Merged: ADSB

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Anybody know what's happened/happening with the Transition to Satellite Technology ADSB proposal which closed for comments back in 31-Oct-07 ?

According to the JCP timetable, 11 new enroute radars should have been ordered and the ADSB subsidy underway by now.

[Dick Smith]

Don't hold your breath! Surely someone in the know at AA can advise on what is going on. My guess is that the plan to subsidise GA was never a goer as no measurable safety issue was being addressed.

[werbil]

C1026/08
AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE BROADCAST SER (ADS-B) AVBL TO AUTHORISED ACFT OPR WI LINE OF SIGHT OF THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:

ALICE SPRINGS
BILLABONG (KALBARRI 012/055)
BOURKE
BROOME
BUNDABERG
ESPERANCE
KARRATHA
LONGREACH
TENNANT CREEK
THURSDAY ISLAND
WOOMERA

HIGH ALTITUDE COVERAGE DETAILS AVBL AT
WWW.AIRSERVICESAUSTRALIA.COM/ADSB/COVERAGE (http://WWW.AIRSERVICESAUSTRALIA.COM/ADSB/COVERAGE)


Would it be these eleven locations you are referring to (I know they are ADSB sites not radar)?

Safety benefit - if ATC can pass observed traffic in airspace near these aerodromes it has to be a benefit, benefit is restricted by number of aircraft fitted with ADS B-OUT though.

[Quokka]

Didn't you stop the Low-Level Project Dick... what was that I remember on a previous ADS-B thread about a particular letter to the Minister of the previous Government?

[Biggles_in_Oz]

It seems to have gotten quiet on the ADSB front.

Anybody know what's happening ? (behind the scenes).
(or has ASA and the minister become somewhat preoccupied with other issues, such as the lack of controllers)

[Flying Binghi]

Not another ADS-B thread....is it the quite time of week again ? :hmm:

[Dick Smith]

AsA claimed they had to have a final decision by the end of October.

By the look of it no one is game to say what is happening!

[Capn Bloggs]

The quicker it gets mandated the better!

[Bob Murphie]

If it's mandated before any subsidy evolves, you will surely pay for it. Then those private GA amateurs who pushed for the implementation will hopefully get lynched.

[james michael]

Bloggs

:ok:

Murphie

Only up to post 8 and the thread agro begins again :E

I would not call the airlines or DOTARS "private GA amateurs" :rolleyes:

Just to set the record straight anyway, I think you will find the GA position re mandate was conditional on the subsidy. Helps if one reads the JCP and the responses :rolleyes:

I'm told Free Flight are out here in a fortnight for an ADS-B meeting.

Also note another potential kick in the tum tum for UAT re WX - Avidyne are presenting on Sunday at RVAC re their satellite WX (including Oz I believe). With that and the FAA turning off TIS stations - UAT might be a lonely carrier ;) Just think if the USA put the extra $ for the dual system into one system and a GA subsidy :ugh:

[Bob Murphie]

If you maintain the AOPA position is the GA position you presume too much.

If the subsidy amounts to nothing do I assume AOPA then oppose ADSB?

It's too bloody late for opposition then isn't it? But you already know that.

If a mandate preceeds a subsidy owners will pay out of their own pockets.

Blokes like you need slapping with an article 12.

[Dick Smith]

I have just been in the USA and had good discussions with FAA experts and Phil Boyer from AOPA in Frederick regarding ADS-B. There are some really interesting things happening.

I will be giving the luncheon address at the Aircraft Electronics Association’s 2008 South Pacific meeting at the Novotel Palm Cove Resort near Cairns at 12.00 pm on Friday 14 November. I am happy to brief anyone at that time. Those interested might like to call me on 0408 640 221 or 02 9450 0600.

[james michael]

Murphie

For deity's sake, try reading the documentation before you shoot your keyboard off on here.

Where were you when your deity got us transponders in E paid for ex our own pockets? Searching for an article 12 perhaps :p

Go and have a read of the DOTARS comment re ADS-B and GNSS.

Your stance reminds me of a latter day King Canute. Try standing on the train line in front of the Spirit of Progress (quite an apt title, no?) and let us know how you go.

You know it is safe to rabbit on about ADS-B - because you know it IS going to happen. It's called technology. Does your crystal set tune to 121.5?

[james michael]

Dick

Probably many on here cannot make Cairns, so your notes on USA matters relevant to ADS-B will be welcomed either before or after your talk.

The ARC Report, which involved AOPA USA, was released on 26 September and no doubt generated a lot of interest. Given the conservative estimate of the cost to the USA aviation industry is USD $ 4.32 billion, we can probably expect many more interesting things to happen.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
There are some really interesting things happening.
Well, what are they?

[Flying Binghi]

Try standing on the train line in front of the Spirit of Progress (quite an apt title, no?) and let us know how you go.


LOL ...yes, most apt - The Spirit of Progress was driven by steam locomotives :hmm:

Spirit of Progress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Progress)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Avidyne are presenting on Sunday at RVAC re their satellite WX (including Oz I believe)

?? ........ but will Helga the Swedish backpacker read the weather to me?

Dr :8

[Dick Smith]

James Michael and Capn Bloggs, if you want to know what is actually happening in the USA from the information I received, it is quite simple – just give me a phone call (as many have) on 0408 640 221 or 02 9450 0600.

There is no way I am going to waste my time in giving the information to those who hide behind anonymity. For all I know, anonymous people on this post could be hand in hand with the Airservices management, whose remuneration is geared to the profits of Airservices – not to the interests of Australian aviation and air safety.

I have said before that I entirely support the requirement for anonymity in PPRuNe so frightened pilots can post important information that will further benefit Australian aviation. I certainly don’t support anonymity to talk about a scientific subject such as ADS-B. I am totally suspicious in this case that those who post anonymously have some sort of financial benefit to gain. In fact, I have very little doubt that many of them do.

[Jabawocky]

I am totally suspicious in this case that those who post anonymously have some sort of financial benefit to gain. In fact, I have very little doubt that many of them do.

Nope...Not me, nor any of the other pro ADSB'ers I know that post here. In fact the exact opposite.

J:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Touched a nerve, did I Dick? :)

I won't be taking you up on your phone call offer. My right ear has not recovered from the phone bashing it received from you over Airspace 2000 (Unicoms and Beepbacks, IIRC). I'm not going to risk the left. I might lose my medical! :ouch:

So I guess the ADSB secrets will have to remain secrets for a little bit longer. :confused:

[Biggles_in_Oz]

There is no way I am going to waste my time in giving the information to those who hide behind anonymity. For all I know, anonymous people on this post could be hand in hand with the Airservices management, whose remuneration is geared to the profits of Airservices – not to the interests of Australian aviation and air safety. Well Mr. Smith.., I'd like to preserve what little I still have of my anonymity.
I don't work for ASA, or in any aviation related industry, but as a GA aircraft owner I have to plan for, budget for, and schedule, any unplanned-for upgrades or refurbishments.
I doubt that my budget is as large as yours Mr Smith, meaning that I need reasonable advance notice of events which will significantly affect me., hence my questions as to what the bleep is bleeping happening with ADSB for GA.

[james michael]

BIO

Spot on. Dick has a secret - let's us all let him keep it. I'm anon and intend to remain that way. The next ABIT meeting is 9 December, let's get Dick to report back to us on what eventuates there. :}

[Flying Binghi]

ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT) (http://www.astra.aero/ABIT/terms_of_ref.aspx)

[Dick Smith]

As a strong and supportive member of AOPA, I find it fascinating that AOPA committee members do not post under their own names on this site.

For example, one of the strongest supporters of the Airservices ADS-B subsidy is Mr Brian Hannan. There could be no better place for Brian Hannan to communicate his views – both to AOPA members and to pilots in general – than on this site.

I put it to you Brian Hannan – why not post here under your own name and communicate just what you believe the advantages of the Airservices subsidy are? Please don’t hide behind anonymity. The reason you were elected as an AOPA committee member was so that you could show leadership and communicate members’ interests – not only to the membership but to the aviation industry in general.

