CASA discussion paper

[kaz3g]

AVWEB Flash November 1

 

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1760-full.html#203536

 

MORE ON "SIGNIFICANT RISKS" IMPLEMENTING ADS-B

 

"Risks" identified by a DOT's Office of Inspector General (IG) report earlier this month "will impact the cost, schedule, and expected benefits of ADS-B" and may feed off of each other until addressed by the FAA. The Inspector General said the greatest risks to successful implementation "are airspace users' reluctance to purchase and install new avionics" and "FAA's ability to define requirements" for the advanced capabilities of that equipment. The FAA has estimated overall costs on the user end could range from $2.5 billion to $6.2 billion overall. And the FAA currently plans to mandate only ADS-B Out by 2020. However, ADS-B Out "essentially replicates existing domestic radar coverage," meaning adopters would bear a cost but see few new benefits. The main benefits of ADS-B rely on in-cockpit ADS-B In. But the IG estimates FAA requirements and equipment costs for that feature "may not be mature for at least two years." According to the IG, so long as that mix of uncertainties remain, "progress with ADS-B will be limited" and delays, cost increases and performance shortfalls "will continue." There are other complications and the FAA has responded. More...

 

Apparently the version we are likely to get will be different to that used in the USA... what a surprise. We don't seem to have learned from other examples of going it alone, including airpace. The cynic in me says that the new airspace arrangements were planned to help justify the introduction of ADS-B here and an increase in the bureaucratic empire here. The goverment only sees votes in the RPT passenger traffic sector and bends over every time the "safety" stick is wielded without asking "how?" or "why?"

 

kaz

 

 

[apm]

Shoot me down if you must, but I'd like to give another veiwpoint, I'm currently building a plane that will be VH reg and planning to equip with ADS-B in-out.

 

reasoning is that I do not wish to limit my destinations and I really like the idea of having my efis alert me of potential conflicts.

 

My experience is that radio position reporting is quite commonly in-accurate and/or poorly transmitted/received, it also clogs frequency's. Many years ago in a C172 I ended up on a reciprocal heading at circuit height with a RPT that changed his intentions and decided to overfly the airport to check the windsock at an uncontrolled regional airport, I'm still not sure if I missed his radio call or if he actually made it. anyway he wasn't where I expected him to be and he started to fill the windscreen real fast. something I care not to repeat.

 

I think you guys need to really embrace technology as it develops, with more units sold prices come down, and you never know, by being seen you may even be able to negotiate for the use of more airspace rather than be pushed out and restricted to the nether regions.

 

Andrew

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

I'm currently building a plane that will be VH reg and planning to equip with ADS-B in-out.

What equipment are you using? I didn't think there was any remotely affordable 1090ES ADS-B in equipment available, only UAT like in the Garmin GTX 330, which is useless in Australia.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Shoot me down if you must, but I'd like to give another veiwpoint, I'm currently building a plane that will be VH reg and planning to equip with ADS-B in-out.reasoning is that I do not wish to limit my destinations and I really like the idea of having my efis alert me of potential conflicts.

My experience is that radio position reporting is quite commonly in-accurate and/or poorly transmitted/received, it also clogs frequency's. Many years ago in a C172 I ended up on a reciprocal heading at circuit height with a RPT that changed his intentions and decided to overfly the airport to check the windsock at an uncontrolled regional airport, I'm still not sure if I missed his radio call or if he actually made it. anyway he wasn't where I expected him to be and he started to fill the windscreen real fast. something I care not to repeat.

 

I think you guys need to really embrace technology as it develops, with more units sold prices come down, and you never know, by being seen you may even be able to negotiate for the use of more airspace rather than be pushed out and restricted to the nether regions.

 

Andrew

Thanks for your first Post Mate.

 

 

[apm]

none at the moment, but I'm guessing it will be available by the time I get around to equip the panel, I thought that Trigg Avionics are releasing a compatible unit.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

"The wise man who senses the winds of change builds windmills not windbreaks"( Mao tze Tung).

 

What we need our elected reps to do is work with CASA to ensure ADS-B rollout has minimal effect (NIL)on our class G op's and sure if we want CTA access and/or ops above FL110 then let those trying to be the new GA be the ones who pay for the privelege only, not the greater membership who are happy to accept the limitations OF NOT playing in the paid sky (Class A-E). Our danger is that in seeking increased priveleges in RA Aus, we may condemn ourselves to accepting the increased costs and responsibilities that go with them- whether it's appropriate or not.

 

I don't have a crystal ball- but Mandatory carriage of radio at licenced non controlled airports surely sets the new benchmark for an easy overlay of ADS-B, maybe even before 2020 and last time I checked technology has a very poor record in substituting good piloting skills anywhere, especially where the ground, not other aircraft tends to be the major determination in most aviation accidents

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

none at the moment, but I'm guessing it will be available by the time I get around to equip the panel, I thought that Trigg Avionics are releasing a compatible unit.

