Sunfish,
Obviously, to you at least, I haven't made it clear enough that I have differentiated between stationary or slow moving sites, and fast moving.
That is why, in the last post I had "Except for aircraft" in capitals. The point is that all the benefits of SBAS/WAAS that we would have got years ago, we get now without it, EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT ---- and we don't have high speed trains.
That was the major point of the major study done by then DoTaRS and others years ago, that GPS developments -- WITHOUT SBAS/WAAS --- was going to give augmented levels of accuracy --- WITHOUT the augumentation, for stationary or slow moving receivers, and "slow moving" was put at less than 50km/hour at the time.
That is why the CBA was negative, in then future years, all the SBAS/WAAS "benefits" --- EXCEPT FOR AVIATION ---- would be achieved without SBAS/WAAS.
And aviation in Australia was and is so small, that governments were not going to put the system in for aviation, which, statistically compared to aviation in USA, is little more than a rounding error.
Are you in the mining business these days? For sites that want driverless vehicles, my mates who have been involved in the development tell be that GBAS is the preferred technical solution, "competition" is not an issue, "subscription" ie: Galileo, is not an issue, but possible disruption of SBAS very much is.
Accuracy affects profits, do I need to explain that?
Do you really think you need to explain that to somebody whose family has been in the "farming" business since the Liverpool Plains was opened up to selectors? In a previous post I quoted lane accuracy possible now.
As for fertilizer use, thank you, you confirmed exactly what I said, we do it now, and have been doing it for quite a while, all without SBAS/WAAS.
"Please explain" why road transport services NOW and in the immediate future (which future will not include driverless B-Doubles or road trains in yours or my lifetime) needs better than 3m positioning.
BUT ----Get back to the Minister's statement, it was all about aviation, nothing else. So, how is SBAS/WAAS going to revolutionist aviation by lowering the minima for GNSS approaches marginally.
Remember the complex rules/costs for designing any instrument approach, particularly "semi" precision approaches, starting with only being available at certified or registered airfields, none of that helps the RFDS or similar at many of they places they go.
I ask again, what is the catch this time, what has changed for aviation??
Tootle pip!!
PS: The studies of driverless equipment in broad acre farming don't quite stack up like they do in an open cut mine site, and let's face it, BHP is not quite so gung ho as Rio Tinto on mine sites, despite the enthusiastic promotion of such developments by manufacturers of such equipment.