[K-941]

why not post here under your own name and communicate just what you believe the advantages of the Airservices subsidy are?
Do you get their mag Dick? if so, you know the answer annway! How about you put up the info you supposedly have, in your name, and put on record what you reckon you know from Mr Boyer, and thus so that you could show leadership and communicate members’ interests – not only to the membership but to the aviation industry in general. Or havent you got the bottle anymore to have your input discussed?:=

[Dick Smith]

K-941 Give me a phone call- I don't have the time to put all the relevant info here.

You can phone me from a public phone and use a fake name if you are to scared to have yourself identified!!

This applies to Biggles as well.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, I am sure the moderators will explain the issue of AOPA on this site to you far better than I can.

Boyer is no longer the big cheese. He stood down a couple of months ago so he can now say what he likes because it no longer carries the weight of his former position. Much like yourself, Mr Smith:}

I have been offline for three weeks so I need to get up to speed. FAA has pulled TIS? That IS an interesting turn of events. A major plank of UAT is the ability to depict ALL transponder equipped aircraft positions from transmitted data. Take out TIS and all that is left is realtime METAR and NOTAM info. Expensive kit for that purpose. What are the bets UAT is going to be killed off some time soon?

Reading the the US JCP I got the distinct impression that some would like the FAA to keep UAT as the sole system for purely parocial reasons. Hopefully, that some is a very small sample.

[Dick Smith]

I did not just speak to Phil Boyer- my primary briefings were from those in charge of the AOPA position on ADSB.

I also spoke to FAA experts. The issue is complex and a disaster because of bureaucrats all around the world who appear to have no commonsense and rarely ask advice.

It is just like AsA - the people making the decision don't stand to lose if an error is made.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, I am not an expert in politics. I really do wonder what AOPA USA is discovering about championing a GA only system in an environment that could change to "User Pays".




EDIT- to add. The FAA would be annoyed that the rest of the world didn't choose their system like they did with DME.

[VP AOPA]

Mr Smith

Your earlier post has been drawn to my attention.

To answer your question there are several reasons why I do not intend to post AOPA business on Pprune.

The first is that this is not the place to conduct AOPA business. That has been the cause of unnecessary angst in past times on Pprune plus work for the moderators. If you wish to conduct business with AOPA as a member, you know the way.

The second is my opinion of unsolicited past comments you have made by email and on Pprune concerning me and the AOPA Board. You have previously been advised of my sentiments by email.

The third, and most important to me, is that my AOPA priorities are not focussed on your fishing expeditions on this website. My spare AOPA energy is directed to re-establishing AOPA credibility with industry, our membership, and our finances following the near bankruptcy and member walkout as a consequence of events before my time involving some (un-named) who allowed egos and excesses free rein.

Finally, had you bothered to gather facts before making your post, you would have found it is AOPA Board policy not to post AOPA business on this forum. That agreement is mutually agreed with the moderators in the common interest, although I retain this user name in the (rare) event of a major issue needing an announcement.

The agreement is also a concession to other users of Pprune who do not wish organisational politics to disturb their 'quiet enjoyment' hereon. (Hint). Should they need my thoughts on ADS-B, my email and phone are available via the AOPA magazine.

I will be at the next ABIT meeting with other industry players. No doubt I will see you there.

[Dick Smith]

Which VP are you?

Can anyone go to the next ABIT meeting or is there still a very selective invite list ie is Bob Murphy welcome?

[james michael]

Dick

Am I confused?

You state The issue is complex and a disaster because of bureaucrats all around the world who appear to have no commonsense and rarely ask advice.So, I check the AOPA USA site and find they have written supporting ADS-B in line with the recommendations of the FAA ARC Report.

Then I note you mention the forthcoming Oz ABIT meeting - a get together of industry people to debate and provide constructive advice - to the bureaucrats who rarely ask :rolleyes: it no less.

YOU are making the issue more complex. The ADS-B proposal in the USA has no comparison or relevance to the Australian proposal except they both use the term ADS-B.

Should the cross industry funding vanish, the mandate be withdrawn, a dual system with a transition level be mooted, Oz suddenly experience the 1090 congestion affecting several areas of the USA, and our airspace and constitution change - then perhaps at that time there would be something to consider from the USA experience.

You owe me an apology for the damage I did to myself falling over laughing There is no way I am going to waste my time in giving the information to those who hide behind anonymity.

Best make sure you get the names of everyone you address at the AEA Conference if that's the case. Might be an anon Murphie in the audience, powered by JetA1.

But, at least we got the interesting information you wanted to give us after your USA trip - you are guest speaker at a conference. Congratulations. ;)

[Bob Murphie]

Just so we know who may be the anon AOPA VP;

AOPA Australia Online (http://aopa.com.au/about-aopa/the-directors/)

Both have "form" on Pprune.

[Dick Smith]

The cross industry funding was never a goer because Qantas has never agreed.

And we all know who runs aviation in Australia.

I believe the funding proposal was an astute way of getting the GA industry to say they supported ADSB.

Then ,of course it is found that the subsidy is not possible however because of previous announcements of support from GA the mandate goes ahead anyway.

The result? Less people fly and are employed in GA because of even higher costs and more people are forced to fly with Qantas and the other airlines.

[james michael]

The cross industry funding was never a goer because Qantas has never agreed.

Can we have a copy of the cite or do we have to attend your Cairns presentation?

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Not quite sure I understand what the big deal is, this is a changing industry, was there a subsidy for installation of TSO GPSs into aircraft or for the removal of the old OZ DME system ?.

Sounds like crying poor to me, if an operator can not absorb the small cost of an ADSB unit how can they possibly afford an unplanned engine or SIDS ?.

Most private aircraft owners will grumble, but do not have closed minds and will see the benefit to such technology and will have ADSB installed next time their transponder makes smoke.

Harden the f*** up.

James, would we be using TERM ADSB at place like Tamworth ?.

[Dick Smith]

Yair Everyone, including the owners of piper cubs and microlights should be able to afford the $10k plus installation. They should also eat cake.

Of course we won't require Airlines of 10 to 30 pax to fit TCAS as required by ICAO and every other modern aviation country in the world as they clearly can't afford it !

Nor do we ask Qantas to pay the $350 per hour for the tower to be manned for their 1.5m pax per year at Avalon because they only made $1.4 billion last year

One law for the powerful, another law for the weak.

[Dick Smith]

There is no copy because they have astutely never agreed to the subsidy.

What are the odds that within the next few weeks an announcement will be made that the low level subsidy will not be going ahead as proposed?

Of course Qantas will not be mentioned but many will know who vetoed the proposal.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Dick,

I sincerly hope industry is able to secure the subsidy, aren't you an ADSB nay sayer ?.

If the subsidy does or does not occur, when ADSB happens it will considerably reduce the chances of accidents between IFR aircraft and anyone else.

Yair ?.

The cheaper ADSB unit ( the sleeper type unit in the back ), will be considerably cheaper than $10K, won't it Dick ?.

Like all technology it will get cheaper as it is more commonly used and more providers enter the market, why not go and talk to your mates at Uniden, a joint venture you could personally make some cash from ?.

[Dick Smith]

I believe ADSB is fantastic but I do not know of the safety issue that is being addressed with the $100 million subsidy.

As far as I know there has never been an accident between an IFR and a VFR aircraft in our history and if that is a measurable risk it is well served by proven TCAS and a transponder together with radio and dare I say it, also looking out.

There is no ADSB "in" unit anywhere in the world that gives a Resolution Advisory - so why not at least use proven TCAS/Transponder equipment first.

That is unless it is imperative the VFR aircraft appears on the AsA screen so some form of "service" and charge can be given.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Dick,

There is no way GA will support TCAS in all aircraft.

All going to ADSB plus high performance aircraft equiped with TCAS plus ATC providing separation and known traffic plus MSAW/RAM plus appropriate proceedures OCTA is a considerably good compromise to all of Australia being under RADAR coverage in Class E and all aerodromes being Class C with services.