Had a look at their website, looks like an interesting piece of kit, but low on details and price. "Works with Garmin", does that mean even low cost Aera series or only 430, 530, etc? Lots of questions...

In any case, if it actually works and is affordable, I would install it too. But Mandating every recreational class-G pilot spends 5 grand for the one time a year they end up at a class G aerodrome with RPT traffic is a bit ... rich. Not to mention *every* aircraft must have it from 2013. So the guy that spends $15K building a Corby Starlet from plans will be forced to spend that five grand on a mode-s transponder even if he never, ever will visit a class G RPT airport!

 

That's insane...

 

 

[apm]

I'd doubt RAA has enough political clout to be able to get special dispensation, it would be a bit like me arguing that I should be able to drive my old bullcatcher to the pub, just because Merc M class and Range Rover sports rarely visit this neighbourhood.

 

I reckon your better off arguing to be able to use un-certified transponders embedded with your aircraft rego, with today's technology I'd bet they could be made just as accurate and affordable.

 

Surely you agree you'd like me to have every chance of knowing your position before barreling through your personal airspace!

 

Personally I'd like all aircraft to have ADS-B in, that way I reckon anyone flying close should be able to get me visual easier.

 

Andrew

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

What a lot of rubbish . I would like to see some accident stats that prove beyond doubt that ADSB is required to keep us safe. Once again we try to prevent what has not happened. I hope that RAA and the lower end of GA will voice their opinion against it. If some one wants to install ADSB in theyr A/C because they think it is a good thing be my guest. As for the rest of us leave us alone.

 

Like with asic cards that stopped terrorists that do not exist this will stop accidents that did not happen.

 

I would like to suggest we all stay on the ground and stay safe.

 

Walter

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Yes, it should be personal choice. And that is one of the beauties of the american system, with the UAT TIS broadcasts.

 

In that system, ATC radar picks up both mode-s and mode-c aircraft and combines them in one broadcast. That means you can have your ~$10K installation and get traffic because you choose to and I don't even need to upgrade my mode-c for it!

 

Of course CASA won't go for that because there is no radar coverage in the circuit at Broken Hill. So they want 1090ES, when the airlines already have TCASII and can see our relatively inexpensive mode-c that many already have just fine.

 

(That's not to say they won't also mandate mode-s for all, but it is not required for the system to work right now. Plus they use the cheaper technology for aircraft owners.)

 

 

[frank marriott]

Question

 

I am not up with just what ADS-B is all about except another cost.

 

With RPT now able to see position and altitued of a Mode C transponder with TCAS - what more information is this all about?

 

Frank M

 

 

[Yenn]

What ADSB is about is reducing the costs to the government by getting rid of radar which needs a lot of maintenance and passing the costs onto the user.

 

 

[bilby54]

"The wise man who senses the winds of change builds windmills not windbreaks"( Mao tze Tung).last time I checked technology has a very poor record in substituting good piloting skills anywhere, especially where the ground, not other aircraft tends to be the major determination in most aviation accidents

Could not have said it better Ballpoint!

 

How many incidents are caused by pilots relying on their electronic equipment and radio as a poor substitute for good lookout around airfields? I had my bum chewed recently by a turbine captain because of reporting to late into the circuit and he could not see me. I didn't bother telling him about the Cessna charging around either on the wrong frequency or trying to dodge the landing fee.

 

To quote the defensive driving course, " A stop sign has never stopped a car yet!" and the latest electronic gear is a great thing to have but if it fails or people do not want to use it, then it is next to useless. i_dunno

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Does this 'all aircraft' include gliders, paragliders, hang gliders and gyros.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

What ADSB is about is reducing the costs to the government by getting rid of radar which needs a lot of maintenance and passing the costs onto the user.

Except that, well, it's not. They are never going to take away the radars they have now. One of the things they are trying to achieve is to have radar-like service, where it currently doesn't exist all, without investing in "real" radar.

But very little of it will be below 5000ft, yet they will require you in your Corby Starlet to put in $5-10K of equipment anyway!

 

Madness.

 

 

[apm]

yet they will require you in your Corby Starlet to put in $5-10K of equipment anyway!

That's not quite they way I read it.

 

"proposed plan, Forward fit requirements for new and replacement transponder installations and all new aircraft registrations to have Mode S transponder with ADS- B OUT capability. This will affect all replacement transponder installations and all aircraft newly placed on the Australian Aircraft Register and the aircraft registers of recreational aircraft organisations, after end 2013."

So aircraft registered before 2014 are exempt. BUT you MAY have to be prepared to move to a quieter location if you can't justify the transponder and don't need to fly close to RPT, the question to ask regarding the following statement is, What level of traffic is the threshold?

