CASA discussion paper

[Guest ozzie]

ADS-B ... Terrorist's Dream, Security's Nightmare

 

now this is a really good read.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

ADS-B ... Terrorist's Dream, Security's Nightmarenow this is a really good read.

I have seen it before and I am not a great fan of the article. It paints very complicated scenarios, and we all know from past experience, terrorists tend not to be very complicated people. They like a big bang with minimal effort.

Those in charge already like to paint unlikely scenarios to keep the sheep in fear and take away our privacy, freedom and comfort. ("liquid explosives", anyone?)

 

I don't think we need to feed them with more. I can see where this is going: "Airlines need ADS-B to be safe, but light aircraft could use it as a threat, so we're going to make sure only trusted pilots can fly." That's when the huge fence and security scanners go up at Murray Bridge and we have to pay a $100 landing fee and a $2500/year membership.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Terrorisisim is so yesterday, retaliation is the go these days. $100 landing fee and 2500 membership....who is a silly boy for playing that game then.

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

I had a quick look at the FAA's Final Rule on ADS-B, as well as Eurocontrol's CASCADE Program. Neither mentions that ADS-B will be required for light sport aircraft operating in Class G airspace - the broad operational requirements are for controlled airspace (A, C, E), and/or for aircraft over 5700kg and/or faster than 250KTAS.

 

CASA IS BEING GREEDY by mandating fitment of recreational aircraft - this is out of step with international standards (they would argue they are "leading" on these technologies) and is a blatant misrepresentation of safety concerns and operational considerations of all types of recreational/light sport aircraft. I am gradually building a case against CASA, and I think they would take notice if we pointed out all the inconsistencies in their documents.

 

I also "stumbled" across a document from 2007 outlining the RA-Aus position on ADS-B:

 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/files/Recreational_Aviation_Australia-RA-Aus.pdf

 

 

[apm]

Here's an idea, RA is self administered right?

 

how about RAAus mandate fitment of FLARM to all aircraft on the RAAus register, it seems quite affordable and that way your being proactive towards something made for recreational pilots. Politicaly harder for CASA to wield its big stick on ADS-b in Class g as you would already have a adequate and solution in place. then you put the onus back onto the RPT aircraft operating into non-controlled aerodromes to integrate an inexpensive unit to "see" us.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Bigger peak hour rush when ADSB comes in

 

 

 

[kaz3g]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1006AS[/url] (reposted the link from the OP for your convenience)John

Hi John

 

CASA "prefers" an online response but its form almost seems to leave GA and recreational flyers out of the loop. The questions and possible answers favour those employed to drive heavy stuff around the skies at our expense.

 

Is there likely to also be an impact on owners and pilots at the recreational end of GA or within RAAus of CASA's determination to barometric navigation for vertical guidance at about 200 aerodromes instead of using WAAS?

 

Seems like a really good time to bolster AOPA's membership and hence the strength of its voice in Canberra!

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

CASA "prefers" an online response but its form almost seems to leave GA and recreational flyers out of the loop. The questions and possible answers favour those employed to drive heavy stuff around the skies at our expense.

True but I'm sure thats simply a coincidence !

 

Is there likely to also be an impact on owners and pilots at the recreational end of GA or within RAAus of CASA's determination to barometric navigation for vertical guidance at about 200 aerodromes instead of using WAAS?

TBH I haven't really given this much thought - Performance Based Navigation just relates to IFR as far as I'm aware. It will hasten the demise of "old school" radio navigation but I wouldn't have thought thats something many RAAus pilots rely on.

 

Seems like a really good time to bolster AOPA's membership and hence the strength of its voice in Canberra!

Despite owing aircraft for nearly 20 years I've never previously had any inclination to join AOPA. They seem to make an effort here regarding airport closures & , if I knew what their position was on ADS-B - specifically making it mandatory in G I might reconsider

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

if I knew what their position was on ADS-B - specifically making it mandatory in G I might reconsider

John,

 

Are you actually suggesting ADS-B should be mandatory in G????

