Fitment of GPS (suitable for IFR enroute - NOT for approach), GPS antenna and second COM radio, 2nd COM antenna, all up including racking, EO, W&B etc. including antennas but excluding the actual devices cost: $5500 5 years ago. Estimate another $2K for GPS
ADS-B subsidy...I can say heaps on the subject but refuse to.
So much for the misinformation debate.
Quote:
SC....you do not need another transponder....this isn't the United States.
If ADSB is an evolutionary development of the transponder as a tool for ATC but it can't be interrogated by TCAS, you will need a mode C transponder as well as the ADSB gadgetry for TCAS to work won't you?
Frank, you bring up an interesting point actually.
Say we went for 100% ADS-B OUT fitment.
Could/would CASA still insist on a Transponder out ... to feed TCAS only ... seeing that TCAS 'cannot' be used in the airspace management mitigation equation?
ADS-B UAT is not seen by TCAS hence the need to retain a tranponder...1090ES is ALREADY a mode ACS transponder, although some are now coming out in Europe as modeS ES...made S can still be seen by TCAS...YOU ONLY NEED THE ONE UNIT!
No he's being cute saying some do and some don't, depending in what part of the World you fly. If you prod him enough he will explain it all, but be prepared for some technophobe spin that still doesn't explain why the "great unwashed" who fly in class G airspace "need" such a device. If he owned an aeroplane he would have a better appreciation of what it costs in the "real world".
Perhaps you should be looking at this from another angle. A bit of lateral thinking perhaps.
Now, we are looking a bit down the track here, but this is the way I look at it ...the greater the percentage of GA/RA aircraft that are equipped with ADS-B Out, the greater the chances that CASA will be less inclined to create more restrictive airspace.
Say there was 100% take up of ADS-B ... and say that low level ADS-B surveillance became a reality ... what real basis has CASA for creating anything more restrictive than Class E airspace ( in most locations) as virtually all aircraft are known to ATC.
The only reason for implementing a higher classification would be so that ATC can obtain VFR positions from procedural information ... which they would no longer need... in the main.
The reverse is also true ... the less low level surveillance we have ... the greater the need for Class D and Class C.
BRM/KTA/AV are proof of that.
So, you can be free in E (and I'm talking about the real E) or continue to be lumbered with position reports and clearances in D & C.
You have lost me, Francis. Where does it do and where does it don't?
Honestly, Francis...the way the CASA has stuffed around with airspace? I cannot see how any airspace will be managed in the future or what will be required equipment for VFR GA.
I had a post back on another thread how I thought it would have panned out with ADS-B and FSUs still in operation. Bugger all calls and everyone visible to those who needed to provide a service
C145a certification "Imminent" These guys are dealing through Enigma Avionics. Have to wait...lots of promise. however, until that piece of paper its a promise. Keep an eye on these guys.
Now, we are looking a bit down the track here, but this is the way I look at it ...the greater the percentage of GA/RA aircraft that are equipped with ADS-B Out, the greater the chances that CASA will be less inclined to create more restrictive airspace.
Say there was 100% take up of ADS-B ... and say that low level ADS-B surveillance became a reality ... what real basis has CASA for creating anything more restrictive than Class E airspace ( in most locations) as virtually all aircraft are known to ATC.
The only reason for implementing a higher classification would be so that ATC can obtain VFR positions from procedural information ... which they would no longer need... in the main.
The reverse is also true ... the less low level surveillance we have ... the greater the need for Class D and Class C.
peuce, what yer gunna do when the terrorists start using GPS as a targeting system ? No more civvy GPS will create havok if airspace has been reworked to rely on ADS-B/GPS...
Given the recent published Avgas use figures ( actuals delivered) for past 12 months, there won't be any G/A around to use ADSB, the Actual Avgas used is down 50% nearly year on year.
And don't say G/A Jet A1 is up , because it is also way down.
We all need to be very careful in any thinking that places further cost imposts on General Aviation.
peuce, what yer gunna do when the terrorists start using GPS as a targeting system ? No more civvy GPS will create havok if airspace has been reworked to rely on ADS-B/GPS...
After much negotiation with CASA and OAR, I have convinced them to ban the use of GPS-guided buzz bombs by terrorists ... unless ... they broadcast their intentions to ATC first ... and receive appropriate tracking instructions. OAR have also assurred me that they will enforce compliance with CAR 100, without fear or favour, with the terrorists as well ...
After much negotiation with CASA and OAR, I have convinced them to ban the use of GPS-guided buzz bombs by terrorists ... unless ... they broadcast their intentions to ATC first ... and receive appropriate tracking instructions. OAR have also assurred me that they will enforce compliance with CAR 100, without fear or favour, with the terrorists as well ...
I will ask but I want to see your quote first.
