CASA Not Biased

[dazza 38]

Unfortunatly Pete, that seems to happen a bit with fly-ins.Both involving GA and Raa. Cloundsuck and another friend of ours in a 172 nearly got cleaned up in the circuit at Evans Head, by a Beechcraft Bonanza.Years ago we were number 3 in the circuit at Hecks Field out of a group of 4 a/c.We all took off from caloundra together.I still done get it today, what happened.Somehow (we were in loose formation, all visual) we as in the first 3 a/c, all landed behind each other(with spacing), all gave circuit calls, all we where we were to each other, the last a/c (even said he was following me as number 4 in the circuit.)Cool, i thought then old mate for some reason decided to land towards me from the oposite end.WTF, anyway i took evasive action and so did he, i went around, so did he and it happened again.I couldnt believe it, i kept saying the duty runway is "so and So", (cant remember of the top of my head), he saw the others guys land a head of me, in to the wind, my direction. Anyway we had a instructor in in the lead a/c, he wasnt happy with old mate. I just said no worries, just let me know when you flying next so i can stay on the ground.I dont know why these things happen, but they do.What gets me is that we were all in cummunication with each other and it still happened.It gets the heard pumping when on base, final, you look up towards the other end, of the runway and see another a/c coming in on a reciprical heading.Anyway, apparently he lost sight of us, and "thought" he was landing in the right direction, (he must not have checked his compass heading when on final, which if he had checked would have been 180 degrees out) Cheers

 

Moral of the story, IMO, always check to opposite direction for a/c on base, final.I know guys who have just got to solo circuit stage, they have alot on their plate, on base, final.But it is important to check for a/c comming in from the oposite direction, we picked him up early,had plenty of time to do something about it.

 

PS- the term "old mate", isnt directed at older people, its a figure of speech, i use to describe someone im not happy with at the time lol.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Hay David at the speed the Javlin flies a rearview mirror works great.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi David, i totaly agree, (maybe we should start a thread on close calls). As we have moved from the original thread here.(my fault).As you and i have discussed and as Bill has already mentioned, the mark one eyeball, will hopefully save you at the end of the day, if and that is a big IF, pilots get their heads out of the cockpit and scan.As you and i have disussed previously, i am bit worried about the future with SVT, unless IFR, people have to scan, you cant rely on radio alone. Cheers.

 

Ps- i will start a thread on close calls.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Fortunately for now, nobody is building the boxes (how can they without finalised standards?)

Bass,The standards for ABS-B/C are finalized, have been for quite a while, the only significant change in quite some time is an upgrade to a fairly esoteric part of the GPS signal integrity as transmitted by a 1090ES type ADS-B/C.

There is not (in my and probably not your lifetime) going to be one single world-wide ADS-B system, which is unfortunate but a fact of life. We are stuck with three.

 

Universal 1090ES will not work in US, for clear technical reasons of the total number of aircraft emitting. Western Europe may have the same problem, if ever 1090ES is "mandated" for most aircraft. That is not an immediate problem, look how many years EU argued about mandatory Mode S transponders for IFR ---- and finally made up their minds only about five years ago ----- about 35 years after Mode S transponders appeared, and 25 years after they became "standard" in most large aircraft.

 

I have already "told the story" of how 1090ES even came into existence, a sorry tale of short-sighted accountants, most of my post is not "my views", but a potted narrative of facts.

 

If you don't want to accept facts as facts, that is your business. I am not in the Jacques Derrida post de-constructionist business, where there are no facts, only "views of ideas" based on a self chosen frame of reference. Such views have no place in any kind of rational engineering, there is only one law of gravity, not multiple laws of gravity based on multiple philosophical position on whether "gravity"* is a fact or a concept.

 

I have been quite seriously involved with this issue since mid-1970s.

 

Indeed, involved ever since I picked up a copy of the original FREE FLIGHT study, commissioned by United Airlines, produced by one of the US's major institutions, MIT.

 

In short (and excluding terminal area "marshaling" for arrival and departure) it was shown that random tracking would produce fewer mid-air collisions (MAC) than the airway system + ATC errors. Remember, these collisions were not theoretical, but had actually happened in US and Europe (and we had had some very serious near misses in AU, including passenger injuries during the violent maneuvers to avoid a collision).

