What is the ADS-B Australian Coverage at Lowest Safe Altitude?
Thread Starter
What is the ADS-B Australian Coverage at Lowest Safe Altitude?
It is pretty obvious that Australia is going to lead the world in relation to mandatory ADS-B for IFR aircraft.
However, at no time has Airservices actually shown a chart which clearly depicts the ADS-B ground station coverage at the lowest safe altitude that IFR aircraft can fly at.
My guestimate would be less than 20% of Australia would be covered by ADS-B ground stations at lowest safe altitude.
Surely there must be a chart that depicts this, and before mandating ADS-B for all IFR aircraft, Airservices must have considered this particular issue.
Imagine if you were going to force the Australian GA industry to spend over $30 million, only to provide very limited services. This is because - in order to maximise profits, instead of installing 600 ground stations, the Airservices Board decide to put in only 60 or 70 ground stations.
The ADS-B will certainly work above FL290, but it’s not really viable for non-pressurised small aircraft, such as Piper Navajos.
Look forward to some advice on this from the people at Airservices – surely they must have a chart at their fingertips!
However, at no time has Airservices actually shown a chart which clearly depicts the ADS-B ground station coverage at the lowest safe altitude that IFR aircraft can fly at.
My guestimate would be less than 20% of Australia would be covered by ADS-B ground stations at lowest safe altitude.
Surely there must be a chart that depicts this, and before mandating ADS-B for all IFR aircraft, Airservices must have considered this particular issue.
Imagine if you were going to force the Australian GA industry to spend over $30 million, only to provide very limited services. This is because - in order to maximise profits, instead of installing 600 ground stations, the Airservices Board decide to put in only 60 or 70 ground stations.
The ADS-B will certainly work above FL290, but it’s not really viable for non-pressurised small aircraft, such as Piper Navajos.
Look forward to some advice on this from the people at Airservices – surely they must have a chart at their fingertips!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know but he has been trying to make the same point in a number of posts. Far better for his argument to get the information first then argue with facts rather than his usual style of accusing unions of complicity, Airservices ineptitude, CASA intransigence and unfounded statements about the 1930s.
Dick:
This might not be definitive, but it gives you an idea regarding the coverage. This information is cunningly hidden on the Airservices Australia webpage, under a heading of ADS-B coverage. Do you think this might be a start?
ADS-B coverage | Airservices
This might not be definitive, but it gives you an idea regarding the coverage. This information is cunningly hidden on the Airservices Australia webpage, under a heading of ADS-B coverage. Do you think this might be a start?
ADS-B coverage | Airservices
Thread Starter
What does the red / blue / orange mean? I know it's not ADSB coverage at all - it's SSR coverage . So virtually no ADS-B coverage in the J curve at all.
Hold on. That's where most of the aircraft fly that are going to be subject to the $30 m Feb 2017 mandate
Can't be right. That would not be ethical.
Hold on. That's where most of the aircraft fly that are going to be subject to the $30 m Feb 2017 mandate
Can't be right. That would not be ethical.
Would not this ADS-B coverage be the same as for VHF range, and therefore, largely 'line of sight'..?
So if you are at 'low level'......
Or, do I not understand the issue?
Cheers...
So if you are at 'low level'......
Or, do I not understand the issue?
Cheers...
Ex FSO
As I understand it, ADS-B requires line of sight VHF transmission, but to different towers than the Comm ones, therefore the coverage is different.
As far as I can see, ADS-B is only required for one of 3 reasons:
1. To transfer airservice infrastructure costs from AsA to aircraft owners.
2. To provide greater position accuracy which allows reduced aircraft separation which increases traffic throughput in terminal areas (ie airline flights)
3. To provide better SAR direction / emergency response in the event of an emergency.
Surely point #3 requires coverage at the LSALT?
AsA have basically only provided coverage maps for cruising altitudes. Surely a high proportion of emergencies occur on climb to cruising altitude or on the approach to land (especially gear issues)?
As I understand it, ADS-B requires line of sight VHF transmission, but to different towers than the Comm ones, therefore the coverage is different.
As far as I can see, ADS-B is only required for one of 3 reasons:
1. To transfer airservice infrastructure costs from AsA to aircraft owners.
2. To provide greater position accuracy which allows reduced aircraft separation which increases traffic throughput in terminal areas (ie airline flights)
3. To provide better SAR direction / emergency response in the event of an emergency.
Surely point #3 requires coverage at the LSALT?
AsA have basically only provided coverage maps for cruising altitudes. Surely a high proportion of emergencies occur on climb to cruising altitude or on the approach to land (especially gear issues)?
Those coverage maps are well out of date (look at the date) and don't reflect the current coverage. For instance around Melbourne there are Mt William, Mt Tassie and Mt Macedon - there is ADS-B coverage on the ground at Melbourne, Ballarat, very low at Bendigo, Shepparton.
Why the sudden panic about ADS-B coverage at LSALTs?
There isn't SSR coverage at LSALTs outside the J curve, unless in reasonable proximity to the few SSR sites.
In fact, given there are now some 75+ ADS-B sites around the country where there is no SSR coverage at all, the surveillance across the country has vastly improved.
Airservices didn't mandate anything. That authority rests with CASA, who mandated the fitment, timeline and who are the sole authority to grant exemptions.
If CASA wanted to grant an extension to the fitment date or grant exemptions they could, and Airservices would have to wear it. I suspect CASA don't want to grant exemptions for fear of opening the flood gates.
CASA staff from the top down have long seemed to have a habit of blaming Airservices & Defence when they can.