 

 

There simply is NO problem to which mandatory ADS-B is the answer, let alone the cost benefit justified answer ---- and this has already been established, and admitted in the JCP papers.

 

It will not be FLARM, that is not a certified system ---- and will not be fitted in "Regional" aircraft.

 

Have you seen the real costs of fitting ADS-B based on 1090ES transponders ---- with actual equipment that is available and certified ---- not all the vapourware being touted.

 

It is around $30,000 minimum per aircraft, and is unlikely to get cheaper, because the "mass market" is a myth, making GA standard 1090ES systems is going to remain at "cottage industry" levels. When CASA/ Airservices disallow DO260 and DO 260B transponders, to fall in line with ICAO, up goes the price again.

 

Of any country with a Sports/Rec/GA sector of any significance, Australia has the lowest density airspace, traffic wise, just what is the problem ---- that is not apparent in UK/US/CA/Western Europe ???????

 

Regards,

 

Bill Hamilton

 

Cheers,

 

Bill Hamilton.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

John,Are you actually suggesting ADS-B should be mandatory in G????

 

No Bill I wasn't suggesting that - I am opposed to mandatory ADS-B in G & will be responding to CASA accordingly.

 

I was simply asking what the AOPA postion on the subject was since, as a non-member I don't know

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[farri]

"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

Pretty close to the mark,me thinks.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

Firstly, you are not limited to the CASA pro forma if you want to reply.

 

The whole core issue is that there is NO air safety problem, to which ADS-B is the answer, let alone a cost/benefit justified answer.

 

The US/FAA ARE NOT planning mandatory ADS-B for most low level airspace, FAA does not require (generally) a transponder on E below 10,000 now, either.

 

Eurocontrol/EASA are NOT planning mandatory ADS-B (generally) for "low and slow" operations.

 

So, why is Australia ----- with the lowest traffic density of any country with a GA sector of any significance ---- planning mandatory ADS-B for just about everything that moves, and some that don't.

 

The actual cost of ADS-B OUT, using equipment that is actually available and certified ( as opposed to vague promises) equipment is in the order of AUD$30,000. ASTRA has a paper that lays it all out, but in the best traditions of freedom of information, all the ASTRA papers are no longer publicly available.

 

If it is decided that the transponders to be used must have "antenna diversity" , add ten grand ---- and if "collision risk" is a problem, as claimed by the proponents, only having a single antenna on the underside will mean that aircraft above will find signals from the "significant traffic" is masked.

 

Remember, some of the groups pushing very hard, politically ---- in the holy name of "safety", will be very happy if some or most of the Sports and Rec./ GA private traffic is removed from "their" airspace.

 

All of you, get in and have your say ---- DON'T LEAVE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

 

Also email copies of your submissions to Senators Bill Heffernan, Ian McDonald and Nick Exnaphon, or even better, use the address lists on the Parliamentary web site to copy your submissions to every MHR and Senator.

 

If every member of every ASAC organisation, every member of RAOz and every member of AOPA all did the same, the problem would go away.

 

Unfortunately, you are the "silent majority" (many by your own choice) being railroaded by a very small but very noisy minority.

 

 

With the unity of the US AOPA, EAA and NBAA, FAA wouldn't even try something like what is planned for Australia.

 

Welcome to UNAFFORDABLE SAFETY.

 

 

 

Bill Hamilton

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Call me a dreamer, but I want to see how our paid RAAus heads (CEO, Ops manager) are going to respond to this rubbish.

 

Hopefully they are reading all these interesting post, (by mostly RAAus pilots I expect) considering our views, and deciding that they will go to bat for us against CASA.

 

CASA in their usual high-paid bullying fashion, don't seem to intend taking any notice of us on this one, regardless of what it will cost us all.

