Max1, a good post, but you (like others) seem to mix two completely separate issues. High level ADS-B (which is working now in Australia) is actually operating in parallel with the existing procedural system.
It is an incredibly conservative approach. An aircraft can fly in all of the so-called ADS-B airspace without ADS-B, and will be separated safely.
A quantum leap is the proposed low level ADS-B system and the $100 million subsidy to bring small aircraft into it. It is a quantum leap because the subsidy is based on closing down the SSR network at a date that relies on the low level ADS-B system being installed and operating correctly.
I will say it again. I totally support ADS-B – especially if it is operated in parallel with existing systems for 5 years to so.
In relation to the $100 million subsidy, no one has been able to explain what actual risk is being addressed, and whether that is an effective way of spending $100 million. Having small VFR aircraft flying low level at Birdsville appearing on an air traffic controller’s screen in Brisbane sounds really fantastic. However what is the air traffic controller going to do? Is he actually going to separate the traffic (as per Class C) or is the air traffic controller going to just give a traffic service? If so, how can an air traffic controller reliably give a traffic service when there may be a dozen or so airports in the sector?
Most importantly, won’t the traffic that is being given by the air traffic controller have already appeared on the airline aircraft’s TCAS as a Traffic Advisory, and won’t the pilots have already alerted each other by radio?
These issues have never been properly discussed. It is a classic example of boffins saying that they can “invent” something and it will lead the world, so we should go ahead with it.
In business I have always been conservative. That is why I have had some success.