Folks,
A fundamental point that some (most) of you have missed, is that there has NEVER been a collision risk probability to justify ADS-B in any airspace, and this comment is not geographically confined to Australia.
ADS-B is NOT for collision risk reduction, it is a tool for ATC separation, just like radar or procedural separation. Given Australia's traffic levels, as an ATC tool it is "nice to have", but has never been in the category of "must have".
Indeed, in a cost/effectiveness (NOT cost benefit) analysis, whether in US or Australia, ADS-B comes up well, the ATC service provider can slash infrastructure costs, effectively transferring hundreds of millions of $$$ cost onto the operators, whilst still providing the same service as SSR.
All the
PR about "improved efficiency" for airlines is pure flummery, at least FAA is honest about this, Airservices is, in my opinion, not honest in its claims for ADS-B.
Clearly, most of you do not know the history, or have forgotten, particularly the several CASA attempts at a cost/benefit analysis to justify ADS-B. See if you can find a copy, you will be surprised at the nonsense. As for the RIS, what a joke in very poor taste.
In fact, it would be wonderful if there was enough GA traffic to warrant ADS-B ---- but that is so far from reality. Surely most of you have realised that the largely CASA induced collapse of GA is not just the whinging of a few malcontents, but is all too real --- as reflected in collapsing avgas sales and ever decreasing movement rates in the bottom end of GA.
And some turkey here wants to mandate ADS-B IN and OUT for everything, including VFR aircraft ---- get real !!!
Tootle pip!!