADS-B in this instance would not have been an improvement.
ADS-B would be an improvement at Oodnadatta - because there is a beacon there. But below 5,000ft the range from YOOD that you will be identified is limited. At Leigh Creek, you will most likely still not be identified.
But, I would argue that there is not so much consequence for being off course out there - I think Big Red might be the highest spot height at 40m. There is simply nothing to hit (unlike Benalla).
But, this feeds back to Dick smith's original question. AsA is fond of quoting coverage at the levels that are the exclusive domain of jets, but that is not where GA is and its not often where aircraft get into trouble. I'd suggest that the LSALT or FAF altitude is the critical altitude where you want someone to know where you are and the ADS-B coverage at those levels is spotty at best.
Some here think that ADS-B is simply for collision (with other aircraft) avoidance. Obviously that's not true until all aircraft are equipped with it. It still enhances safety regardless.
Fascinating, the Australian preoccupation with mid-air collisions in an area where traffic density is so low that the probability of collision is a statistical ZERO.
The FAA regard ADS-B as an ATC tool, NOT primarily a collision avoidance device, likewise the EEC/Eurocontrol. --- Unless you want to say that ATC is a collision avoidance device, which is only partly true.
One of the funniest/pathetic justifications I have come across, in the last few days, is that the claim that the proposed "voluntary" fitment of ADS-B to ALL VFR is: "The traffic density is so low that Australian pilots have lost the facility of maintaining a proper lookout to maintains safe see and avoid".
And, of course, Mr. Skidmore has expressed the opinion that ALL aircraft should have MANDATORY ADS-B.
I can only state what actually occurred.
Undoubtedly. And undoubtedly a further case of "tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth". Perhaps LeadBalloon might like to comment.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I don't think Mr. Skidmore understands what is and is not required by "Government policy", I believe he just acts on the "advice" of his "staff officers".
And he knows exactly what he's been told to think by the people who run CASA.
And he knows exactly what he's been told to think by the people who run CASA.
A good commanding officer following (leading?) his staff officers' "recommendations" --- and he undoubtedly believe he is, in all respects, honourable and correct in his (in)actions.
Tootle pip!!
PS: It would appear that some (all??) of the representative associations (ASAC etc.) now regard mandatory ADS-B for all aircraft inevitable (thanks AOPA -- have you actually polled all your members?) regardless of absolutely NO risk management justification, let alone cost/benefit justification.
ie: CASA and Airservices still regard themselves as functionally exempt from Government policy on regulation, and in the CASA case, their (Mr. Skidmore's) published policy, and are working to minimise the cost impact, which will be substantial.