[Dick Smith]

Lefty, You do not appear to understand risk management.

We do not have radar over places like Birdsville or the Simpson Desert because the cost would mis-allocate our scarce safety dollars.

It is the same with ADSB.

If the $100m can potentially save more lives if spent elsewhere thats what should happen.

There has never been a plan to put all of Australia under Radar coverage so no compromise is necessary.

[james michael]

Dick

As a child I loved fairytales, as an adult I have grown out of them.

There is no ADSB "in" unit anywhere in the world that gives a Resolution AdvisoryAnd see and be seen DOES give a RA based on your logic?

A unit that provides an audio alert - e.g. traffic 3 o'clock high - does not fit into your version of safety? Did we not have a fatal at MB only recently?

ADS-B allows pilots to control their risk. I knows this goes against your philosophy that your hand must be held by ATC, but there are lots of places outside and inside ATC cover that ALERTED (by ADS-B IN) see and be seen would have averted crashes. Not to include ADS-B on the ground.

And this is a gem
Qantas will not be mentioned but many will know who vetoed the proposalFrom the ABIT site that Bing so astutely pointed out to us - some extracts of the June 2008 Minutes:

Nick King clarified that committing to Phase 1 is agreeing by September to go ahead with the ADS-B mandate equivalent to the current transponder requirement, subsidies and back up network.

John Crane said that there are statements in the Issues Paper suggesting Australia does not have a strategic plan for aviation. This is untrue. The ASTRA ATM Strategic Plan has been followed for a number of years and ICAO/IATA have even used this plan as a template for their own strategic planning. Further, the meeting has just accepted the proposal to split the work of the ATLAS Project into 2 phases and commence work on Phase 1 as soon as possible. This, of course, will be predicated on the Minister’s approval. If the Minister does not approve the implementation of the project prior to the window of opportunity closing resulting the in the replacement of radars becoming necessary, will industry still be required to pay for it and if so, why, when we have agreed to proceeding with ATLAS?

David Oliver endorsed John Crane’s comments. For the last 2 years, industry has been fully behind the proposals presented today. If this opportunity is missed, it will be 20 years before the technology can be embraced and implemented. To do nothing is to crucify the aviation industry in this country. David Oliver requested that these comments and sentiments be taken back to the Minister. Jim Wolfe agreed to do so.

Attendees list extract:
John Crane, VB
David Oliver, Qantas Airways

Sole Action Item:
Jim Wolfe : Take back Qantas & Virgin comments and sentiments to the Minister.

Dick, that reads to ME that QF and VB are supporting the cross industry funding. What book is your fairytale coming from?

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Lefty, You do not appear to understand risk management.


Uh huh.....

[james michael]

LHR

Tamworth undoubtedly. If you think it through, Airservices would be well advised toi equip Unicom with a non-compliant (i.e. cheap but OK) ADS-B IN receiver to provide "enhanced situational awareness".

There was an incident at Dubbo last week with an o/g (de-identified) and an i/b RPT where radio was lacking, see and be seen lacking, and when the o/g turned on his txpdr after Unicom alert to the RPT and a call from the RPT to the o/g - lo and behold the o/g turned up on the TCAS.

Totally disproves Dick's theory.

The other gap in Dick's theory is the probability versus the consequence. The probability is low but the consequence is high. But, we can ignore that can we not because "it has not happened". I guess most people who die in an accident have not been killed in one previously either :ugh:

[Dick Smith]

I have spoken to a number of people who went to that meeting who claim they were opposed to the decision but did not speak up and say so.

Why? Probably the same reason you do not post under your real name on PPRUNE.

You may have noticed the "group think" of the meeting- that is not one person stood up and spoke against the proposal even though you would see on this site alone there are some opposed.

I have spoken to senior people at Qantas and it is clear that Qantas is not supporting the subsidy as proposed.

I am sure you can understand that the Qantas man at the meeting would have been lynched if he had been the lone dissenter.

And don't believe for a second that the Radars can't be maintained for decades- the whole basis for the AsA claim that a decision must be made by September.

Once AsA went down the track of excluding anyone from the consultation process who had a differing view they were on a path to failure. Just look at the way they treat there own staff- particularly their ATC's who earn most of the income

[Flying Binghi]

the probability versus the consequence. The probability is low but the consequence is high. But, we can ignore that can we not because "it has not happened".

.........Soooooo, james michael, you now agree that the terrorist miss-use of GPS will have a big impact on an ADS-B/GPS reliant Oz airspace system :hmm:

[Dick Smith]

The meeting you quote from states that it is a reqirement to be "committed to phase 1 by September"

Have you not noticed it is now November and no decision has been announced?

Why havn't AsA at least said something about the delay?

I know why but I will look forward to your explanation.

[Bob Murphie]

VP AOPA;

Your statement is that it is not board policy to post AOPA business on Pprune, I reasonably assume your earlier post is on behalf of AOPA under the terms of your own constitution, and has the full support of all board members.

That same concession is not allowed to individual directors making expressions in the public domain.

Your policies and actions at ABIT meetings impact upon others within the sector that does not concern itself with fare paying GA operations, including many, many, non AOPA members.

I note from james michael in his “research” that it is current AOPA policy to support the introduction of ADSB but is dependant upon the subsidy to GA.

Would you please put on record the Policy AOPA will adopt if no ADSB subsidy eventuates.

[james michael]

Rupert

Based on your post (il)logic and (in)accuracy recently, fly without me aboard.

You are running a scare mongering campaign of rhetoric - "I've spoken to", "I don't get told" and so on - but by golly, I know it all.

So you argue that I am sure you can understand that the Qantas man at the meeting would have been lynched if he had been the lone dissenter.You know, Rupert, when I'm the "Lone Dissenter" (Hi ho, Silver) I tend to go quiet and dissent by not supporting. Seems to work. But here is the QF Rep showing his "dissent" by demanding QF sentiment be taken back to the Minister - to proceed.

Wow, Imagine if he had supported the JCP. He's have gone quiet on your logic.

Earlier today more scaremongering - and worse than baseless Everyone, including the owners of piper cubs and microlights should be able to afford the $10k plus installationCan you explain to us the requirement to be IN the mandate - something about transponder was it not?

Bing

Well played. But I still don't agree. The USA cannot turn off Galileo remember. And Galileo may well play a larger part in Oz GPS matters than we thought ;)

[Dick Smith]

It's Dick, not Rupert- I know how you like to be accurate!

The second stage of the mandate was for all aircraft that now require radio to have ADSB.

Are you now suggesting that only the first stage is being considered?

And if Qantas support the subsidy why is it that they do not put anything in writing nor make any public statement about this?

Surely, if they really believed in this proposal they would say something in relation to claims (not just from myself)-that they do not.

And it looks like Qantas do not support the proposal as the "drop dead" date claimed by AsA for the decision is now well passed.

When there is no real leadership the result is SILENCE.

[werbil]

Thread drift - mandatory TCAS fitment to GA - that would cause some frequency congestion on the 1090 band - even at the Birdsville Races!

If I understand correctly, TCAS sends an interrogation pulse every second, to which every aircraft in range responds to. Thus the number of responses is proportional to the square of the number of aircraft within range of each other - ie 50 aircraft in an area equals 2,500 transmissions per second.

ADSB ES as I understand sends a location transmission every second. The number of responses is equal to the number of aircraft - ie 50 aircraft equals 50 transmissions per second. Admittedly, the transmissions are longer (the ES bit), but they are only transmitted once per second.

A new specification for TCAS could design it to work with ADS-B ES to dramatically reduce the number of responses to TCAS, and as a bonus allow lateral resolution advisories to be offered in conjunction with the existing vertical ones.

If every country waited on other countries to introduce new designs aviation would not exist and we would be still adding up on our fingers. ADSB ES enables a number of solutions to improve ATC, TCAS, CFIT prevention, traffic awareness and SAR efforts, however some international standardisation is required otherwise the wheel will be reinvented numberous times with slight variations. If opportunities are always passed up we will continue to be tied to 1940s technology such as AM VHF for aircraft radio telephony, SSR for aircraft monitoring and US units of measurement.

