Stoteria,
I agree that something is not quite right within ASA. Hard to put a finger on it but someone's left a prawn head under the couch somewhere.
Just one example of what just don't seem Kosher.
Originally, as I have been lead to believe, when discussions were being held regarding replacing some of the national radar network, someone pointed out that implementing a requirement for ADSB, and the government paying the bill to equip the entire Australian fleet was a cheaper option than replacing the radar.
Somehow or someone squashed that idea and the industry ended up being swindled out of a 100 million or so to save the government the cost of radar upgrades and enabled the Skull to crow at ICAO in Montreal, beating his chest and waving his willy, how Australia was leading the world .
The whole ADSB implementation has been a very costly exercise for industry, largely because, by leading the world, we found ourselves ahead of the technology. By being unique, the costs of installation were very much more expensive than they should have been and will continue to be in the future. Our world class maintenance reg's are not recognized overseas. Most of the unique Australian installations will have to be removed if the aircraft are to be ultimately sold offshore.
The FAA as I understand it in the US is subsidizing ADSB installation.
I also understand they will not be mandating it for all IFR aircraft. Given their traffic density compared to ours, seems a tad strange.
Guess that's what happens when "Foster and Promote" is included in their charter, they are required to look at the impact these sorts of things will have on their industry.
Our lot only look at the impact on directors bonuses.
Was a cost benefit for industry undertaken by ASA and CAsA on the impact on Industry of the ADSB implementation? If not why not?
How much of that 100 million or so swindled out of the industry got paid in directors bonuses?