There isn't SSR coverage at LSALTs outside the J curve, unless in reasonable proximity to the few SSR sites.
In fact, given there are now some 75+ ADS-B sites around the country where there is no SSR coverage at all, the surveillance across the country has vastly improved.
and before mandating ADS-B for all IFR aircraft, Airservices must have considered this particular issue
If CASA wanted to grant an extension to the fitment date or grant exemptions they could, and Airservices would have to wear it. I suspect CASA don't want to grant exemptions for fear of opening the flood gates.
CASA staff from the top down have long seemed to have a habit of blaming Airservices & Defence when they can.
Try coming west of the J curve. Plenty of ADS-B coverage where there is no SSR. I can see you on the ground at YPKA as opposed to the PBO SSR picking you up around FL150.
If you asked the controller I am sure they would have no problems how telling you how they are seeing you.
If you asked the controller I am sure they would have no problems how telling you how they are seeing you.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My concern is Oodnadatta. I'm still not convinced there is mobile phone coverage. Trust in the public phone and "airmove priority" I guess. But then again one of the selling points of ADSB was search and rescue. Could I be hung up on the boundary fence like an Eagle or tangled up with my HF antennae cup which I forgot to reel in?
Ah, the good old days...
Ah, the good old days...
The map (though out of date) shows ADS-B coverage at 5000 feet.
Why would you be flying IFR below 5000 feet, when you could bump into a pesky VFR aircraft flying at a non-hemispherical level (perfectly legally, I will point out) just because they can?
Remember, IFR doesn't mean IMC.
Why would you be flying IFR below 5000 feet, when you could bump into a pesky VFR aircraft flying at a non-hemispherical level (perfectly legally, I will point out) just because they can?
Remember, IFR doesn't mean IMC.
Good one, Frank. 
With the exception of the mines and YPKG 
) there is ADS-B coverage to the ground everywhere I go, and not an SSR head in sight (wot's that thingee spinning aorund on Eastern Range?? ) . This has led to a massive improvement in service, and therefore safety, for RPT, which make a very loud noise whether they hit one of their own or a IFR Navajo...
ADS-B? Greatest thing since sliced-bread.
Cut the nonsense Dick.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
The ADS-B will certainly work above FL290, but it’s not really viable for non-pressurised small aircraft, such as Piper Navajos.
) there is ADS-B coverage to the ground everywhere I go, and not an SSR head in sight (wot's that thingee spinning aorund on Eastern Range?? ) . This has led to a massive improvement in service, and therefore safety, for RPT, which make a very loud noise whether they hit one of their own or a IFR Navajo...ADS-B? Greatest thing since sliced-bread.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
instead of installing 600 ground stations, the Airservices Board decide to put in only 60 or 70 ground stations.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bloggs, while I can see your delight, and we are usually in agreement on things, there is currently nowhere near enough low level ADSB. From 5000' up I think we should be rewarded with ADSB coverage by 2020.
I am 100% in favour for it, but when us small guys invest, ASA (the government) should be also investing, and not just looking after heavies.
While I am at it, there is no excuse satisfactory that can be used to justify why there is no VHF comms below 7000' (I experienced over 8000) at places like YCMU or YBCK. The ground is flat as bro' so despite there being no VOR at CMU any more and the NDB….well who cares, why are we reliant on HF which for GA is a PITA.
The service we get is not great at say YHBA either. Unless you are in a Q400 ATC comms on the ground is nil and SSR/ADSB is roughly 5000'. What a joke!
ASA should have been spending on VHF and ADSB not SSR's that …….ohh yeah, we know why that was don't we.
I am 100% in favour for it, but when us small guys invest, ASA (the government) should be also investing, and not just looking after heavies.
While I am at it, there is no excuse satisfactory that can be used to justify why there is no VHF comms below 7000' (I experienced over 8000) at places like YCMU or YBCK. The ground is flat as bro' so despite there being no VOR at CMU any more and the NDB….well who cares, why are we reliant on HF which for GA is a PITA.
The service we get is not great at say YHBA either. Unless you are in a Q400 ATC comms on the ground is nil and SSR/ADSB is roughly 5000'. What a joke!
ASA should have been spending on VHF and ADSB not SSR's that …….ohh yeah, we know why that was don't we.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs,
what serrvice are you getting? You're not getting a separation service because you're in Class G. It's the only airspace in the developed world where IFR aircraft are observed by ATC but are not provided any ATC separation standards.
If it's determined that the risk is so low in that airspace that it's only required to be rated as G, what is the point of mandating equipment that is used to provide a separation standard? It makes no sense.
Once again, if I'm wrong then so is the rest of the world, because that's how they have done it!!
what serrvice are you getting? You're not getting a separation service because you're in Class G. It's the only airspace in the developed world where IFR aircraft are observed by ATC but are not provided any ATC separation standards.
If it's determined that the risk is so low in that airspace that it's only required to be rated as G, what is the point of mandating equipment that is used to provide a separation standard? It makes no sense.
Once again, if I'm wrong then so is the rest of the world, because that's how they have done it!!
Ahh, but you see it's not G. Don't believe what all those charts and other AIP documents say.
It's actually ForG.
It's actually ForG.
Thread Starter
Many pilots are not going to fit ADSB. They are going to downgrade safety and only operate VFR in future as they can't justify the extra cost.
Airservices, how about updating the charts on your web.?
Commonsense alone would push for a delay in the mandate until 2021. Let's see what happens.
Airservices, how about updating the charts on your web.?
Commonsense alone would push for a delay in the mandate until 2021. Let's see what happens.