[peuce]

Dear Moderators ...


I'll tell you what ... I'm really getting tired of Dick & Co trying to "out" everyone who posts anonomously on this Board.:(

I challenge the Moderators to bar these posters ... OR CHANGE THE RULES !

Is it an anonomous forum or not ?

[james michael]

Werbil

:ok:

Dilbert

I felt if you were going to have an identity mix-up/crisis day I should join in :hmm:

Are you now suggesting that only the first stage is being considered?Obviously you have been too busy "talking" to the gurus to read the current position. Answer "YES".

second stage of the mandate was for all aircraft that now require radio to have ADSB.Exactly. And that stage is stalled due to failure to reach agreement. But please note that FITTED WITH is not REQUIRED. Forget scare mongering about trikes.

Returning to your identity crisis, and with no intention of stealing the thunder of the moderators:
1. My name is James Michael. You will find it beside each post.
2. You have chosen to make certain inferences otherwise.
3. The bottom of each thread has a clear message in red.
4. The senior local moderator is quite specific in his guidelines, viz:
PPRuNe user's identities are sacrosanct, protected by PPRuNe and users are guaranteed anonymity.

We will not allow any speculation on the identity of users, whether ******* or any other user.

I take a very dim view of ******* post and the subsequent speculation - regardless of whether a name was posted or not.

Please respect other user's privacy.

5. I draw the above to your attention so you may decide whether to abide by the rules of this forum or act differently in the belief you are above them. You have persisted in denigrating anon users and trying to probe identities - you continue to do so now in the clear knowledge it is in breach of the rights of your fellow users and the rules.

Or perhaps you are a victim of your earlier quote today One law for the powerful, another law for the weak. :suspect:

Edited to add:
Peuce
:ok::ok: (Watch the thread vanish) :mad:

[Capn Bloggs]

James for Mod! :ok:

I couldn't let this one from Dick pass:
excluding anyone from the consultation process who had a differing view they were on a path to failure.
:=

[Bob Murphie]

Can we assume then, in the absence of contradictory statement, that AOPA support ADSB irrespective of whether it is mandated with a subsidy or not?

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Without trying to anger any individual, who cares what AOPA thinks ?, what ASA is doing is more relevant, i.e. actually installing ADSB stations all over Australia.

Industry consultation only works to a point, then the government department will ultimately do what it see's fit.

[Dick Smith]

James, I did not know that humour and a bit of fun was banned!

Why not get back to the important point that started this thread - what has happened the ADSB decision?

Why hasn't AsA or CASA or "THE DEPARTMENT" given a hint on why this important decision has been delayed. Or was the AsA September date a furphy?

Why is it that you appeared just a few months ago to run AsA "spin".

Why don't they (AsA) tell us the truth-ie the real reason for the lack of a decision. Why should this be a secret?

[james michael]

Dick

In order of your sentences

1. Humour and a bit of fun are not banned, and I don't make the rules. You were not the least into humour and a bit of fun and I believe your recurrent breach of the rules would have gained me a thread holiday if in your place. :E

2 & 3. Hooray. And see below.

4. Why I appeared is my business. What you do (within reasonableness) is yours. What you see as "ASA spin" might be seen by others as logical and sound for the future of GA in Oz. What I see as "Dick-spin" might be positive to you and to me detrimental - we each have our own beliefs.

5. (and picking up the promise from 2 & 3 above).

Please, please, please :{ read the relevant material. Read what the Minister's representative said in June:

Bill Sims (Dept of Infrastructure) commented that the tide cannot be turned back now – ADS-B and GNSS already exist and are already in the market. He continued that the Department wants to take ADS-B and GNSS further. We are locked into a process and therefore we are committed to let the Government have a say as well as the industry. Nobody in the Department misunderstands the urgency of decision making.

Michael Kus stated that ABIT/GIT had been given the views of Airservices, CASA and Defence and asked if the Department would endorse the proposal to proceed with Phase 1 of the Project. Jim Wolfe responded that a document outlining the Department’s position would need to be endorsed by the APG at the CEO level. He stated “the Department has no difficulty with the wider application of ADS-B.”

Jim Wolfe responded that it was a legislative requirement to have the safety regulator, (CASA), sign off on a regulatory mandate and that Government involvement was required wherever a proposed change would have implications for Defence, and where it had other financial implications then the Finance Minister, Treasurer and ultimately the Prime Minister all would likely be involved. It is wrong for the industry to think otherwise.

Now, Dick, do you believe ASA staff are able to answer for the eminent underlined group above and keep their jobs afterward? Or answer for the timeline of getting the documentation through the various external underlined Departments involved?

And, could we suggest that further delay may have occurred by one who lobbied for the radars to be kept running in parallel with ADS-B for the first few years :confused:

[Much Ado]

Mr Smith is having a 3 day break from Pprune to reflect on the exact meaning of Anonymous.

[peuce]

Dick ... humour, my arse:p

P.S. If I want to know ASA's position on an issue, I'll look at their website, write to them or phone them ... If I want to see AOPA's position, I'll go to their website or read their magazine etc ... If I want to know Kevin Rudd's position, I'll ask his wife/partner ...

On PPRUNE, I want to hear what fellow aviators think and have to say.
It's all opinions ... no laws are created here ... no regulations drafted ... no budgets forecast ... just a bunch of aviators chewin' the fat .

Go elsewhere if you want to read Moses' tablets ... don't hassle us:=

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/grinser/grinning-smiley-010.gif
.
.
Take a copy of this thread folks http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/grinser/grinning-smiley-028.gif
.
.
http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[K-941]

K-941 Give me a phone call- I don't have the time to put all the relevant info here. Bullcrap. Marilyn is able and versed in PPRuNe use. She has posted in her name and in your stead many times! I don’t have the time awwww sssssure! You can phone me from a public phone and use a fake name if you are to scared to have yourself identified!! Scared of you? Not likely tool! I have made you crystal clear on more than one occasion why I think you are a totally self focused, grandstanding boil on the arse of aviation. Here is a prediction! You, as one of cast members of ‘The Fallacious Five’ – being a cheap Aussie re-run of ‘Back To The Future’, are on the watch list!

Not in our life times, NEVER AGAIN!

[Bob Murphie]

K941.

"fallacious five"?- When did your spin become truth?

вредоносные трус к gulags с вами

[jeta108]

peuce. On PPRUNE, I want to hear what fellow aviators think and have to say.- No you don't. You and some others have a preconceived idea that rejects other input. If james michael has an identity to protect that is of such concern that AOPA have to intervene, one or both should sue Mr Smith. At least his identity is known.

[peuce]

Welcome to PPRUNe jeta108 ...

I'm amazed at how quickly you have worked me out ... or, at least, think you have. If you hang around a bit longer you might find out that I carefully consider reasoned argument and that I enjoy objective debate. You'll also find that I have agreed with Mr Smith on occassions (rarely).

I belong to no aviation body, nor do I work for any aviation based organisation.... so I have no agendas ...not many here who can say that !

What I don't tolerate are pretend debaters who, when they can't sway others with their arguments, drag out the ... "you're only a mouthpiece for so and so organisation" ... or " how can we believe you because you won't state your name" ... surely you agree that's a sure sign that they have given up on rational argument.

Unfortunately, you appear to be starting off on the wrong foot too. Your statement... " If james michael has an identity to protect that is of such concern that AOPA have to intervene, one or both should sue Mr Smith. At least his identity is known .." places you fairly and squarely in my list of those who've appeared to have "given up".

Please prove me wrong and post some objective opinions ... so I can consider them.

[james michael]

Peuce

Well picked - but not worth the effort really.

If you use the "check all posts by this poster" you won't have any difficulty gaining the "form" of JetA with 99% certainty. He comes "russian" in whenever there is a chance to denigrate a certain aviation organisation or try and link myself to it.

