Originally Posted by
Flying_higher
I don’t disagree that this issue has dragged on way too long, but at least OAR is actually kicking ASA into gear to provide a proper service instead of this Clayton’s atc thats normally declared TIBA anyway.
It should be noted that there are people that will be adversely affected by this, forcing them to avoid this new airspace just like they do in Coffs. For this reason I applaude OAR for making sure those who are affected do in fact have a chance to put their views forward. We all bitch when CASA just goes and does stuff without asking, but here we are and they are trying to work with us yet people are still bitching.
and whilst Lead Balloon seems to not be a fan of ADS-B, I think you’ll find those are views of yesteryear and actually, in 2023, this is the standard globally, reduces cost for all of us (instead of MSSR), and provides benefits such as additional situational awareness through ADS-B (IN). It’s a thumbs up from me!
Aviation Green Paper (Towards 205) is seeking views on "whether a mandate for
ADS-B OUT should be required over the medium term to manage increasing airspace congestion".
Green Paper Page 11 ADS-B OUT, ADS-B IN, probably a typo.
Perhaps have a look at the "ASD-B IN – A different perspective on the recent hype" thread on The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions forum.
ASD-B IN – A different perspective on the recent hype