QUOTE]Any chance you could now compare those 4 countries level of surveillance coverage?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that is possible from publicly available data.
Its hard enough finding what I did. And once you get into ICAO minutes you're eyes cross. In part the lack of information I suspect its a reflection that most of the rest of the world doesn't attach the significance to ADS-B that we do. But my guess is that Canada might be quite similar to Australia in terms of surveillance coverage and implementing ADS-B domestically is not even on their agenda.
However, I will counter with the question whether ADS-B will make any measurable improvement below 10,000ft (or maybe even F150) outside the J curve?
1. The traffic densities are very low and 2. Most of the traffic is VFR NOSAR NODETAILS and therefore ADS-B is not offering anything in terms of traffic separation or increased safety. ATC has bugger all value to the pilot in these areas and nearly everyone saves the money & aggravation.
Indeed I would go further and argue that ATC does not even represent a safety net for emergencies (outside the main population centres) since it doesn't monitor 121.5 and flightwatch is effectively disbanded. In the era of Sat phones, satellite trackers (eg Spot) and 406 MHz GPS EPIRBS, we are better off looking after ourselves.
The areas where ADS-B will make a big difference are the non radar coverage airports with RPT like Mildura & Albury where we should be slapped for not having put in radar decades ago.
Somewhat interestingly, the regional airline turboprops that operate in these airports that would greatly benefit from the additional safety of ADS-B are currently exempt from implementing ADS-B until 2017 since they typically operate below F280. Yet Dick's Citation can't transit through the ADS-B levels even in remote areas.
Once again, I support ADS-B. But it seems like we have made a mess of the implementation.
Why have we used altitude to define who needs ADS-B? Other countries have used airspace type (eg US) or flight type (eg RPT in Europe)?
Wouldn't it be more important to get all RPT on ADS-B than an IFR C-182?
After 2017 an IFR aircraft will require a $20,000 + ADS-B installation to fly from Mildura to Broken Hill at 3,000ft Why?
After 2017 an IFR aircraft will need ADSB to fly from Moorabbin to Essendon for an Essendon entry. Why? ( I can see more special VFR requests).
After 2017 if I fly from (say) JR's Lethbridge base to Temora for one of the museum fly-ins. There is a bit of weather around the Mountains, so rather than scud run, I'll put in an IFR plan (which surely is safer and should be encouraged). Its spring and the freezing level is a bit low, so I plan at 5,000 ft and go via Ballarat which keeps me under the steps then maybe Bendigo, Tocumwal, Temora. ADS-B will not improve my safety one iota. I will have potential VFR non ADS-B traffic scud running at various altitudes, Potential Non ADS-B traffic cruising VFR at (maybe) ICAO levels, Non RAA(Aus) traffic doing things that only they understand at any level, Non-ADSB gliders and potentially non-ADSB skydive aircraft. So, ATC cannot offer me any better separation or traffic advice that they can today. Why did I spend that $23,500 on the ADS-B upgrade?
A couple of flights ago I met an RV - without functioning mode C - cruising opposite direction at the IFR ICAO level of 9,000 ft while I was on an IFR plan. How does ADS-B improve this? Would I be better off with a $1,000 ZAON XRX?