Ian

The response from ozrunways is fatuous. They don't want to share purely for commercial reasons. Government should simply require that all EFBs share relevant information directly with a Government forwarding service. ie directly from the device in a standard format, not via their processing centres.

• Ozrunways devices gets positioning information from GPS satellites. It comes with a timestamp provided by an atomic clock. So they can send a message with a timestamp, and a vector describing location etc and identification.
• The network delay in a signal being sent back to the provider is less than 50ms (1/20th of a second) assuming that the sender is in Perth and the receiver is in Melbourne or Sydney. ie the worst case network creates a delay of half the time it takes to blink.

It take virtually no time to duplicate and forward messages of this type, it's done all the time in centalised logging systems capable of processing hundreds of thousands of messages a second on commodity hardware which would allow for many years of growth for Australian or US air traffic. It's the processing and sending consolidated updates to users which takes time. This isn't needed by either party, they have their own processing.

The network is unreliable so the messages don't need sent reliably just information like last known location, then a view like the following can be displayed with the last known location.

https://www.lightningmaps.org/#m=oss;t=3;s=0;o=0;b=0.00;ts=0;z=6;y=-37.5968;x=144.0582;d=2;dl=2;dc=0;

In many cases the solution similar to Grafton is good outcome.

You have a low cost lightweight airfield which caters to smaller planes and GA and a high cost airfield which caters to RPT.

The GA airfield is not security controlled and runs with minimal interference and keeps the costs low.

The costs associated with the requirements of RPT are clearly only associated with the requirements of RPT flights.

Contrast this with Canberra Airport which has created a situation where real estate interests actively compete with aviation businesses. Bunnings, Costco and Government offices dominate the landscape and google maps show over 20 aircraft parked outdoors in the weather. The closest airports are Goulburn 100km or Cooma airport 130km both of which aren't GA friendly.  For example a "grass light recreational aircraft permit" fee is charged regardless as to whether the aircraft is parked on the grass or in a hangar, and the fee is over $3000 per financial year.

The local government doesn't wish to change this status quo even though there's a demonstrated requirement to control fires in the national park to the southwest and firefighting aircraft have had incidents over the city itself. ACT Government has essentially become captive to property development and is committed to squeezing as many people into the smallest slum possible.

A number of single engine planes have gone across the pacific. Lots of water there too.

A Long-ez would have the range. Not that I'd be that comfortable doing it in a single.

If you ever get to Christmas Island you won't get a joyflight around the island. I was wondering why until I looked into the charges.

Basically a light plane is charged the same as a 20T airplane per movement.

8 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Or better still, follow the rules we are required to fly by; a maverick, non-standard piece of electronic gear not approved for Australia, is not going to help you after a collision.

The key message is that the existing controls based upon humans and radio calls are inherently weak and do lead to accidents.

ATSB is making it clear that they acknowledge this deficit and that existing measures should be upgraded.

Technologies such as ADSB provide significantly improved situational awareness to all parties reducing the likelihood of accidents.

However the weakness of this approach is that not all parties have these devices and in the interim alternative approaches should be considered.  

15 hours ago, Garfly said:

AFAIK,  AvPlan and OzRwys only display 'traffic' from their own (participating) users.

Although devices like SkyEcho2 can of course be set up to display on the EFB map screens.

The key issue associated with most collisions is visibility. Radio calls are for visibility both current state and future actions but they're a pretty blunt instrument, you only need to review the number of errors and retransmits of radio calls. There is opportunity, capability and moral imperative to increase visibility to ensure safety.

All EFB type services with Internet connectivity should be required to log to a central Government which in turn provides a feed an integrated feed or the current state in real time, rather than to their own fragmented proprietary systems.

The value of networks inherently relates to the number of participants, fragmenting them reduces their value. Imagine if your mobile phone could only call people on the same network as your provider.

In terms of the timeliness of the information GPS systems get their time from atomic clocks so temporal accuracy is easy. From a transactional level there's not that much information, even single instances of spatial systems can scale to hundreds of thousands of transactions per second which should cater to the Australian concurrent traffic demand well into the future.

The bottom line is that this would cost a fraction of the cost of towered airspace and provide greater benefit.

The key point is that we can do better. People will continue to make mistakes.

Increasing visibility or all types of flying vehicles be they A380s, ultralights or drones is a good idea.

While it would be nice to get ADSB on all aircraft even a simple app on a mobile phone apps which reports position to a Government service would be beneficial as numerous airport have mobile coverage especially those in congested areas. 

That more responsibility accrues on those with the highest risk would imply that RPT transport would have an obligation to check these sources as part of their standard ops.

I know that it would be far from perfect however often the perfect is the enemy of the good.

The key considerations should be:

• Is it better than the status quo
• Is it accurate enough to provide useful information.
• Is it ubiquitous enough to make a difference without being onerous

While devices like SkyEcho2 are great, they're still too expensive for some to be ubiquitous. I'm willing to be that all involved parties in this incident had mobile phones with reception and accurate enough to make a difference.

