Folks,
From a recent post on another thread.
The starting price, under Australian regulations, for a GNSS approach is around $100,000, assuming the airfield is up to standard, including an obstacle survey. The $100,000 or thereabouts only covers the cost of design and approval, including test flying.
It is not as expensive in some other jurisdictions.
If you already had an ILS on that runway, it would be a bit cheaper, but then why would you need the GNSS approach.
Have Airservices figured out a way to slug us all for the availability of the "service", an
"SBAS enabled airspace access charge" or some similar lunatic concept, to bolster revenue. In short, an airspace access tax, a pet project of some who I could have named a few years back, a "One Sky" potential spinoff.
Tootle pip!!
I am fascinated by the current "official" enthusiasm for SBAS (aka WAAS) in Australia. I have been trying to figure out who gets the money --- as in "follow the money".
All the touted benefits to non-aviation uses of SBAS (agriculture, transport, rail and shipping) are ALREADY available, indeed have been for many years, from differential GPS. The proposed SBAS will NOT produce the same positional accuracy as now available to, say, a surveyor, close, but not equal to what is already here.
The advent of "GPS III", becoming available now, will produce differential or SBAS aided GPS accuracy for other than fast moving targets, without differential or SBAS corrections. As to "fast moving targets", there is not going to be high speed rail in Australia any time soon, so that leaves aircraft.
The ONLY aviation advantage is a bit lower minima on approach, everything else can be done with current systems. If any of you understand the cost of establishing a precision approach will appreciate, there is a huge $$$$$$ gulf between what an aircraft can theoretically do, and establishing the GNSS procedures to be able to take advantage of that capability.
Think licensed/certified aerodrome only, including necessary approach lighting, current obstacle survey, NOTAM service, met. ---- the $$$$, initial and ongoing really add up.
In short, the "ground costs" of supporting a GNSS approach to the (potentially) lower minima means that there will be very few places where you will be able to take advantage of your you beaut "WAAS enabled" gear. Because nobody will shell out the $$$$ to establish and maintain the GNSS procedure.
Tootle pip!!