 

The spread of INS navigation, and later INS updated by various means, DME/DME, GPS etc, the widespread adoption of IRS/FMCS systems, made tracking tolerances very tight ------ the previous random navigation errors, that saved a number of MACs from happening gradually ceased to exist ---- increasing the probability of an ATC error becoming a MAC.

 

Of course, the kneejerk reaction was that this could not work, bodies would rain from the sky.

 

Unsurprisingly, most of the "safety" objections came from those whose job was threatened by such a radical idea ----- the "radical" idea that actually underpinned the safety of VFR operations, which outnumbered IFR operations of any kind by hundreds to one in US.

 

My preferred defense of FREE FLIGHT always is: There are approximately 6,500,000** ships over 2500 DWT plying the world's seas. By definition, they ALL CRUISE AT THE ONE LEVEL, and collisions on the high seas are very rare.

 

 

 

Rare to the degree that many vessels do not mount an H24 lookout.

 

Politicians can almost understand this, the distinctions between VFR and IFR and operations in G, or VFR in E in US, are meaningless as arguments to non-aviation people.

 

This is what has been turned on it's head, to the degree that "FREE FLIGHT" really means totally controlled flight ---- just have a look at the early ASTRA proposals for Australia, the proposed end state of mandatory ADS-B.

 

Regards,

 

* Gravity as understood by both Newton and Einstein.

 

** Lloyd's List.

 

 

[bilby54]

I mouth off about CASA but think they may have a point in that a large number of pilots should not be allowed behind the wheel of a peddle cart!

The CASA rep at the safety seminar the other night metioned that they will be in attendance at the Monto Fly-in and won't have red and blue lights flashing on their shoulders.

 

The statement from him was not to stop people having a good time but to stop the idiots from stopping everyone else's good time.

 

Interesting to note that they also monitor the nut cases doing 12 turn incipient spins and all on you tube and are asking all pilots to help control the problem

 

 

[Guest Elk McPherson]

Interesting to note that they also monitor the nut cases doing 12 turn incipient spins and all on you tube and are asking all pilots to help control the problem

What a load of rubbish - no disrespect to you, Bilby - but CASA don't give a tinker's about GA idiots and care even less for RAAus.

 

They pay lip service to the concepts of "safety culture" but when serious systemic problems are brought to their attention they say "without video footage or sworn statements we can't do anything".

 

If you went to the cops and said "There's a guy down the park selling cocaine to schoolkids" do you reckon they'd shrug their shoulders? Would they tell YOU to go and get a kid to make a statement? Would they expect YOU to get video footage and do their job for them?

 

At worst they'll ring up the (alleged) miscreant and slap 'em over the wrist with a wet tram ticket.

 

Don't waste your breath - dobbing will just make you look and feel like a [you-know-what].

 

 

[bilby54]

You know what Bilby, the interesting thing about the nuts doing spins .... the illegal nuts I mean, because I do it legally and have a ball ... is the illegal nuts may cause no problem at all in terms of collision and may if they are unlucky, only kill themselves in the process.The bigger threat comes from the stupidy around non controlled aerodromes where you may have a concentration of incompetants .... and the real risk is they could kill innocents in the process.

 

David

Sorry David,

 

I left out a critical word in my last post and never meant to offend any aerobatic pilots.

 

I meant to say "in uncertified aircraft". It would be fair to assume that that if someone is doing aeros in one then they would also be unqualified to perform the manouvres.

 

 

[bilby54]

What a load of rubbish - no disrespect to you, Bilby - but CASA don't give a tinker's about GA idiots and care even less for RAAus.They pay lip service to the concepts of "safety culture" but when serious systemic problems are brought to their attention they say "without video footage or sworn statements we can't do anything".

 

Don't waste your breath - dobbing will just make you look and feel like a [you-know-what].

Where do I start with this?

 

Firstly Elk, I don't believe that everyone in CASA 'doesn't give a tinker....' That is like saying that the prime minister is a d***head so everyone in Australia is one also!

 

A few weeks ago a Drifter went in and killed both occupants and numerous people either knew that the pilot 'pushed the limits' and that the aircraft was suspect but little if anything was done to stop him and that includes this forum.

