Werbil, you bring up an important issue
and there is the availability of LAMEs to complete the installations.
Surely you can understand that there could not possibly be the capacity to fit 7,000 aircraft in the time available. I have my radio servicing and installation done at Bankstown Airport. There seems to be only one competent shop left, and you can sometimes wait months to get work done.
I understand that you want to remain anonymous on PPRuNe and I respect this – but can you answer why Airservices never puts anyone up publicly to debate my views?
You would think that if they really believed in what they were doing, they would have an expert who would be happy to talk to anyone – including coming on this website to explain the benefits of their low level ADS-B subsidy proposal. Thousands of pilots read PPRuNe and that would obviously be a great way of communicating the advantages and debunking my claims if they were wrong.
A competent manager in charge of such an important project at Airservices would make sure there was a technical expert who answered all questions wherever they were asked – whether it be on PPRuNE, the AOPA website, or to the media. This doesn’t happen.
For example, when I ask (both publicly and on PPRuNe) why they are installing a hugely expensive multilateration system in Tasmania when they have plans to go to ADS-B, they never answer the question.
It is almost as if the organisation is so dysfunctional, one group has no idea what another group is doing. If I ran one of my businesses like that I would be broke.
I believe the reason Airservices are not completely open with this is that they have lots to hide – things like the cost benefit study being flawed, and also the subsidy to GA aircraft not being based on any measurable risk.
James Michael, my statement in the letter to the Minister which contained the words “as proposed” means as proposed by Airservices. That is, in the enroute airspace that had previously been covered by secondary surveillance radar, they are now planning to remove the SSRs and rely totally on ADS-B. That is where they plan to get the subsidy from – the saving in the removal of the secondary surveillance radars.
In relation to the locations that would never get radar but require a system for safety, I would certainly support ADS-B. If the RFDS wants ADS-B in Western Australia, go ahead with it. It can be fitted to IFR aircraft that operate in the area. But why would you then want the enormous expense of fitting the units to VFR aircraft? Are you telling me that the RFDS in Western Australia has a problem in separating themselves safely from VFR aircraft? I don’t believe it.
If there are delays in Western Australia because of the procedural separation standards required for IFR aircraft, this can easily be solved by fitting ADS-B to a relatively small number of aircraft.
Already the high level ADS-B ground stations are being installed in Western Australia. All Airservices has to do is to add a few more at the relevant locations, and then by fitting ADS-B to IFR aircraft have a very safe and relatively inexpensive system.
Why that should be linked to removing secondary surveillance radar on the east coast and funding VFR GA aircraft is beyond comprehension to most thinking people.
Max1, I say again – what is the safety issue being addressed in fitting $100 million worth of ADS-B primarily to VFR GA aircraft? The collision risk is greatest near an airport – most often on the runway. That is why I am pushing for a manned Class D tower at Avalon Airport. With 1.5 million passenger movements per year, it must be a cost effective way of improving safety.
Or is someone going to suggest that the $100 million GA ADS-B subsidy would improve safety at Avalon Airport in some measurable way?
It looks to me as if this $100 million primarily VFR aircraft subsidy issue is being pushed by those who emotively want to get VFR aircraft back in the ATC system as they were in the days of the old full position reporting. That system didn’t give any measurable increase in safety, and there has not been one fatality attributed to the removal of the full position reporting system since it ceased 17 years ago.
Everyone should take note that Airservices is so badly managed, they can’t even organise their air traffic control staffing levels. How can this same management team be trusted to lead the world in highly complex technical design and purchases?
I would like to see the evidence.