LS ....involved fromthe earliest trials in the mid 90s
Vag277,
If that is the case, all I can say is that you must have been part of the cheer squad that didn't let the facts spoil a good party.
the value of lives needs to be considered before deciding not to implement SBAS in Australia.
But where is the history of lives lost to validate the "assumptions" of lives saved?? This is a seriously big problem in aviation in Australia, all benefit/cost studies should be carried out by unrelated and genuinely independent bodies.
For example, in pushing one particular barrow years ago, Airservices "risk assessments" had pilots making an error in a clearance between 100% and 50% of the time --- ie: pilots got it wrong between always and every second airways clearance. By contrast, the claim was that controllers only got it wrong in less than 1: 1,000,000 times --- the world's most perfect people.
All the CASA ADS-B benefit/cost "studies" where laughably incompetent.
it is the trucking industry, mining industry, road vehicles, autonomous (in the future) vehicles, agriculture industry, Geo-science.
But virtually all the real benefits are already available from existing services, other than aviation. I can already plough to +/- about 200mm, I can already survey to around 20mm.
So I ask again,
what is the catch, we know the capabilities of SBAS/WAAS, have done for years, we learn nothing of practical value from this "trial" ---period, not just aviation.
Who is pocketing quite large amounts of money to tell us what we already know.
Remember that definition of a "consultant": "Somebody who borrows your watch to tell you the time -- then send you a big bill".
Tootle pip!!