As a clear note of his deliberate intent, if anyone reads the post by the AOPA VP mentioned by JET (as I just went back and did, Post 30 refers) - it is a response by the VP AOPA to Dick Smith as to why AOPA will not be posting on Pprune. Got nothing to do with me or my identity.

Readers will note that the poster in question has to adopt (another) anon identity to disrupt the thread. Pots calling kettles black come to mind.

It's a pity some loser not associated with the abovementioned organisation keeps dragging its name up on here. I felt the AOPA position stated made a lot of sense for peace and quiet on Pprune.

Today is the Avidyne demo at RVAC MB and I'm hoping for a report on what ensued, including satellite WX for Australia (well, if you have an Avidyne screen).

My own research is that few are keen to pay for WX in the cockpit. perhaps due to our AERIS / ATC / AWIS syatems and our terrain / wx mix.

[jeta108]

james michael. You have, and continue in an attempt to 'out' me. My identity is easily noted by the moderators in my email register. What's your point other than acting like some schoolboy tattletale prat. Your last post does nothing to enrich the thread topic and your hypocrisy is noted.

peuce. I have read some of your prior posts. I agree with your sentiments regarding consideration of reasoned arguement. Perhaps I was hasty.

What I don't tolerate are pretend debaters who, when they can't sway others with their arguments, drag out the ... "you're only a mouthpiece for so and so organisation" .

You could also add to that statement those that drag out the..."you're only a disruptive mouthpiece bent on capitalising whenever there is a chance to denigrate a certain aviation organisation

Those posters I can't tolerate.

I have been around for quiet some time. Ask anyone who knows me if I ever give up.

[james michael]

Jetski

Easily solved and brings peace to all on here - try not popping up for a month about AOPA matters, their directors, etc.

If AOPA can leave this place free of AOPA business, what's so hard for a non-member to follow suit? This thread is about the JCP but it seems certain people need to drag everything to involving an organisation to which they don't even belong and which has indicated it isn't going to debate on here. Get a life :E

(PS your 'email register' - aren't proxy IPs and proxy posters wonderful things).

Your last post does nothing to enrich the thread topicIt does because it suggests you proceed as above, plus the topic of WX by satellite is quite enriching to the topic.

The USA is looking to UAT to:
1. Solve 1090 congestion at several critical points,
2. Keep AOPA USA (stress "USA") happy about no subsidy therefore some carrot in return = WX and TFC via UAT.

Unsurprisingly, the WX by satellite people have decided to ramp up the competition, therefore raising questions about the value of WX by UAT.

And, the FAA since 2005 has been winding back on TIS.

So, all should be interested in the implications of the Avidyne demo. If Avidyne can provide WX by satellite for Oz ........
Here's the flyer http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/jamesmichaelresearch/AVIDYNEWX.jpg

[Flying Binghi]

....and yet, Osama can bring it all undone :hmm:

One should be very, very, carefull before they become overly reliant on a GPS based airspace.

.......anyway, back to the miss-information of james michael :hmm:

[jeta108]

james michael. You would like any opposition to ADSB sin binned, banned or relegated to just anti AOPA. - What does it matter to you, in the past you have been noted as not being part of AOPA. The similarity is simply that both support the introduction of a mandated ADSB without any guarantees of a subsidy and that my fickle fiend is the cause why you and they are not universally loved.

Do you have access to my personal register details james michael?

If it matter to you, I don't care who you or anybody else think I am. I am entitled to the same guarantees of anonymity as you 'pecious'.:)

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

I really do not understand why anyone gives a jar of monkey toss what AOPA thinks about ADSB, can someone please explain it to me ?.

[jeta108]

I don't give a rat's about the current AOPA. They believe they are the 'peak aviation body' in Australia today. They support ADSB. However it seems important that james michael accuses anyone with a differing opinion to theirs as some sort of anti AOPA sentiment. He doth protest too much.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Who care what they call themselves;

Budget, drives your dollar further, yet is not always the best value for money

My local plumber advertises the "get laid by a professional", have not seen that yet.......thank god.

AOPA / CWA / YMCA, who cares, I completely support ADSB rollout in Australia, why not stick to the topic at hand, ADSB and stop the d1ck measuring.

[jeta108]

I completely support ADSB rollout in Australia

I don't, but respect your right to your opinion. Pity others don't reciprocate without the personal innuendo.

[Jabawocky]

LRT

well said http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/howdy.gif

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Jeta108,

Why don't you support ADSB, what alternate do you propose ? (that is financially viable and commercially available) or do you think the present systems is A-OK ?.

The aircraft I fly are equipped with ADSB, I think it is a great bit of kit and wish I had it ten years ago.

[Much Ado]

Any more AOPA/ex AOPA member needling will result in this thread being deleted. Stick to the topic and discuss it like the alleged adults you're please.:ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

The aircraft I fly are equipped with ADSB, I think it is a great bit of kit and wish I had it ten years ago.

Who paid for it Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower ? .......:hmm:

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Finally..., a question where I agree with you Mr F. Binghi !

I think that ADSB is terrific., and I'm really hoping for aural and visual ADSB-IN.,
but without a subsidy (or total reimbursement), it could be quite some time before I accumulate enough money to cover the costs of the gear and installation (I do not borrow money).
Without a subsidy, aircraft hire rates will increase. (no sane GA owner is simply going to write-off approximately $15k)

So., that is one reason why I want to know just what the bleep is happening.

[peuce]

Do we really think that ADS-B would be mandated throughout the GA fleet ... without a subsidy?

Transponders are one thing ... but even I don't think ASA/CASA would go as far as mandating ADS-B. In the first place, how could they justify "giving away" $92M of the Industry's money to the Government ... and then turning around and charging each GA aircraft $10,000 for a black box. Can't see it.

If I've read them wrong, I'll be the first to hop in bed with Bob & Binghi !

[jeta108]

There is rumour that there is $1.4 billion Aussie dollars missing through some Delaware Corporation. I understand there are serious investigations under way at this time that may or may not impact upon any give away's for GA. As the Fereral Gov't is the only shareholder (other than us taxpayers), that stands to loose in this alleged loss, can anyone honestly see cash being chucked about until this mess clears up?

Now if those pushing for ADSB to be mandated achieve their aim before any subsidy materialises, why would anybody, especially Politicians who are prone to lie and reneig on deals, honour any verbal arrangements.

This poster will be financially handicapped, a lot who may benefit by installation in aircraft owned by their Boss won't be. What is really irksome is that some private GA pilots pushing this barrow the loudest are not aircraft owners. They can afford to be gullible.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

FB, ASA.

Why then poo poo ADSB purely on the basis of not receiving a subsidy ?, that said I hope the subsidy does materialise.

Whether ADSB is a good system for Australian Aviation has little to do the perceived cost of installation, TSO GPS installation cost more than ADSB, many have embraced TSO GPS as the benefits outweigh the expense.

Is ADSB irrespective of any or no subsidy a good choice for Australia ?, I believe so, since obtaining my CPL pretty much all my flying has been in rural/designated remote area's, Mostly VHF coverage, occasionaly with good HF coverage and very very little RADAR, ADSB will make working in the bush safer.

I see no benefit from ground based stations being TSO'd, let alone the TSO'ing of aircraft ADSB equipment, in doing so considerably reducing the cost ?, thoughts ?.

[jeta108]

ADSB will make working in the bush safer

How?

Statistically there is no measurable risk of mid air collision in class G airspace. During NAS the risk assessment for class E airspace was (from memory), one in ten to the minus five. There is one death per year attributed to mid air collision of recent time in the whole of Australia. There is a requirement for the use of radio in the CTAF where applicable which gives alerted see and avoid. As with the gliders, the highest risk being in the near vicinity of aerodromes.

What risk exists en route Boulia to Alice Springs?

Airservices are the primary beneficiaries of this technology and do have the option to charge for an enroute service that is not needed. Avdata would also benefit.

The new generation ELT's cancell the SAR arguement even if Airservices were monitoring every VFR flight which they don't.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

How?

If you have to ask that question, you are wasting your bandwidth and my time.