Technically, in many ways aviation is probably one of the most backward industries on the planet. People still comment on flat screen displays the size of a shoebox when every house and workplace has hundreds of similar displays many times the size. The processes associated with flying are incredibly mandraulic, error prone and expensive and this reality is evidence by accidents like this one. We really should be doing better however the reality is that similar incidents will continue to eventuate.

All Aircraft should have a cheap and inexpensive ADSB in and out. Open source hardware/software implementation should be sponsored by the Government.

ADSB should also include an identifier based on the pilots id and a  nonce to stop replay attacks. 

The current implementation is just a bit dumb and prone to spoofing.

11 hours ago, onetrack said:

The SDS EFI is anything but simple. Do you really want this level of complexity on an RA aircraft? - let alone the cost.

 

For many people the answer is yes. Cost and effort is another manner.

It provides the following advantages

• effective control of the fuel ratio in each cylinder,
• the reliability of solid state ignition,
• programmable ignition advance,
• The ability to use features like oxygen sensors to automatically optimize combustion,
• Strong spark for better starting,
• Not having to get magnetos services every 500 hours,
• significantly lighter in weight.

Modern engines are more reliable and flexible than old engines because they use solid state technology with fewer moving parts.

By comparison, wouldn't it be nice to get rid of something as complex as this with many moving parts and possible failure modes

and this

14 hours ago, facthunter said:

The makers of aero engines recommend what fuel (and oils) to use and I don't  depart from that.

Running mogas doesn't necessarily depart from the recommendations of the manufacturer. There are a number of older and newer engines from Lycoming which run fine on Mogas the link below provides a from the horse's mouth view.

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070AB Specified Fuels.pdf Note that Mogas is included.

From a technical point of view the majority of GA aircraft will run on Mogas without an issue. There are some higher compression and turbocharged aircraft which currently require Avgas however these aircraft are in the minority. Essentially the GA industry has been subsidizing those aircraft for decades at enormous cost. If there is a significant swing towards using mogas the whole economics of the avgas industry will collapse.

The problems with all of the replacement AVgas fuels is that they're more expensive and consumers don't want that.

There are simple tests which detect ethanol in fuel. Food colouring can be used.

Supplying fuel in Australia which doesn't meet standards is an offence. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00266

Stating that mogas supplied in Australia doesn't meet standards is nonsense. It is just as likely as avgas not meeting standards. The same companies are involved using similar processes.

Radiator cowling design is an extremely difficult subject and most of the work in this space was done in WW2. If you can find someone with a moderately good solutions it's probably the right one unless you have a lot of time to burn.

What most people don't realize is that a really good radiator design can develop thrust (meredith effect), the P52 radiator design is probably is probably one of the best, however this really only works when your airspeed is pretty high. However at the very least good cooling duct design can be advantageous if you have the space available.

The lower the airspeed through the radiator the lower the drag. Aerodynamic drag increases as the cube or the airspeed and drag due to the radiator size increases at the square of airspeed. So you can exchange radiator area for reduced drag.

The duct should be divergent/convergent and there are maximum rates of change in the angles which can be used. Also the duct needs to be slightly larger post radiator as energy has been added to the airstream.

Does anyone know if the protocol is extensible to include basic security? From what I've know, ASD-B is inherently vulnerable to spoofing and replay attacks, and where there's a vulnerability someone will eventually exploit it for fun or gain.

I can imagine in a few years ADS-B-v2 with message integrity will appear after someone equips a drone with a spoofing device and generates thousands of ghosts around busy airports to get back at the Government.

At that point we'll be told that we need to buy newer hardware to support the capability.

Has anyone been playing with vortex generators recently? It would be nice if someone had the time and inclination to characterize the change in flight characteristics of a particular plane with and without.

Hi All,

Given that there's an election coming up. Is anyone willing to vote for whoever will pony up for a second airport at Williamsdale near Canberra? Are there enough fliers and friends to make a difference?

• There will be more significant fires in the future which will require airstrip access close to where the fires actually are.
• Polo Flat can't be used because it's been purchased for Snowy Hydro2 to use as industrial land
• Canberra Airport is too far away and requires fire traffic to be interwoven with RPT
• While big planes get their share of the media footage the smaller planes are the workhorses of fire control
• If the smoke blows the wrong way Canberra airport is closed.
• The economic analysis has already been done and was positive.
• The people in the Eden-Monaro region will be threatened by fires again and an airstrip nearby would mitigate the issue to some extent.
• Planes can deliver retardant more economically than helicopters if they have the infrastructure.

The other key benefit of an airport with a primary focus on GA would be the higher profile that it generate for GA in the eyes of our political masters.

I'm assuming that it's the Department of Home Affairs which is responsible for the design and impmentation of ASIC. It's a pity that the funding associated with this wasn't spent on something useful.

When you compare the recent busts of crime organisations through the clever use of "secure phones" which was probably done for a fraction of the cost of ASIC and compare it's efficacy you'd think that funding would be diverted to those who have actually done something useful.