 

What we need are our own bullies to push CASA back, but are they going to side with CASA, decide it's just too hard, and then roll over and take it like they usually do !!...We'll wait in anticipation I suppose............................................................................................................Maj...

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Hopefully they are reading all these interesting post, (by mostly RAAus pilots I expect) considering our views, and deciding that they will go to bat for us against CASA.

CASA is mostly the middle man in this; it all comes from the government white paper on aviation. That is full of "safety theatre" recommendations. Event though we know this will not make aviation safer, the government will be perceived by the general public as making things safer. Heck, they may even believe it themselves.

 

 

 

Not to mention the regionals that don't want to deal with us and would be more than happy to see us priced out of the sky.

 

 

 

Yes, respond to the CASA paper and yes, RA-Aus, AOPA and the lot should be fighting against this. But as Bill mentioned above: so should we! Write to the minister, write to the senators.

 

 

 

We can stop this, but we can't just sit back and magically hope the organisations we are members of can do it alone.

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

It would be great to see other's submissions before the deadline. We could all be educated by other people's perspectives, and even if some of us can't make the deadline this time then there are other avenues - such as State/national MPs.

 

Don't just whinge and say "our leaders should be doing something" - do it yourself if you feel so strongly!

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I will make submissions to state/Nat MPs.....but I don't get paid to do it....Our RAAus heads do, and they are in the better position to get heard with our membership numbers behind them..................................................................................Maj...

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I will make submissions to state/Nat MPs.....but I don't get paid to do it....Our RAAus heads do, and they are in the better position to get heard with our membership numbers behind them..................................................................................Maj...

Too many long lunches maybe

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Maj Millard,

 

Unfortunately, it suits many Government departments to treat ASAC, AOPA and RAOz submissions as if they represented just one person, one person without a vote. Mass movements are successful, because they are mass movements. If the masses are silent, they are ignored.

 

Sadly, your and other responses on this thread are the reason why aviation in Australia is so very different to US, or even NZ.

 

In the NZ case, some few years ago, every group and their members got together, when they decided "enough was enough". The resulting reforms were quite something, the pro rata aviation activity in NZ since, compared to Australia, is quite staggering. Just two of the many flying schools in NZ (in Auckland ) have more students than in all the large flying schools in Australia, combined.

 

A cursory look at the numbers suggest the participation rate in aviation in NZ is something like double to three times Australia.

 

Remember the saying: "If we don't hang together, we will hang separately".

 

Cheers,

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

TCAS option?

 

Does anyone have experience using TCAS in light aircraft? Just wondering if it's something to offer as an alternative to ADS-B in a submission. An argument that says "we don't want ADS-B" is weak if there isn't a feasible alternative. I think TCAS ultimately achieves the same thing as ADS-B doesn't it - to alert the pilot to nearby traffic? Yet a TCAS unit would be considerably cheaper than ADS-B, and still be a technology-oriented safety solution.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

burbles1,

 

You jest, of course.

 

Last time I noticed, TCAS 11 started at about US$55,000 just for the boxes, the "cheaper" ones on smaller aircraft start at about US$24-32,000 for the boxes ---- NOT including the transponders with Mode S AND antenna diversity.

 

When are you blokes going to get it through your head that NO OTHER COUNTRY, including ones with far higher traffic density, are "planning" what Australia is planning.

 

There is absolutely NO SAFETY PROBLEM for Sports/Rec./GA VFR and most IFR, that MANDATORY ADS-B is the answer.

 

As far as TCAS11 equipped aircraft are concerned (most airline aircraft) a bog standard Mode C transponder will give the same indications in the cockpit of the "airline" aircraft as ADS-B IN ---- the same, got it!!!!

 

Both aircraft must be fitted with TCAS11 to get the full functionality of TCAS, and even if both these aircraft have ADS-B IN and OUT ---- it does NOT provide any additional functionality ---- hunt around the Dept. of Infrastructure, Transport etc., web site, there is an article about how little ADS-B IN means to TCAS11.