Statistically there is no measurable risk of mid air collision in class G airspace

Bollocks, have you flown to the North and East of Perth when the push is on ?, lots of reasonably fast turboprops and jets in the one piece of airspace.

The new generation ELT's cancel the SAR arguement even if Airservices were monitoring every VFR flight which they don't.

No, it doesn't, many aircraft burn after "landing", therefore ELT does squat, how long did it take to find Steve Fossett ?. 406 ELT are just another layer of protection.

Will help with flow patterns into CTA and help lost travellers.

[james michael]

The JCP money has nothing to do with ASA investments, it is cross industry funding by the airlines to gain the benefits of ADS-B. A much quicker potential than the USA where the reason Foundation has already highlighted that a "subsidy" would be the answer to NGATS.

ADS-B IN works anywhere and accidents happen anywhere. Particularly in non-radar environments.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Statistically there is no measurable risk of mid air collision in class G airspace. During NAS the risk assessment for class E airspace was (from memory), one in ten to the minus five. There is one death per year attributed to mid air collision of recent time in the whole of Australia. how many mid-airs (including gliders) in G (including CTAF) this year alone!? ... me thinks your statistical risk modelling is smelly!There is a requirement for the use of radio in the CTAF where applicable which gives alerted see and avoid. As with the gliders, the highest risk being in the near vicinity of aerodromes. A requirement? .. really? ... it is all just recommended isn't it? :rolleyes: ... alerted see and avoid ONLY if the traffic is known, and is reporting accurately! :=
.
And before you try it on, OCTA collisions are not comparable with high density GAAP, remembering that GAAP is (when VMC), a high volume traffic alerting and sequencing service ONLY, and only to airbourne traffic. The only separation provided in GAAP (in VMC) is runway separation!!!. In IMC, separation of arriving and departing traffic is timed one in one out (due the small CTR dimensions)!
.
Imagine GAAP without ATC? :ooh: :suspect:

[Flying Binghi]

...around in circles again - has'nt all this been covered.


Scurvy.D.Dog, so there will be a audio warning in this ADS-B unit eh. My experience with TAS in a GAAP is to mute it and ignore the screen - it is a dangerous distracter - eyes out it is.

In IMC, separation of arriving and departing traffic is timed one in one out

When all those ADS-B 'IN' assisted loss of control deaths happen, that is probably how GAAP VFR will become - one in/out at a time.

------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I note - I've asked around in the real world, (outside of prunn) and have yet to hear any aircraft owner say they want ADS-B. I will note that a couple of the more wealthy owners have said they dont care if it happens or not. Mainly I get a lot of negative views/scenarios on the subject - some which I've posted.

It seems to me that there could very well be a self interested profit motive to the posters here promoting ADS-B.

[Flying Binghi]

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

have you flown to the North and East of Perth when the push is on ?, lots of reasonably fast turboprops and jets in the one piece of airspace.

TCAS ? .....its been around for some time now.

If an aircraft owner truely believed that there was a risk - they would already have TCAS, TAS, or simular.

[Flying Binghi]

ADS-B IN works anywhere and accidents happen anywhere. Particularly in non-radar environments.

james michael, re the mid-airs in Oz. Of the ones that ATSB (and predecessors) have finnished with - please piont out the ones that the current ADS-B proposal may have stopped.

If the gov-mint has 15K to spare - perhaps the fitment of an autopilot to those without will save more lives then yet another transponder.....remember, we already have TCAS, TAS, etc and transponders. :hmm:

[jeta108]

Lefthanded Rock Thrower. Bollocks, have you flown to the North and East of Perth when the push is on ?, lots of reasonably fast turboprops and jets in the one piece of airspace.
Quantify this as an average risk and then tell me are all these aircraft at the same altitude at the same time?

james michael.accidents happen anywhere. Particularly in non-radar environments. Anything is possible, even in a radar environment. My question is what’s the probability?

Scurvy.D.Dog. The figures came from ATSB. Take your fits of denial up with them. They are an average. A requirement? .. really? -yes as with a transponder. If it works you are required to use it and, yes I can imagine Archerfield as a CTAF instead of a GAAP.

This debate is based on one side thinking ADSB is a necessary thing and the other the opposite. The thing is, for the concept to work, everyone has to be equipped and recalcitrant’s like me must be forced into compliance. Nobody forced me into a transponder, simply said if you want to fly in certain airspace you have to have one. Common sense shows that TCAS won't work without one, so owners saw the benefit and had them fitted.

If ADSB was such a good thing everyone would embrace it and there would be no need for a mandate. It is yet to prove any benefit to me. I am getting too old to be told what to do and how much to spend especially just to satisfy a mob of bureaucrats and vested interests. And especially when it is more PROBABLE than NOT that NO SUBSIDY will evolve. The proposed GA subsidy only involved TSO'd ADSB OUT anyway.

I am yet to be told what is plan B if the subsidy doesn't materialise. Nobody has shown me a document that shows any irrevocable guarantee. All I have seen and heard is verbal assurances that won't hold water if things go pear shaped.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Bing
.
Yes it has all been covered in depth, however some folks are interested in re hashing one view of the equation, a view full of half truths and no technical or financial reality attached .. can’t have that go unanswered now can we!
.
GAAP as I said is different, however, perhaps even in that environ there is a role for aural alerting via ADS-B ‘IN’ .. now if you were the type to get off your arse and do some asking around you would know what the actual state of play is. Lets say for arguments sake, the algorithms being used scale target range with speed and calculate targets that will come within close (unsafe) proximity and ‘announce’ those only. The aural alerts (one imagines) would be ‘scheduled’ with VHF etc so that one does not squash the other … aside from that extremely valuable alerting, eyes out are enhanced by aural as pilots will not need to look at the screen, in fact most aircraft including training aircraft will likely not have a screen to look at!
.
As for your feedback from others …. I’ll raise you a broad spectrum of private owners through to and including charter and RPT! .. mind you, the difference between them I suppose is the folks I have spoken to know the technology and where it is at now, you more likely have sold the ADS-B system as you have in here .. that is of course if you have spoken to any owners at all about ADS-B! It will fit in a Victa you know!
.
ADS-B IN loss of control …. Fair dinkum … you really are clutching at straws!
.
Self interested profit motive? Really how so? .. sounds like horse feathers in the absence of any realistic objection! Now, if I were as petty and rude as you and the other two, I might be tempted to say something like:-
.
Have any share’s in RADAR or TAS companies Bing? .. or is this more about Part103 and the RADAR C directive? …. I suppose you vote National as well!!! :p
.
.... but I'm not, so I won't :E
Scurvy.D.Dog. The figures came from ATSB. Take your fits of denial up with them. They are an average. .. :} ... link thanks, then we will put the context to the average .. that might clarify how some would (in ingnorance) misuse it in a piss poor attempt to justify inaction! If it works you are required to use it :D .. IF IT WORKS ... pffffff :ugh:
.
Keep it up boys! :p

[werbil]

Currently only a requirement to use radio in CTAF(R) always and in CTAF if using clear of cloud VMC below A030/1000AGL - the other requirements to use in CTAFs if fitted was dropped many years ago. There is currently a proposal to reintroduce this requirement (great idea).

[PlankBlender]

One thing I note - I've asked around in the real world, (outside of prunn) and have yet to hear any aircraft owner say they want ADS-B. I will note that a couple of the more wealthy owners have said they dont care if it happens or not. Mainly I get a lot of negative views/scenarios on the subject - some which I've posted.

Binghi, I'm an aircraft owner, I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, and I absolutely want ADS-B IN and OUT in my aircraft ASAP.

I'm also putting my money where my mouth is (in the process supporting a small and cleverly run Aussie business) and will be preparing my aircraft for the installation of the ADSB-IN/OUT unit that has been discussed here and elsewhere, during the upcoming avionics upgrade of my aircraft.

I think it is pretty much an undisputed fact that ADS-B represents a quantum leap for technology in GA, and quite frankly, I haven't seen a single argument put forward here or otherwise, that ADS-B will not increase situational awareness and safety.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

FB,

TCAS ? .....its been around for some time now.

