WALLEY2,
I have studied your most recent post carefully and more than once.
But I fail to understand what particular skill or knowledge is required to be able to squander large sums of money on hordes of consultants.
Aviation is, in essence, a very simple business. Unfortunately there is an endless supply of parasites who seek to make it more complicated than it really is in order to facilitate their own financial gain.
So you got CAGRS approved – fantastic! But those procedures have been in use in other countries since the 1930s.
Did you really need to spend all that money on consultants just for that?
There are already about a million consultant’s reports on airspace issues – why does the world need yet another one? (other than to keep the consultants employed
)
All that aside, I do whole-heartedly agree that you need an air traffic control tower like you need a hole in the head. That would be a big step in the wrong direction because it would cause unnecessary costs and delays.
G’day
Keg,
....what possible justification is there at ANY stage in the future for the taxpayer to fund ADSB.
There isn’t one, and there wont be one.
I’ve never suggested that the tax-payer should fund ADSB.
Actually – I still can’t figure out what ADSB can do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do. Any suggestions, Andrew K???
I do believe that the carriage
and use of an altitude encoding transponder should be mandatory for all aircraft with an electrical generating system capable of powering it.
TCAS is commercially available
now (as is it’s cheaper cousin, TCAD) and I strongly suggest that anyone who is worried about the risk of a collision should get one.
Please don’t think that I hold that view because of any reservations about NAS – I’ve been a staunch advocate for TCAS for some time (long before NAS).