Dick you state
"In my belief, it is wrong to spend $100 million of our industry’s money in reducing risk that is so minimal it is almost immeasurable."
That $100 million you talk about has not come from GA, that money has come from the airlines, GA navcharges are miniscule against airline charges.
The airlines would seek an immediate reduction in charges if this money did not go towards ADS-B. They are willing to see this $100 million go towards a subsidy of fitment of ADS-B into GA, for safety. The non-installation and associated running costs of SSR is the long term saving envisaged, and susequent reduction in charges in the future.
You need to stop making it sound as if this money is just sitting in a bank somewhere waiting to be spent on 'something'. The airlines are allowing this money to be cached for ADS-B. If ADS-B doesn't get up it will have to be spent on the installation and/or replacement of expensive to run and maintain SSRs.
The airlines will have to indirectly pay for the upkeep of SSRs. Do you seriously think that the airlines haven't researched this and are willing to blow a $100 million dollars of their money.
As for a 2 month decision. The planning and consultation go back years.
In six weeks time will you be complaining that they expect you to make a decision with two weeks notice?
Bob,
As for complaining about ADS-B below A100, it works and is accurate, why wouldn't you want it used where you could be seen. You guys complain that Launy tower can 'see' you on radar but can't use it for separation (due training) and on the other hand complain that if we can see you and are trained to use the equipment that you don't want it to apply.
What do you want? Or have you taken a stance, and thats it. I am not changing my mind. Your arguments and FBs are becoming more and more frivolous, buzz bombs, sunspots, and some guy in a digger cut the Optus line.
I'm not sure if you guys have had any exposure to safety risk management, here is the five dollar version.
When a safety case is done events such as these are given a value e.g. low ,medium, high impact and a likelihood of happening e.g. weekly , monthly , yearly, once in a hundred years etc.
Then risk mitigators are applied i.e a way of doing things to overcome the severity and timing of the occurence.
If something is high impact (e.g. buzzbombs) and will happen frequently e.g. yearly, and would see the GPS signal turned off and no back up separation available, this would kill a project stone dead.
If the buzzbombs are however seen as a once in a hundred years event and a form of separation available in a safe timeframe this would not kill the project.
Nothing in this world, besides death and taxes, is a given. All we can do is try and mitigate as much as we can.
Procedural separation (i.e. outside surveillance range) is based on mathematical probability. A 10 minute longitidunal standard (along track) is not because we want the aircraft 10 minutes apart for controller amusement, it is based on all the variable factors of aircraft navigation. The lead aircraft may lose 2 minutes and the following aircraft may gain 2 minutes (they are only required to update estimates if they change by MORE than 2 minutes.)
There maybe inaccuracies in the aircrafts nav equipment, it may have been hours since they were last over land for a definite fix etc, etc
All these factors are thrown into the mix, and the standard is increased until the mathematical probability of two aircraft sharing the same piece of airspace, if all the holes line up, is so outrageously large that it would be like winning Lotto two weeks running. This also keeps the insurers happy, they like numbers.
Please don't be thinking that $100 million dollars is being thrown at ADS-B on a " Geez that seems a good idea, we'll give that a whirl".
This thread has been linked to the SeaSprite unfairly, I am sure everyone is aware of the politicking that goes on when defence spending happens (not inferring anything with SeaSprite), build a piece in my electorate, cosy job afterwards with defence contractors, general stupidity, etc.
I really don't see the parallels here, you attack JMs argument by inferring he has a vested interest, he denies this, but you won't leave off. What of the others who have made good points?