Bob,
The ASTRA "Cross Industry Business Case" for ADS-B was haplessly (and hopelessly) flawed, and effectively disowned by the new management of Airservices.
.
It seems more than likely that the present ASTRA long term plan will go the same way.
.. Serious questions:-
.
- Do you have information on the basis on which the ‘new’ management of AsA ‘disowned’ the business case?, also;
- what made it hapless and hopelessly flawed?
.
Re CASA cost/benefit’s,
.
I remember hearing similar (assumed to be the first CBA), never did have it confirmed nor saw a copy/s … the decimal point explanation is worrying if true. I assume there is some correspondence re same floating around, would be interesting to read!
The second CASA study was equally inept, suddenly discovering all sorts of GA benefits that had been mysteriously missed the first time around.
.. one wonders if CASA consulted with AsA? … the point being, if all the costs and benefits are not captured it is nigh on impossible to get a real picture!
None of the newly discovered benefit accrued to those who had to spend the money, they were all indirect benefits, as I recall saving 1.8 (?) or something similar statistical lives per year from starting searches closer to where "ADS-B" last detected the aircraft,
.. what were the other ‘benefits’ included?
all assuming nationwide low level coverage and every ADS-B return recorded by Airservices -- neither of which was going to be the case.
… I was under the impression it was based on the initial phase of ADS-B coverage below A100?!, the rollout to other areas was to be considered separately given the variable that might affect when other coverage came on line?!
Very fuzzy costs were quoted for ADS-B OUT ONLY, then benefits for ADS-B IN were quoted as benefits, and so it went on.
… Microair are quoting $2,800, how much less do you figure per unit if fleetwide and subsidy applies (less or more than a mode C/S TXPDR)??
Quoting C145/146 GNSS benefits as ADS-B benefits, when you get those benefits right now, with a C145/146 GPS in your preferred aerial locomotion device. In fact, both CASA studies were more about the benefits of C145/146 GPS, not ADS-B at all, [ as was/is the CAPSTONE case] but those responsible (I am told they no longer work for CASA) simply didn't understand the difference, or alternatively, "why let the facts spoil a good story", when " Ye' got 'ol time religion" about ADS-B, with such faith, who need facts.
… and your objection to the navigation, surveillance, and future enhancements available (to GA particularly) are? … what .. I asume you would rather everyone pay less than 100% for the GPS/ADS-B were subsidy available!?
The "left no doubt" case had costs of (again from memory ) for the program study period, $110m-200m v. highly dodgy indirect benefits of $22m -- with zero for those who would spend the money in fitting and maintenance.
.. please correct me if I am wrong … your figures above vary from those I have heard (I have not got them to hand so I will not guess) … they do not include the fitment subsidy for GA, or the savings to the big end of town and the infrastructure reduction of ADS-B(wamlat) vice MSSR radar (including install, maintenance, at life replacement), and not just current MSSR’s, the others that presumably are still required where C approach is above D zones!
Don't kid yourself about the benefits of the "5 mile separation standard" back of Black Stump, even the ASTRA 2025 projected traffic won't need "5m" to handle the traffic without delays outside the terminal areas.
…. I would be very interested in seeing the data for this assumption! …..
outside the terminal areas … have you spent much time in the mining triangle or QLD? … or seen the procedural workload of enroute controllers managing these areas? …. mores the point, it is easy to calculate (in isolation, as an estimate), where conflict pairs might or might not be restricted … it is entirely different to measure the delay in relaxing separation when large areas are being serviced (procedurally). Calculations and cross-checking required before ‘proving’ separation! … in other words, the benefits (in this case) flow if you can see the traffic, its is faster, less talk time with crews (position reports etc) and far far more efficient! .. again, I am not sure (as I was not involved in or directly aware of the methodologies used with this stuff) if it is applicable in the context of the information you have, although I have seen those sorts of omissions before! … accuracy is reliant on subject matter expert review across all affected areas!
At no stage was there a defined hazard/risk to which ADS-B was the/an answer, let alone the cost/benefit justified answer, just a raft of un-quantified assertions.
… is this the CASA CBA’s you are referring to?
The savings claimed originally for not replacing some of the remote SSR head, and other "Airservices" benefits of the ADS-B program resulted in a 0.8% savings on the Airservices bottom line, is/was 0.8% going to produce big service fees savings for the big airlines. Hardly.
…. Again, those figures seem odd compared to those I have heard bandied about, not withstanding, what does .8% P.A equate to? …. (in millions that is)
All this is public information.
… I am not being obtuse Bob, could you provide some links as I am having some difficulty finding the stuff you have referred to!
Finally, would somebody please list all the 1090ES ADS-B IN equipment available NOW, for retrofit to, say, Regional aircraft (hint-have a look at the published program for QF Regional -8's, and what it produces in $$$ terms) and GA aircraft, and cost. Unless you are suggesting that retrofitting Collins TDR-94D transponders and new Universal navigators comes cheap. Crikey!
… that’s the heart of the issue! No one is gunna do the hardware/software mod’s unless there is a need (market for it) … the market exist now, it is being announced all over the place (Canada one example), yet we sit and wait! ……. unless you think 1090ES is
not going to be the international standard, and a market is not there .. why would we wait? ……. so you can buy one from Garmin (US) for 100% of the cost??
PS The ONLY RTCA standard that exists for using ADS-B/C 1090ES signals in TCAS 11 produces exactly the same readout/display/warnings as would a transponder Mode S input.
…. which confirms Honeywell has seen the writing on the wall! .. if we 'assume' for the sake of argument that existing manufacturers of Commercial avionics have prepared for it, does that not provide a pretty big clue about 1090 intended use?? ..... so what’s the issue for GA … (particularly if scaled by subsidy) for those currently without the baseline gear?
.
… no strings attached Bob, just want to clarify the points you have raised!
.
Cheers
.
Dog
.
Dick
.
.... did you receive a resonse to your letter to the Minister?
.
.... did you talk to the Minister, Advisers or DoTaRS/AsA or AOPA
around the time of the letter?