 

Regards,

 

 

[apm]

There is absolutely NO SAFETY PROBLEM for Sports/Rec./GA VFR and most IFR, that MANDATORY ADS-B is the answer.

Bill, you may be correct today but I don't think your correct to assume the same of the future. I'm a farmer, won't be that long before we're using small UAV's for detailed crop imagery. unanimous, ie:no human intervention, means these aircraft wont see and avoid you if you don't broadcast your position, no problem for us, we'll just get the airspace over the farm declared a danger area. enter at your own risk!

 

Next time your flying over arable farmland just take note of how many crops are planted,sprayed & harvested in perfectly straight lines, we do it for one reason only, efficiency. 10 years ago this was nearly unheard of, today its nearly impossible to purchase farm equipment that's not setup for precision agriculture, my point is farmers are very quick to embrace technology as it becomes available, use of UAV's are the next logical step in precision farming. All those farms are likely to become your safety problem or restricted airspace, take your pick!

 

Andrew

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Bill,

 

Firstly, please settle down. Those comments are counter-productive. I agree that there is no demonstrated imperative for ADS-B in Class G airspace - and I have just mailed my eight-page submission to CASA to argue that point.

 

BUT, I also have the view that one stands a better chance of strengthening their argument against an issue when they can demonstrate a viable alternative. The TCAS system I was thinking of - and perhaps I have my terminology wrong - is the traffic alert system (which interfaces with GPS) that's advertised on the back cover of the RA-Aus magazine. I'm making an educated guess when I say that the traffic alert system achieves the same thing as ADS-B: to alert the pilot to nearby traffic and avoid a collision.

 

The thinking was to say to CASA "No, we don't need ADS-B Out, but if you want a technology-based safety system, then recreational pilots would buy the much cheaper traffic alert system that would achieve the same outcome as ADS-B Out."

 

I hope that clarifies my question - and if you ever disagree with anything, always ask for clarification instead of shooting off.

 

 

[facthunter]

What a Pity.

 

The problem with CASA is the "charter" they operate from. They have to regulate air safety, and we pay for it with very little or NO input . There is no requirement to consider the negative effects of any action by CASA on sections of the industry, as is the situation with the FAA in the USA.

 

Airlines are being satisfied to the detriment of GA etc.

 

The parliament should draft new legislation along the lines of that which FAA.operates under.

 

Has anybody in authority worked out where airline pilots come from? What a disaster if we have to get our airline pilots from overseas and accept the loss of opportunities for OUR skilled people to be active in careers relating to aviation.

 

Amazing that the incredible pioneering aviators australia has had seem to be overlooked and forgotten, as if none of that meant anything. Nev

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

I think TCAS ultimately achieves the same thing as ADS-B doesn't it - to alert the pilot to nearby traffic?

TCAS requires the conflicting traffic to have at least a mode C transponder.

The cheap portable TCAS units you see are "passive" units. i.e.: they have no active radar of their own and require another radar to illuminate the conflicting traffic. This won't work very well out bush between two GA aircraft and no ATC radar coverage. At best they offer range and altitude and a rough direction. They don't display an accurate position.

 

These systems are actually called PCAS: Portable Collision Avoidance System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

TCAS systems with their own active radar are of course ridiculously expensive and only suitable for airliners.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

The thinking was to say to CASA "No, we don't need ADS-B Out, but if you want a technology-based safety system, then recreational pilots would buy the much cheaper traffic alert system that would achieve the same outcome as ADS-B Out."

Completely agreed; as a computer guy with a fairly good knowledge of radio technology, I can assure you that you can build a perfectly reliable system that gives you the same functionality as ADS-B for not a lot of money at all. Maybe a grand a pop if you make thousands of them. I would buy one!

The problem is, that system that costs a grand is 99.9% accurate and reliable. CASA and ICAO want a system that will be 99.99% reliable even if it costs 30 grand or more.

 

They want 21st century capability based on the 1970s technology they can understand.