Blockla, thanks for the really good post. What you are saying is that there is a really good cost benefit reason for introducing an ADS-B mandate above FL290 in Australia seven years ahead of the USA.
If this is so – and I’m happy to accept that it is so – why hasn’t there been a cost benefit study done to show this? The regulatory impact statement that was used to go to the mandate above FL290 actually showed the cost savings of not replacing radar units. This is completely false as Airservices has made the decision to replace the radars as required.
You are saying that by going to ADS-B, we will save on ATC staffing, we will gain efficiency etc. Well, put it in a simple study. Show the cost (i.e. it is estimated between $20 million and $40 million to upgrade the fleet) and show the benefits.
Don’t you think it is strange that no one has done this simple study? It is almost the same as the reluctance to use the establishment and disestablishment formula for Class D towers. This was used to close Mt Isa tower and Wagga tower. It is no longer used because I understand it would clearly show that places like Ayers Rock, Avalon, Broome and Karratha require a Class D tower.
The longer the Office of Airspace Regulation continues to manipulate figures to the profit benefit of Airservices and the airlines, the greater the risk will be of an unnecessary accident.