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

To  reduce NOx the EGR lowers combustion temps and power output and then you use MORE fuel and CO2 consequences.  NOx is more a problem in cities and densely populated areas. Nev

It's not only the cooler temperatures, the extra exhaust gasses reduce the oxygen concentration and perturb the "equilibrium reaction" pushing it to the left. So less NOX produced. 

21 minutes ago, KRviator said:

Though I've just had a thought about that whole Traffic Period thing... -2H ETA to +2 ATD, what if it's going to layover overnight? Is 0100 the next day within the Traffic Period?!? And who's to say that Qlink 1535 from Syd-Dbo flown by a Dash-8-300 really is going to fly QLink 1536 from Dbo-Syd when it could be by a Q400 that's been on the stand overnight? That's an awfully big assumption...

I think that it would be a long bow trying to claim that this isn't a separate flight, did the pilot have a glass of wine with dinner, if yes does this mean he was drinking during the flight?

13 hours ago, KRviator said:

"I am not required to hold an ASIC as I do not regularly fly into security controlled airports" closely followed by "As it is outside the Traffic Period defined in the Regulations, I am not required to display an ASIC" [ATSI Regulations 3.03] (The Traffic Period is -2 Hours of an RPT scheduled arrival to +2 hours from its' scheduled departure). 

Quote

"traffic period" , for a security controlled airport, means a period that begins 2 hours before the scheduled time of arrival, and ends 2 hours after the actual time of departure, of a scheduled air service that operates to or from the airport.

You may find yourself in breach of the local security regulations though, trying to argue legal doctrine with a security guard may be painful. Also it appears that some airports require any visitors to get local security passes as well. The problem is that some local councils have implemented security policies under the guise of the ATSI regulations and believe that any breach of them is a Federal issue.

1 minute ago, danny_galaga said:

https://thedriven.io/2021/12/10/e-fuels-lose-race-to-clean-up-cars-study-shows-them-to-be-as-polluting-as-petrol/amp/

That's a bit of a no-brainer, NO is produced by the combustion process rather than anything inherent to the fuel, the higher the combustion temperature the more NO. It a bit like saying that poos from synthetic meat still smell bad.

The strange thing is that they don't actually say what the e-fuel was, based on the emissions with the higher ammonia level it looks like they were included an ammonia based fuel.

Diesel engines produce more NO than equivalent petrol engines simply because the combustion temperature is higher than petrol engines can achieve. This also provides greater efficiency due to the laws of thermodynamics.

It really depends on your focus, are we trying to improve emissions across the board or are we just trying to fix the greenhouse gas issue. If its the later then it's irrelevant.

As stated I wouldn't mind the process if it had an actual outcome. However it's so poorly implemented that it just doesn't deliver.

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My advise - dont bother with getting an ASIC. If you believe an airport (you cant avoid) might still be acting on ASIC, phone ahead, requesting a security escort to/from your aircraft.

Basically it's pretty much mandatory when getting your flight training as you're are flying into major airports. What I didn't understand until later was how half arsed and clueless the whole scheme was.

The whole point is if you want to realize the benefits you need to make the system revolve around the identity piece, the ASIC card that you've created. That can't happen at the moment because it's such a poor implementation. The security guard who you ring can't actually verify your identity effectively.

How does the system work with overseas pilots and aircrew. How do plane inspections work?

53 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

My friends who have spent time on large cargo ships tell of long, boring voyages with steady winds, ideal opportunities for using some wind-assistance to reduce fuel burn and perhaps add speed.

Large parachute type sails were developed as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails

Wind suffer from the same issues on the sea as on land, intermittency so the gains aren't as large on some routes as they are on others.

1 minute ago, Old Koreelah said:

Beat me why big ships don’t use the wind. A large ‘chute sent high into strong winds, controlled by AI would save fuel and speed voyages.

Where the winds go the ships don't go so much. When ships used wind the roaring forties were popular.

ASIC cards and the associated protocols are fundamentally broken. If we assume that there is a net benefit from the process there is an enormous shortfall in the actual implementation which negates any net benefit. Below is a list of issues

• The card is a "Dumb Card" essentially just a piece of plastic with a photo easily copied
• A smart card solution would provide a secure element which could provide a strong identity and be readable via a mobile phone and provide physical access. For instance a security guard could check the card using an app on their phone.
• Standard such as PIV already provide the basis for an strong electronic identity
• Current ASIC clearances are for two years, Secret and Top Secret clearances are valid for 10 years and licenses are valid for 5 years, passports are valid for 10 years.
• Currently gate access codes tend to be postcodes, written inside the gate or some other really weak access contols which aren't connected back to the person getting access.
• Some local councils are even claiming that anyone airside needs a visitors pass when they're escorted. Does this apply to RPL passengers or just GA passengers when they embark and disembark?
• The implementations aren't even penetration tested or required to undergo paper based efficacy evaluations. It's a bit of a shambles.

What I'd like to understand is, have any of the bodies which represent General Aviation actually raised any the above with the  powers that be. Because in it's current state the whole ASIC system doesn't actually achieve any of the outcomes which it's trying to achieve, all it is an annoyance and sending a couple of local council flunkies on a power trip.

Can we lobby anyone with the slightest bit of a clue in this regard?