VOCA

An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.

Categories

Good reads

Oil Prices

#ozaviation

Is #casa correct or does #ozaviation have real numbers??

Is #casa correct or does #ozaviation have real numbers??

The letter written to #casa by #aopa queried the real cost of the RIS [Regulatory Impact statement], which Marc de Stoop has real information, wheras #casa “…believes….”.

AOPA Australia has been silent on a range of issues in #ozaviation, but with Marc de Stoop, is starting to develop some real tactical benefits for aviation in Australia. The opening salvo on #ADSB is a meaningful one, compared to the soft-shoe approach to the #asrr.  [Previous ADSB comments]

Marc de Stoop’s letter to Skidmore:

This morning’s Australian article, which offers no comment apart from saying from Skidmore:

“……..in general, the original RIS assumptions were adequately sound in terms of current ADS-B costs, with the exception of those costs used for the modifications to some integrated avionic systems under aircraft type certificates — these had relatively higher costs than those contained in the RIS………..”

The issue is the cost to #ozaviation, which is driving the industry into the ground. We certainly need proactive changes immediately, rather than retreating behind old material. A proper assessment would deal with the costing that Dick Smith and Marc de Stoop have raised and work a forward looking method to discuss this issue.

Postponement is just one and must not be dismissed out of hand.


CASA backs its cost estimates for satellite tracking system

A review by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of cost estimates to introduce satellite-based technology in general aviation aircraft has found its original assumptions were “adequately sound’’.

The Aircraft Owners and ­Pilots Association wrote to CASA boss Mark Skidmore about concerns that cost estimates in the regulation impact statement for the mandatory introduction of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast equipment in all instrument flight rules planes by 2017 were incorrect.

Operators have complained the costs can be crippling and ­AOPA wants the RIS to be ­re-evaluated.

It also wants CASA to adopt the US Federal Aviation Administration’s approach not to require ADS-B in Class G or E airspace below 10,000ft.

Some operators, including airspace campaigner Dick Smith, have also called for the introduction of ADS-B to be delayed in Australia until after it has been introduced in the US and cheaper equipment becomes available.

In a letter to AOPA, Mr Skidmore listed a series of safety improvements he expected to accrue over time due to the introduction of ADS-B, including increased ­accuracy of directed traffic information, quicker alerting when aircraft vanish from surveillance, narrower search and rescue areas and a number of advantages from air traffic management automation.

He rejected accusations that Australia was “conducting an R&D exercise for the world’’ and said ADS-B development had been going on for many years and was part of the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s Global Air Navigation Plan.

On the cost issue, he said the RIS had not claimed the introduction of ADS-B would be cost neutral for general aviation and the internal review said it was now common for general aviation installations to use equipment combining multiple avionics functions in one box.

He said the cost of the ADS-B component should be ­apportioned across the various other functions in the box.

“The internal review considered that, in general, the original RIS assumptions were adequately sound in terms of current ADS-B costs, with the exception of those costs used for the modifications to some integrated avionic systems under aircraft type certificates — these had relatively higher costs than those contained in the RIS,’’ Mr Skidmore said, noting that the US dollar exchange rate had also fallen since the RIS was published.

“The review also noted the view expressed by some, including the Aircraft Electronics ­Association, that ADS-B equipage costs may well increase as the US and European mandates approach and global demand for equipment stretches supply and installation capacity.’’

Turning to the call to adopt the 10,000ft rule, the CASA boss pointed to differences between US and Australian airspace as well as in the way the two countries were introducing ADS-B.

The FAA would require aircraft to have ADS-B to fly in most airspace requiring a Mode C transponder, including classes A, B or C as well as within 30 nautical miles of a Class C ring around a Class B primary airport to ground level and most Class E airspace above 10,000ft.

“Significantly, the FAA mandate applies to both IFR and VFR operations,’’ he said.


 

AOPA demands Compensation for ADS-B Mandate

AOPA Australia has demanded full compensation for aircraft owners if CASA and Airservices continue with the ADS-B fitment mandate for aircraft in all classes of air space.

In a letter sent to CASA boss Mark Skidmore dated 25 August, AOPA president Mark De Stoop says the organisation will withdraw support because the original Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has proven to be flawed, and the cost of fitting the equipment is much higher than stated.

“AOPA’s position has always been to support new technology that improves safety,” De Stoop says. “We believe that ADS-B in areas that previously had no radar coverage has the potential to improve safety in controlled air space.

“We provided this support, however, on the clear understanding from the CASA Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and the Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) circulated at the beginning of the planned implementation that the financial impact to the GA community would be at very worst cost-neutral.

“We now find ourselves in the situation that the costs of the final developed policy are very substantial to our members.”

In the initial RIS, it was estimated that ADS-B would stand to save general aviation $4.1 million in fuel costs every year, but last week Dick Smith presented figure to a Senate inquiry into Airservices Australia that put the cost position to GA at negative $62.2 million.

“We as an organisation took the financial assumptions stated in the RIS to be correct and hence we provided our support for the policy,” De stoop said. “If these assumptions are in fact not correct then AOPA will withdraw its support.

“The fact that our members are indeed significantly cost disadvantaged, at the end of the policy formulation, suggests the RIS financial assumptions, or modelling, are indeed incorrect.”

De Stoop goes on to call for CASA and Airservices Australia to adopt the US ADS-B policy where the Federal Aviation Administration will not mandate ADS-B for flights in Class E and G airspace below 10,000 feet.

“If CASA/ASA continue to mandate that all GA in the IFR category be fitted in all air space, that AOPA’s position is, it will insist on behalf of its members, full financial compensation for costs incurred to aircraft owners as per the original Joint Consultation Paper and Regulatory Impact Statement.”

CASA has mandated that all aircraft flying under Instrument Flight Rules be fitted with ADS-B Out equipment by February 2017.