Bushy,
bushy yup all 390 of the lunatic fringe.
Gaunty really is loosing touch, isn't he ---- quoting numbers about double his vote when he exited the AOPA Board --- when we were talking about people who actually own the aeroplanes and pay the bills.
Whether he likes it or not, about 11,000 aircraft owners (nothing to do with AOPA) are not waxing lyrical about the prospect of being forced to fit very expensive equipment to solve a problem they don't have. That nobody has demonstrated actually exists !!
Creamy,
A good place to start would be to ask ASAC in Canberra for a copy of the paper by R.J.Hall, PhD,
"JCP, Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation and Surveillance"
Having digested Dr. Hall's paper, have a close look at the Cost/Benefit methodology paper produced by Booz Allan Hamilton.
Then go back to the JCP paper, and do yourself a table and separate the costs and benefits of C145/146 GPS that are unrelated to ADS-B, and the alleged benefits of ADS-B, whether related to GNSS or not. Pay particular attention to the claimed "SAR" benefits of ADS-B versus the coverage of ADS-B below 10,000'. Pay particular attention to the claimed benefits of C145/146 in the light of the fact that one of the most desirable, precision vertical guidance, also requires WAAS ---- which we ain't going to get ---according to Airservices ----- but the BAH Report may well recommend otherwise, it's not only aviation that uses precision GNSS.
I have fed all the necessary information into my patented technical confabulator, and in my informed opinion, the answers are:
(a) Yes.
(b) For GA, Yes
Second (a)
Actually, the only TSO compliant box that produces C-145/146/Gamma 3 output also is UAT ADS-B OUT/IN, and around the subsidy price, fitted. Compatible equipment already exists to handle UAT ADS-B IN --- base price of ADS-B OUT/IN (UAT) about US$7000. For all those who have GARMIN 430/480/530/MX20 it would be a snap ---- for UAT only.
The only set of boxes that currently meet the ATSO (also from GARMIN) are around US$16,000 plus quite a deal more expensive fitting, just to produce ADS-B OUT. I am excluding from this ATA/ARINC gear, and isn't it interesting that nobody here wants to talk about QANTAS Eastern's Dash 8 costs v. the JCP figures. The missing "zero".
Second (b)
Possibly, but given US volumes and consumer laws, not likely.
However, a small and virtually hand made batch for a tiny 1090ES Australian market, with sod all development budget ---- the real world ----- I would rate ongoing maintenance nightmares far more likely headed in the present Australian direction. Even add the EEC GA market and it's still cottage industry.
One forecast I can confidently make, as it is already happening now, is that the entry of the 1090ES "cheap solution" ---- the last dying gasp of a WWII piece of equipment ---- as the late entry into the ICAO competition eventually will be seen for what it really is---- a very shortsighted push for a "cheap" system by broke US airlines ----- that is turning out to be very expensive for airlines ----compared to fitting stand alone UAT or VDL-4 equipment.
Trying to squeeze the last data pip out of a seriously bandwidth limited lemon, instead of using a modern broadband data transmission system. Nil room for expansion v. all the things that broadband makes possible ----
and the modern (UAT) gear is cheaper.
Does the ADSB equipment in the trial aircraft comply with 20.18 or have they been exempted from 20.18?
As far as I have been able to work out, the answer is yes, no or maybe, but those intending to squitter ADS-B have to make arrangements with AsA, otherwise their pioneering emissions are filtered. It also seems to be the case that AsA are accepting signals that do not meet the ICAO (TXPD) standard, which at least raises questions about the use of the 5 mile separation standard.
----for Australias unique airspace. It is unique becasue the high and low traffic densities are non uniform, assymetric and incoherently placed, with a relatively thinly populated airways system connecting them.
Gaunty, what an assy metric statement ---- but at least you have admitted that there is no great density of traffic, making the claimed en-route savings a little suss, given the current separation standard available without ADS-B and with TAATS/RVSM ----- you know that trans-continental airways are more or less a thing of the past, do you.
There is absolutely nothing special about Australia airspace ---- except for one thing ----- we have far and away the lowest traffic densities of any western country. Even if the ASTRA 2025 forecasts were reached, total Australian traffic would still be about one fifth of current US traffic levels, in roughly the same area.
Page 27 of the report is telling … scenario 3 has huge differential benefits for cost and safety!
Izzatso?? Rooly Trooly --- But, then again, counting and accounting never was your long suite. Creamy, do your own numbers on the raw figures in the JCP, based on the BAH methodology ----
bearing in mind that the risk case required by the Airspace Act 2007 is missing in it's entirety.
----I believe the Doctor is doing at the same time as identifying what software changes may be required to make the current stuff work
"The Doctor" ---- Now we've got Time Lords into the system??
Seriously, ICAO standards are settled for what we need now ---- where do you think the standards in the ATSO's came from. I hope AsA is not trying to re-invent the wheel, they don't have anything like the expertise of the RTCA.
Standby for the usual patronising waffle and officious rant from Leadsled it's so freakin predictable.
My dear old chap, watch your blood pressure, we wouldn't want you to blow a fooffle valve. We know red wine is good for us, but doubling up isn't double plus good. Have your thought of trying the new wonder drug, Viagozac: "If you don't get a -----, you don't give a -----".
Tootle pip!!