[Peetwo]

Shortly followed by the counter argument, which maybe the crux of the matter.  Interesting discussion.

Folks,
RE. ASTRA:

ASTRA has never had a choice about ADS-B, yes or no!

Nor has ASTRA had any decisive say in the ADS-B mandate.

In early days, some several members of ASTRA raised questions about the AsA/CASA proposals, not limited to requesting formal justification (risk based) of the proposals, and far more important, a cost/benefit justification.

In the two major CASA attempts at cost/benefit, "benefits" of ADS-B were in fact benefits to AsA from the move to GNSS and the closing a large proportion of the ground based nav. aid system. Nothing to do with ADS-B.

A one senior Flight Operations rep. from Virgin said to me, at an ASTRA meeting; "I love the idea, but how am I going to justify the cost to my board".

That remains true to this day, it is not possible to identify savings from ADS-B, as opposed to other changes in airspace management in recent years over Australia.

Tootle pip!!

Lead Sled on target, as usual

   Typical, the industry foots the bill, with little to no benefit. But that's OK cause ASA do get a major benefit with reduced costs with the closing of old ground based NAVAIDs & other operational efficiencies etc.; which means ASA profits will be up & the government coffers will grow. 

Which would be great if ASA was legitimately re-investing the profits back into either better infrastructure (example: CATIII ILS or radar coverage for Ballina); or increasing industry subsidies for struggling regional carriers; the list goes on & on.

Ahh but according to Dougy it's all good because ASA quite literally have an ATC system 2nd to only one in the world & the ASA execs are the most talented individuals that money can buy - Editor's Insights 2 July 2015

"..However, the bigger issue by far around Sir Angus’ appearance in the Australian is the seemingly unrelenting campaign to sully Airservices’ reputation. The attacks have been on the mandating of ADS-B for GA aircraft, the salaries paid to Airservices executives, the lack of unicom-type services at airports and more. And because it’s been played out in the public arena it has to have had an effect on the travelling public’s perception of air safety in this country. I believe that makes it irresponsible. The fact is that Airservices is at the cutting edge of air traffic management globally - and is recognised as such by ANSPs everywhere. Only a year or two ago Airservices was ranked Number Two in the world with only Canada’s ANSP edging it out of top place. And those well-paid Airservices executives include some of the finest talent around in the industry. It’s a top team and it’s doing very good things. But instead of being allowed to get on with the job, Airservices is about to be put through the Senate Estimates wringer yet again. Unnecessary at the very least..."

  Dougy, not sure what you're on mate or where you have been hiding but I reckon I could go to my local & find more honest, non-backstabbing talent, at about 1/50th of the price of the current crop of executive management at ASA. 'Get on with the job' - FFS..hmm maybe Dougy meant get on with the job of filling the bloody trough?? 

Anyway moving on & from that man again... :

Tasmanian pilots told to switch off $6m radar system  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 06, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney


A multi-million-dollar, state-of-the-art navigation system installed by Airservices Australia in Tasmania still leaves pilots at the mercy of pre-radar, 1950s-era, air traffic control procedures which are considered inefficient and not as safe.  

Aviation industry figures say the failure to use the system for radar-style surveillance approaches to Launceston and Hobart makes it a waste of money and makes those airports virtually unique among big Australian cities.

Some sources said Airservices had intended to use the system for surveillance approaches but was knocked back by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority because it was not reliable enough, while others said Airservices did not want to take on the air-traffic controllers union, which would resist such a move. Airservices has denied both these suggestions.

The Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration system, or TASWAM, was introduced after a near midair collision at Launceston between a Virgin Blue airliner and a light aircraft years ago.
After the near miss, CASA insisted on the installation of transportable radar at Launceston, while Airservices worked towards a long-term solution.

In 2006, Airservices announced TASWAM, which uses triangulation from radio transmitter ground stations to pinpoint aircraft through their transponders, and the system was made operational five years ago.

But rather than guide aircraft all the way to the runway, pilots are told as they descend through 7000 feet that they are no longer covered by radar-standard surveillance. Instead, they are required to switch to the local towers in Launceston and Hobart for procedural approaches.

Whereas under “radar certif­ied surveillance approaches” aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers using precise positioning on radar screens, procedural approaches require the controllers to rely on the pilots informing them of their positions.

Procedural separation is far less efficient because controllers have to allow much greater distance between aircraft, often about 20 nautical miles, rather than five miles under radar surveillance separation.

The president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain David Booth, said procedural separation meant it was more likely aircraft would exper­ience air-traffic delays in Tasmania.

While he insisted the procedural standard was entirely safe and equipment on modern airliners provided excellent and reliab­le situational awareness, he said “a radar environment would probably give you a higher level of safety”.

Captain Booth, who has been flying to Tasmania for more than a decade, said he understood TASWAM had been commissioned to introduce radar-­style air-traffic control in Tasmania, but “it never worked well enough for CASA to sign it off”.

A CASA spokesman said the authority had approved Air­services to use TASWAM above 7000 feet, but “the surveillance coverage below this altitude does not meet the coverage requirements to allow air-traffic control to apply surveillance procedures”.

When TASWAM was announced, media releases from Airservices and the manufacturers of the system, Sensis Corporation — which is now part of the Swedish Saab group — gave a clear impression that surveillance approaches were the objective, talking about “accurate coverage of 150m or better from the ground level”.

“Sensis WAM’s precise surveillance of aircraft enables air traffic controllers to implement five nautical miles of aircraft separation for safer, more efficient use of the airspace in a region that was previously controlled with procedural separation standards,” a Sensis press release said.

Asked the separation standard in Tasmania below 7000 feet, an Airservices spokesman said “in most cases, 20 nautical miles”.

However, Airservices said it had never intended to use TASWAM, which cost $6 million, for surveillance approaches, saying it had achieved the goal of “improved situational awareness for controllers”.

Saab spokesman Sebastian Carlsson declined to comment.

MTF...P2