Isn't this all about PBN? If you want access to airspace then you need the appropriate kit, be that radio, transponder, altimeter (RVSM), ADSB.
My whole point is that AsA are alone in the world in requiring ADS-B for OCTA airspace under 10,000ft. All IFR aircraft will be required to undergo what will frequently be a $25,000 upgrade regardless of the airspace they use. VFR aircraft in the same airspace are not required to do the upgrade. Safety is only as good as the weakest link.
Unlike some I see value in updating and reinvesting in GA
Jaba, I don't actually disagree. But I'm angry at the intellectually sloppy way in which CASA / AsA is implementing this. It looks to me like 406 Mhz ELT's and Part 61 licences all over again.
AND except for the odd transit through a terminal area, I will receive NO safety or efficiency benefit. Because the IFR flights I do are primarily in class G airspace, ATC have zero ability to provide better separation or traffic advice because VFR, RA(Aus) and gliding traffic will not be similarly equipped.
Last year about halfway to Mildura while I was in cloud and solid IMC I was given a traffic warning of a VFR aircraft flying a non ICAO level opposite direction at the same level - 8,000 ft & class G from memory. (how it was VFR, I have no idea). This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.
Also last year in Class E airspace somewhere west of Ballarat while I was cruising in VMC on an IFR plan at 9,000 ft I had a nearish miss (alerted by ATC) with a homebuilt RV with a non functioning (or turned off) transponder once again flying opposite direction at a non ICAO level. This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.
Probably the closest call I have had was some years ago during a MECIR renewal near Latrobe Valley. We were on an IFR plan and starting the descent for the GPSS RNAV. The weather was VFR, but we were in an out of cloud a bit on the descent. We were on an IFR plan and in contact with ATC. Due to some bad luck with timing and a frequency change both the chopper and us we missed each others calls and for reasons unknown we never received an alert from the controller. We passed within metres of the VFR chopper (and yes, the incident was reported). This situation will not change on 2 Feb 2017. I will have no safety improvement in this situation from fitting ADS-B.
ADS-B is effectively an additional tax on me flying IFR.
I did find the AsA report "justifying" the costs and I think its laughable.
1. If you add up the costs to industry (presented in a way that scatters them through the document) then you pretty much get the $120m that AsA is saving. Therefore, this is just a way of transferring public expenditure to private aircraft owners.
2. One of my favourite bits is that they have used the 5.5% reported fuel savings they got from airlines and applied it to the GA fleet.
3. There is no distinction between C129a GPS units and C146a units. There is no discussion (or costs included) from the upgrade of C129a GPS units to C146a units required for ADS-B fitment.
4. There is general discussion about the feasibility of using C129a GPS units coupled to Mode S ES transponders to reduce installation cost (used in an abstract manner to mitigate the overall cost), yet this now seems to have been dropped completely from the debate.
5. The IFR fleet size used in the cost calculation of PBN equipment is different than that used for ADS-B upgrade. One of the figures is wrong.
6. There is no genuine discussion of alternatives. Top of this list would be a discussion of the option of implementing ADS-B in a similar manner as Europe or Canada (both using ES without the benefit of UAT) and both of which excluded GA.
7.Unlike the US, there has been no recognition or discussion regarding either the cost of upgrade compared with hull value or the ability of the industry to pay.
8. Unlike the US there has been no discussion about the feasibility or safety benefits of adopting ADS-B IN to allow the provision of traffic information.
9. The whole of the paper focuses on the reduced costs that AsA will incur from the implementation but (unlike the US version) presents virtually no discussion on the impact to industry.