Yes that is true.

A couple of weeks ago I flew from Newman to Jandakot, identified at 300 odd feet, previously would not see RADAR till some time after Meekatharra.

Not all aircraft have or are required to have TCAS/TAS.

If all aircraft had that level of ADSB coverage, most of these near misses in Class G that Jeta108 believe to be unquatifiable, would not occur.

If every aircraft had TCAS, this would considerably reduce the chances of aircraft collisions in all airspace.

OR

If every aircraft had ADSB, this would considerably reduce the chances of aircraft collisions in a very great deal of Australian Airspace, provide pseudo RADAR coverage pretty much Australia wide (at 10,000ft), help from FW is just a button press away.

There is no silver bullet to combating the size of Australia.

TCAS plus ADSB in/out is the best option = lots of money.

If the choice is TCAS or ADSB, IMHO ADSB offers more benefits.

[jeta108]

PlankBlender. I'm an aircraft owner, I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, and I absolutely want ADS-B IN and OUT in my aircraft ASAP.
- How will this guarantee you improved safety if only 50% of the fleet is fitted with ADSB OUT. That other 50%, including me, who don't see a benefit, suffer because people like you support Big brother forcing us to install the equipment. Don't worry about my costs Digger, just so long as you feel warm and fuzzy about it.

Try telling our left leaning Government Minister for things flying, and the great unwashed in the mortgage belt, that you own an aeroplane and are not rich. There are people doing it tough for hospital treatment, rural assistance and manufacturing that can't get a Gov't handout, what makes you think you deserve a lifestyle grant?

[PlankBlender]

Jet, the proposal would include much more than 50% of the flying fleet, if I understand the proposal document correctly, with VFR aircraft being added over time. Where do you get your figure from?

My decision to own an aeroplane is based mainly on a sound business case for reducing cost of professional pilot training, not on having an expensive and prestigious toy at my disposal.

Where wealth entered this discussion, I am really not sure. If you want to go down that way, you might want to consider that aircraft owners and operators are contributing extra taxes to the government coffers to the tune of dozens of millions of dollars every year in AsA profits :=

The subsidy makes sense in that it's a win-win for AsA and aircraft operators, the former getting rid of outdated, expensive to maintain radar technology, and the latter gaining a vast improvement in safety. What costs are you talking about, anyway? The proposed subsidy and the avionics being developed in Australia at the moment would ensure a cost neutral (and largely maintenance free) install for owners.

[Flying Binghi]

ADS-B IN loss of control

(GAAP) In IMC, separation of arriving and departing traffic is timed one in one out (due the small CTR dimensions)

Scurvy.D.Dog, in a GAAP, under IFR conditions, I expect then that we will be able to have nice tight VFR like circuits with ADS-B (IN) .........:hmm:

I will repeat that my experience of 'Traffic' systems in a GAAP or simular well used VFR circuit, is they are a dangerous distractor.

Perhaps you care to tell us of your inflight experiences of these 'traffic' systems Scurvy.D.Dog.........:hmm:


........oh, there is that little problem of terrorist miss-use of GPS - at least my eyes and TAS still works when the terrorist targeting system (GPS) gets turned off :cool:

[Flying Binghi]

PlankBlender
aircraft operators............ gaining a vast improvement in safety

...a vast improvement eh :hmm: ....where ?

[jeta108]

Scurvy.D.Dog.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2004/pdf/Review_of_midair_col.pdf

3.1 Number of collisions
The review identified 37 midair collisions involving general aviation aircraft in
Australia during the 1961-2003 period.5 Appendix A provides basic details on the 37
midair collisions.

37 collisions / 46 fatalities / 42 year period.

PlankBlender. I know what the proposal is and is based on 100% of the fleet being equipped. Thus to guarantee this happens you will have to mandate it because people like me and many others won't voluntarily embrace it.

You were the one who said you were not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I agree with your purpose for ownership, but simply say we, as in all aircraft owners are treated like 'silvertails' are seen to be rich. I'm certainly not in the same socio-economic bracket as some of the contributors here are.

You keep referring to the subsidy as if it is a 'done deal'. I maintain it is not and there is a better than average chance, (PROBABILITY), that it will amount to nothing.

"IF" ADSB is mandated and "IF" the subsidy amounts to zero, there will be costs that you and I will have to carry. Good luck to all if it goes the other way, It's just that I have been made promises by Governments and Bureaucrats that habitually have a habit of amounting to piss and wind.

Have you considered any plan B?

Have you seen anything written in blood by anyone that guarantees an irrevokable subsidy?

[gupta]

FB

Please please use the term misuse instead of miss-use.:8 Its been doing my head in ever since you started the buzz bomb idea.

Obviously all I really need is a good lie down

[jeta108]

Scurvy.D.Dog. This link may work better.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2004/review_of_midair_collisions.aspx

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Jeta108,

Statistically there is no measurable risk of mid air collision in class G airspace

How does 46 actual fatalites in 42 years ( 1.095 actual fatalities year ) constitute "no measurable", how many hundreds of near misses does that cover ?.

How many of those fatalities were is A,C or D Class airspace.

Is a mid air collision at a non controlled aerodrome other than GAAP counted as Class G airspace ?, perhaps the data you're looking at is presented in such a way to suggest an agenda on the author behalf ?, 98.7% of statistic are BS,,,,:).

Avoidance of mid air collisions is only one very small function of what ADSB is to achieve, TCAS alone will provide a better product, but this would leave a vast majourity of Class G a non "serviced area".

Picture this,

* flying along in your Bonanza VFR at A065 overhead Burketown QLD with TCAS, Metro/SAAB inbound to Burketown, TCAS works a treat, you see them on your MFD., FW/Centre have no idea you are there, but hopefully everyone has their transponders on.

or

* same scenario but with ADSB instead, you are identified and passed as traffic to the inbound Metro/SAAB, an ATCO and TAAATS works their magic all is well.

Safe or more safe, it's really not that hard to see, is it ?.

I agree with your statement about Politician, but this is not the arguement.

[Flying Binghi]

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower
hopefully everyone has their transponders on

....hopefully everyone has their ADS-B on :rolleyes:

And lets have a look at those mid-airs ...how many would have been avioded with ADS-B ? ..........lets break it down :cool:


Oh, somebody remind me - will these ADS-B units work Oz wide to ground level ?

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Oh, somebody remind me - will these ADS-B units work Oz wide to ground level ?

If the aircraft is within line of sight of a station, then yes, no different to RADAR in that respect.

....hopefully everyone has their ADS-B on

One ADSB option will be a S coded "sleeper type" unit in the back of the aircraft, if avionic power is on, it is working.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

My my. Went to the Avidyne demo on Sunday. Good bit of kit for satelliteWX. Some may say it is expensive at $12000 for the unit plus about $70month for premium sub and about a max of $4.00/hr for downloads(depends on refresh rate) Get METAR and TAF and METRAD from Met Dept. System works over the LEO sats on the Irridium mobile network hence the dollar cost.

Also, a new generation of strikefinder is also available and integrates with the METRAD pic. As does traffic. Avidyne is all for ADS-B as soon as it settles down over the standard. The US is still bickering over ES and UAT. The guy doing the talk personally believes there will not be any ground based radars in 20yrs in the US! Note- his personal opinion!

Also ran into a guy who flies in the state and says that TIS IS A WASTE OF TIME! Where you really need it outside controlled airspace it is not available. Controlled airspace with full radar separation and wall to wall ATC TIS comes back online...where you do not need it. So there you go, there is one guy who reckons a traffic device is needed OUTSIDE controlled airspace. He actually has a subscription to tracking software that downloads aircraft positions off the satellite to his Cirrus.

I reckon it will not take much to build a device that has both IN and OUT with a feed for most of the MFDs available as well as an outlet for PDA and still come waaay under the VFR fitment target. Time will tell if I am correct.

