The JCP is a marriage of convenience of ADS-B and Navaid replacement. One about 60M one about 30M from memory? But, either could be done INDEPENDENT of the other. Just convenient to mix them because ------
James, my dear chap, absolute rubbish.
It is completely improper to run the line that has been around since the first CASA ADS-B CBA, and came from the ASA project team in the first place, it goes like the this:
(1) We, Australia, who are going to lead the world on ADS-B, and need a large installed base,particularly to help promote export ASA "services" and to;
(2) Claim to the world what a good idea it is (and it is, where it has a useful purpose), but;
(3) We forecast that Australian owners will not spend the money, because they can see little, if any, benefit, because there isn't, so;
(4) We need to force a widespread base of ADS-B, to show the rest of the world what a good idea it is, particularly if you (a sovereign nation) contract with ASA to provide the "knowhow", based on the widespread "successful adoption" in Australia, ergo;
(5) We must have a "mandate", pass regulations to legally force the widespread adoption of ADS-B, but;
(
6) There is a very big fly in the ointment, which is;
(7) The Productivity Commission required (mandates) justification of all regulation, and Little Johnny, (remember him) ran an inquiry, which created the OBPR, the Office of Best Practice Regulation, the ORR, Office of Regulation Review on steroids, which, amongst other matters;
(8) Reinforced required substantial Cost/Benefit justification,so;
(9) As a result of the ORR, later OBPR requiring CBA, the (then) CASA airspace mob had this great idea, which was;
(10) If we mandate ADS-B with the (now) specifications, that will mean a forced widespread adoption of C-146/146 equipped GPS systems, which means;
(11) ASA can pull a bunch of navaids, and;
(12) We can (quite improperly) claim the costs savings as being attributed to ADS-B, when;
(13) It is nothing of the sort, it is a benefit of C-145/146 GPS, which is in no way dependent on ADS-B.
In short, the Government policies which are meant to protect us from excessive and/or unjustified regulation, and the often/usually horrendous cost of same, were largely ignored. "Decisions" were "made", then there was (and is an ongoing) unholy scramble to cobble up any justification for the unjustifiable.
I don't envy the present Board and management of ASA unscrambling this one, the GRAS ambitions are the first to go.
If proper process had been and continued to be observed (without ASA ambitions to be big players in the CNS/ATM export market) we would have
still has the high level ADS-B rollout, because that was a service enhancement, agreed between ASA and its major customers.
James, of the rose colored glasses ---- "please explain" how NZ replaced their SSR heads so cheaply (fact), compared to the costs claimed in the JCP and previous documents.
Even allowing the ASA SSR replacement estimates being accurate, (which certainly seem to suggest our NZ peers are much better at getting a $$$$ good deal) as you are unwilling to accept, the savings on the ASA bottom line were sod all, and unlikely to be achieved in the real world --- especially after all the bonuses for such wonderful estimated savings were paid.
Pardon? Would it have anything to do with both getting ADS-B but IFR getting TSOP 146 navigator subsidy for the NAVAID replacement?
You really have no idea about C-145 v. C-146, do you!
All you can do is parrot the technical errors in the JCP.
There is absolutely nothing VFR v. IFR in C-145 v.146. Do you really think that, if I turn up with an IFR aircraft that has C-145 GPS engines in the IFR fit, I will only get the 'VFR' subsidy ---- if there are ever any subsidies.
Your post was at 16:38. Perhaps check mine at 16:00
Cute little fellow, aren't you, James ---- why don't you put up the ASA diagram showing the estimated no. of ground stations to produce 5000' coverage across Australia, it so well illustrates the improbability of widespread low level ADS-B coverage.
Did you say ASA had kiboshed WAAS? I know they have kiboshed GRAS. More info (as I value much of your research, sorry Bing
)
Oh, dear, you really haven't been doing your homework, have you, or you don't remember ( or didn't understand what you were told by ASA at Narromine), didn't you know about the report commissioned by (then) DOTARS (BAH) because WAAS has widespread uses, beyond ASA "paying customers" ----- And just who prevailed on DOTARS to seek wider opinion than ASA on WAAS.
Haven't your good mates in YSCB told you the results ? I though you were "in the know".
If you really thought out of your box, you would understand why the WAAS coverage contract was moved (not the "new" Japanese bird) east to another satellite, and that coverage now misses Australia.
UAT was invented BEFORE ADS-B
OZBD,
I have never said otherwise, UAT and VDL1/2 emerged from the ICAO requirement for a broadband datalink, and that was a interesting piece of forward thinking, at the time. As you are probably aware, VDL-4 is VDL-2 plus the ADS-B component, and is in day to day use in NW Europe. Interestingly, the US Marines have adopted VDL-4 for their range datalink, and it is the basis of a number of Runway Incursion Monitor systems in US.
As to UAT, that is/was the whole point of having a
Universal
Access
Tranceiver, all sorts of communications, of which ADS-B information is but one use. UAT is an application of the Qualcomm CDMA data format.
TSO145 chipsets ARE available
Again, never said otherwise, it is the $$$$$ that is the issue, compared to the fanciful claims of our mate James, of an all singing and dancing but unnamed TSO's ADS-B IN and OUT for AUD$10,000.
Mode A,C,S 1090ES DO260A transponders are avilable right now
Again, never said otherwise, it is the $$$$$ that is the issue, would you like to quote a price for this device, I know roughly how much the Garmin is/will be, likewise the Collins TDR-94D -800 #.
As a matter of interest, anything that fits the KT 76 slot (without major modification)
can't meet the present regulations CASA have published, without an exemption that seriously compromises the performance, but I will leave you to work out why.
And finally, does Aus GA need a unique broadband service
Nope, never said they did, but airlines do.
You are aware, are you, of the SITA/ARINC VDL-2 network well on the way, to succeed ACARS, due the bandwidth limitations of ACARS ----- and the FAA/Eurocontrol "mandate" to transfer most/all high level and most else routine voice comms. to datalink, due running out of frequencies/channels.
ICAO had this one right in the first place some 20 years ago, short term thinking ( a common problem) has got us into this position, yet again the "cheap and easy" solution is turning out to be very expensive for everybody, especially airlines.
Tootle pip !!