 

I don't know where you think I am 'dobbing' as I was only conveying the message given by the CASA bloke but in any case, if one of my friends or family or just someone flying through was doing stupid things or flying an un-airworthy aircraft then I would do whatever I could to stop it - I will not appologise for that.

 

I was offended by your comments but moderated my response. If I end up being a [you-know-what] because I tried to stop someone from killing themself then plaster me with it!

 

On a lighter note, I'd really like to see that wet tram ticket:laugh:

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Bill,

 

I thought CASA hadn't made up their mind which technology to use for lower airspace ADS-B, but it seems they have, so which one is it?

 

I understand in the US aircraft broadcasts 1090ES and GA receives TIS via UAT from ground stations, which combines both ES squawkers and Mode-C as received by ATC. Is that correct?

 

So here CASA just wants 1090ES, with no UAT? The hundreds of ground stations just receive our broadcasts, but if we wanted TIS, we'd need to listen to other aircraft's 1090ES signal? Which requires much more expensive hardware than UAT?

 

I am surprised you say UAT doesn't work because of volume. So are they now proposing another technology in the US, or just doing away with TIS?

 

Thanks,

 

Bas.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Bass,

 

It's the 1090ES that doesn't work with too many emitters (more than 1096), sorry if I have not phrased it carefully enough.

 

There are no plans in AU for other than 1090ES ADS-B, and no plans for low level coverage. There is not really much cost benefit justification for the present AU coverage, bit if airlines want to pay, that is their business. There is most definitely no justification for low level coverage, let alone cost/benefit justified low level coverage ---- the capital and running costs would be very substantial, for no gain.

 

( sadly, at small cost, we could have had WAAS, a significant safety enhancement ----- but AsA wasn't interested, possibly because they couldn't send you an invoice for it ----- but the Government --- not CASA --- is looking at this again)

 

As far as the US is concerned, you are quite correct about all the services that can come through a UAT (or VDL) broadband transceiver, ADS-B is only one of many uses for a Universal Access Transceiver.

 

This was the whole point of the ICAO competition (early '80s)for a common broadband transceiver for future years.

 

Again, ADS-B was only one use, along with transmission of most routine ATC comms, instead of using VHF ---- and everything else down to the Chief Steward placing bar orders for the next sector.

 

Back to the US, nothing changes about the requirement for a Mode C transponder.

 

There is no technical limit to the use of the UAT system, but the situation with the 1090ES hijacking is such that any aircraft flying beyond US continental airspace will, for practical purposes, be fitted with 1090ES, and will now also have to have a VDL type datalink for ATC comms.

 

To further confuse the situation, a system based on VDL-4 ADS-B is in increasingly wide use in US, for ground collision avoidance, and parts of the US military are using VDL-4 as a datalink.

 

So all three systems are in use, in one way or another, in the US.

 

This leaves UAT as the system for aircraft that will not be operating outside US (in a "mandatory ADS-B" area ---- there won't be too many at low level) ---- as most of these will be unpressurized aircraft, something like 90% of the US fleet ---- hence the UAT for low level and 1090ES for high ---- but if you want to fit your Lear 55 with UAT, it will work the same, as far as FAA ATC is concerned.

 

Despite all the hoopla in AU about ADS-B IN and collision avoidance, the only use of ADS-B IN will (if anybody wants to buy it) be to feed an additional input to TCAS 11.

 

That will be transparent to the flight crew of TCAS 11 equipped aircraft, there will be no additional functionality ---- so, as far as most GA aircraft are concerned, it's just the same as if you only had a Mode C transponder out in the boonies ---- which the great majority of aircraft already have ---- and an airline aircraft is looking at you.

 

There will be lots of small GA manufacturers producing "bells and whistles" ADS-B IN displays of traffic, I just hope it doesn't increase the collision risk in VMC --- with pilots head down, although somebody will come up with a head up display ---- even here in AU, there is a small percentage of pilots fill their aircraft with every electronic gadget known to man --- with about the only guaranteed result being a reduced payload.

 

Interestingly, AsA and FAA are using the same ground equipment. Apparently you could convert the AsA ground stations to dual 1090ES/UAT by just putting the UAT card in the vacant slot. The way the signals are processed, from the ground station to the ATC computer is a common format.

 

Regards,