 

Proposed strategy(2020-2025),"Electronic surveillance of traffic by either aircraft-to-aircraft or ATC will be assured for operations in controlled airspace generally, in all airspace at/above FL110, and from the surface within 20NM of any busy non- controlled aerodrome having traffic densities exceeding a risk-based threshold."

Governments are quite good at this sort of plan. Dissenters are taken care of by natural attrition, the rest of us just accept it, and get on with life.

 

Andrew

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

So aircraft registered before 2014 are exempt. BUT you MAY have to be prepared to move to a quieter location if you can't justify the transponder and don't need to fly close to RPT, the question to ask regarding the following statement is, What level of traffic is the threshold?

Any bets against them "keeping it it simple" by making them mandatory anywhere a radio is currently required.

 

John

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Any bets against them "keeping it it simple" by making them mandatory anywhere a radio is currently required.

Yeah, that is my fear. Or anywhere an ASIC is now required, like Birdsville with its vast number of RPT flights per decade.

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

"Dissenters are taken care of by natural attrition, the rest of us just accept it, and get on with life."

 

Andrew, by your comment here are we to assume you are implying that dissenters are - those who cannot afford (it) and therefore will be moved away (or fly illegally) and - that those who accept it are those who can afford to pay,the exorbitant and largely unnessecary cost, and don't care about the moral principles involved. In other words - stuff you other lot..?.

 

 

[apm]

Any bets against them "keeping it it simple" by making them mandatory anywhere a radio is currently required. John

This is why recreational pilots should contact their representitive so that it it ensured RAA-Aus put a submission in on this white paper this month, demanding as airspace users to be part of the decision process on setting the "risk based threshold" for non-controlled aerodromes.

Also be very courteous towards RPT drivers and professional with your flying when in their company, reality is they do have more influence with the regulator and will use this "risk based threshold" to have you excluded from your favorite destinations if they perceive there is a chance of an incident by you not having a transponder.

 

Andrew

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

This is why recreational pilots should contact their representitive so that it it ensured RAA-Aus put a submission in on this white paper this month, demanding as airspace users to be part of the decision process on setting the "risk based threshold" for non-controlled aerodromes.

Indeed ! And equally importantly that they make their own submission here Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1006AS (reposted the link from the OP for your convenience)

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1006AS[/url]

But I'm going to write up my response as a print document and post it to CASA - that's a more obvious way of letting your opinion be known (who knows what happens to web form responses?). I'd like to see how CASA's approach stacks up against the FAA's. Afterall, CASA is following the FAA, and if we can show that some things are inconsistent with the FAA approach, they'll take more notice. It'd also be good to pick up inconsistencies in all the documents and mark them as "FAIL" - that way, they'd need to undertake wider consultation with industry.

 

 

[apm]

"Dissenters are taken care of by natural attrition, the rest of us just accept it, and get on with life."

Andrew, by your comment here are we to assume you are implying that dissenters are - those who cannot afford (it) and therefore will be moved away (or fly illegally) and - that those who accept it are those who can afford to pay,the exorbitant and largely unnessecary cost, and don't care about the moral principles involved. In other words - stuff you other lot..?.

Not really what I meant, this is a long term plan to fully implement, we don't last forever, you get the gist. younger pilots starting out accept the conditions as normal as they don't know any difference.

 

Yes. those of us with plenty of flying years left, have to make a decision by about 2020-2025 as to whether we wish to fly near RPT.

 

My personal opinion is that its best to accept the changes, then get on with trying to minimize the cost by encouraging the production of transponders more in line with what is deemed affordable, or argue to use the quoted "savings" made by airservices in implementing ADS-B to equip the current fleet.

 

Please don't decide to fly illegally, you are likely to be rewarded with a 2 year holiday and lose the privilege of your license forever. Moral principles are a bit hard to argue when your opponent claims safety as the reason for change.

 

Andrew

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

For those writing up a response to CASA, could they please post a copy on this forum so as to give others an idea how to word their own response and so maybe there will be some consistancy and continuity in all our replies. This way we will be able to stay on the same 'heading' so to speak. maybe someone like Bill Hamilton could help here.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Not really what I meant, this is a long term plan to fully implement, we don't last forever, you get the gist. younger pilots starting out accept the conditions as normal as they don't know any difference.

While I agree with that statement, this is not the law yet; there is no reason not to oppose it now. (Unless you agree with the changes, of course.)

 

Yes. those of us with plenty of flying years left, have to make a decision by about 2020-2025 as to whether we wish to fly near RPT.

That is not strictly correct. After 2013, only aircraft currently on the register will not need ADS-B if they decide to stay away from RPT. If you put a new aircraft on the register in 2014, you will be forced to put ADS-B in, whether you go near RPT or not.

I expect a rush of homebuilt completions in the final quarter of 2013.