I just wonder what safety increase we are looking for.
You jest right? Dumping aircraft OCTA and getting another in so the conflict happens in G; this happens everyday in the GAFA, outside radar coverage; that would be a massive safety increase. The 'gold-fields' overloads; the levels restricted from use because of 'blockers' nearby; despite the icing/weather/turbulence that's effecting the current level. Having been in ATC for many years now, I have no doubt that increased surveillance will increase safety. The extra surveillance for the gold-fields is coming be it turning head or stationary box; so why not explore the stationary box option if it costs less and 'delivers' more? So it's not simply about replacement of the MSSR 'enroute' radar.
If we use ADS-B right; we could have your alphabet airspace without 'fear' that has accompanied the change in the past; simply because of the increased surveillance; also we could use it for better use of low level airspace management in terms of vectoring aircraft onto radials, localisers etc and for terrain avoidance advice too; if we staff it correctly (which I have no confidence).
If you are a positive subject to the two questions, how will the mandatory impost of any ADSB impact upon your bottom line if the aircraft/ bus, is/are operated below mainly AO10?
Bob, perhaps we need to ask the big questions? What do we want it for, then who should have it? If the perception is to protect passenger carrying aircraft from everything else, then perhaps we need to have ADS-B veils like they have transponder veils in the states but what to do with those that ignore the 'veil' areas; in the states the primary radar gives them knowledge which will be not evident here at all.
So in our system, want to go in class A/B/C/D then you need ADS-B, want to operate in the vicinity of a "passenger" CTAF (lets call them CTAF(R)'s) need ADS-B. The big question is class E and class G? If we get to Class E to A007 or A012 then we need to have it universally.
But can WAM do what we want ADS-B to do? Without the airborne expense?
WAM is more expensive than ADS-B in terms of ground infrastructure, but overall probably significantly cheaper; particularly for the East Coast and where infrastructure is available.
The big issue is the GAFA in terms of coverage, WAM works on 'triangulation' so you need to be in range of three or more WAM receivers for it to work; then there are the combined ADS-B WAM boxes, which is another story.
Do we need (it) what ever it is for the GAFA? Can we just have veils at certain 'higher risk' locations?
Remember though, getting GPS into every aircraft effectively means that the old 'radio navaid' network can be decommissioned. How many rusting radio towers are out there needing urgent repair? Some of ASA sights whilst still 'operational' are 'hazardous hard hat safety areas' only, with reports suggesting that a strong wind could blow some of them over.
So there is more to it than one source of costs alone. Hence show us the business cases, why the "secret squirrel" stuff? What other hidden agendas are linked to this project. TiNR etc.