In closing, I am so glad that Avidyne is taking the stick to Garmin. Garmin think they are the MicroSoft of aviation. Healthy competition means in the end we the consumers have a win.

EDIT- not an advert for Avidyne....I hope?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

LHRT don’t forget that if 90% fleet coverage is the go, then most aircraft will be seen (and Heard) by other aircraft (with IN+ aural) IRRESPECTIVE OF ATS COVERAGE!!

werbil

Great minds think alike cobba, read the extracts below from the study re radio non/mis-use O/S … bare in mind this study was completed on data up to 2003, with the report published in May 2004 i.e. before MBZ’s were binned in favour of the garbage we have now! .. like I said earlier, how many mid-air’s since then??? … hmmm, and don’t they dove tail into what was known back then …. No wonder there is a mood for change-back!

BingScurvy.D.Dog, in a GAAP, under IFR conditions, I expect then that we will be able to have nice tight VFR like circuits with ADS-B (IN) ......... .. what on earth are you smoking???I will repeat that my experience of 'Traffic' systems in a GAAP or simular well used VFR circuit, is they are a dangerous distractor. … might be so with a blunt instrument like TAS .. please do not compare the two as they are like chalk and cheese!!Perhaps you care to tell us of your inflight experiences of these 'traffic' systems Scurvy.D.Dog......... … have flown with basic TAS systems (famil flights with BaE CT4’s), have flown countless famil flights in TCAS equipped RPT’s … have seen for myself the limitations of see-and-lucky if you avoid through my own experiences traversing through the training area west of Sydney, and in the CTAF at Grafton … on both occasions I was lucky … I have at conservative estimate somewhere in the vacinity of 10,500hrs console time providing GAAP services at BK and CN, not to mention sh1tloads more hours providing most other types of ATS services .... for the record I also have better than 20/20 vision! ... so what!! :rolleyes:........oh, there is that little problem of terrorist miss-use of GPS - at least my eyes and TAS still works when the terrorist targeting system (GPS) gets turned off … are you aware of the Euro/US agreement signed in 2004 regarding Galileo and GPS? .. no thought not …. Have a bex and a lie down mate!
.
Non-Jet-man
.
Thanks for the link, had it anyway! now that you have confirmed you actually know what the report says, others would do well to read the document to compare your attempted use of it :suspect: and reality. :=
.
For those who could not be shagged, here are some of the relevant bits for this discussion …. pollogies for the length of the post, but it is relevant 3.3 Location and type of operation

Table 2 presents basic data on the general location of the 37 collisions. Most (24) of the collisions occurred in the circuit area (that is, at least one of the aircraft was flying in the circuit pattern for landing or departure). These included 20 aeroplane-aeroplane collisions, one aeroplane-ultralight collision, and three aeroplane-glider collisions.

Eleven of the collisions occurred when both aircraft were on final approach, two occurred during the base-to-final turn, and one occurred on the turn to base. The collision at Moorabbin in 1968 occurred either on the base leg or the final approach. Six collisions occurred on the downwind leg (one with an aircraft departing) and two occurred on the crosswind leg (one with an aircraft departing). One collision involved two aircraft on initial climb. Figure 1 presents a diagrammatic representation of the location of collisions in the circuit area. The dots indicate in which leg of the circuit the collisions occurred rather than the specific location within each leg.

There were also five collisions that occurred near the circuit area (that is, within 5 NM of an airport and with at least one aircraft arriving at, or departing from, that airport). These included one aeroplane-aeroplane collision at 1,500 ft with both aircraft on departure, one aeroplane-helicopter collision at about 1,500-2,000 ft with both aircraft on arrival, and three aeroplane-glider collisions at less than 2,000 ft with the aeroplane climbing.

Of the 20 aeroplane-aeroplane collisions that occurred in or near the circuit area, 25 aeroplanes were on training flights, 12 were on private flights, two were on passenger charter flights, and one was on an aerial work flight. At least 21 of the aeroplanes were being used for circuit training or practice. The aeroplane-helicopter collision involved two aircraft on aerial work flights, and the aeroplane-ultralight collision involved two aircraft on private flights. The seven aeroplane-glider collisions involved five aeroplanes being used as glider tugs, although only one was actually towing a glider at or just prior to the accident. The other two aeroplanes were engaged in private and aerial work operations.

Fifteen of the collisions in or near the circuit area occurred at one of the five major general aviation airports; that is, Archerfield, Bankstown, Jandakot, Parafield or Moorabbin. Thirteen of these collisions occurred during tower operating hours7, although in one of these collisions neither pilot had yet contacted the tower (Moorabbin, 1970). Of the other two collisions, one (Jandakot, 2002) occurred just after the tower controllers had handed over to an air ground operator. The other collision (Moorabbin, 2002) occurred at night when the control zone was classified as a mandatory broadcast zone (MBZ). No other collisions have occurred in MBZs in Australia, which commenced in 1991.
Remembering this report was written in 2003 before MBZ’s became CTAF’s, and the recommended vice mandated became the norm! ….. how many since then!!!??? :ugh:
Most (10) of the 15 collisions at the major general aviation airports occurred prior to the introduction of General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) during tower hours in 1980.8 The major change to operations at these airports in 1980 was the introduction of simultaneous contra-rotating circuit operations onto parallel runways (contra-circuits) at those airports with parallel runways. The previous procedures (known as a secondary control zone) involved all aircraft flying circuits in the same direction on the same side of the runways. Due to the high aircraft movement rates, tower controllers were only required to provide a limited service at secondary/GAAP airports, with aircraft separation being primarily a pilot responsibility. A review of the 10 collisions that occurred prior to 1980 found that many of them were unlikely to have occurred if contra-circuit operations to parallel runways had been in use. Only one of the 37 collisions occurred in controlled airspace where air traffic services were providing a full control service. This collision occurred in the Coolangatta primary control zone in May 1988.

There were six collisions involving pilots deliberately flying close to another aircraft. All were aeroplane-aeroplane collisions, and four involved formation flying activities. Seven of the aircraft were operating in the private category, two in the aerial work category, and three in the charter category.9 Only two other collisions occurred away from the circuit area. One involved two aeroplanes on private sightseeing flights (at 1,500 ft), and the other involved two aerial agricultural aeroplanes about to commence swathe runs (at approximately 50 ft).

It is not surprising that most of the collisions occurred in the circuit area, as this is generally where the traffic density is the highest. Of particular note is that at least 11 of the collisions in the circuit area occurred on final approach, where there is relatively little variation in the position of aircraft.
hmmm….

3.4 Other characteristics and contributing factors

The 30 midair collisions since 1969 not involving ‘deliberately close’ activities were reviewed to identify common characteristics and contributing factors. The 1968 collision at Moorabbin could not be included due to a lack of information. This review noted that there was a wide variety of contributing factors in the collisions, but there were no dominant factors. The circumstances of the majority of the collisions were consistent with the inherent difficulties in sighting aircraft in time to avoid a collision.10 More specifically, the review noted the following:
• All of the collisions occurred during good weather conditions, with visibility
being 10 km or more (when recorded). There were no reports that problems with visibility contributed to any of the collisions. Only one of the collisions occurred at night (Moorabbin, 2002). Sunglare was cited as a possible factor in four of the collisions.
• Most (18) of the collisions involved one aircraft colliding with another from
behind, or both aircraft converging from a similar direction (less than 30 degrees difference in heading), and only six of these collisions resulted in fatalities. Twelve of these collisions occurred at a height of 250 ft or less above the ground, with only three resulting in fatalities.
Of the 12 collisions with collision angles 30 degrees or greater, 11 resulted in fatalities.11 All of these collisions occurred at heights greater than 250 ft. Figure 2 provides a diagrammatic representation of the collision angles involved in the midair collisions.
• At least eight of the aeroplane-aeroplane collisions involved pilots conducting different sized circuits, but none of the pilots flew paths that were considered to be contrary to procedures. Two of the aeroplane-glider collisions involved glider pilots conducting unusual circuit patterns, with one of them entering the circuit from the wrong direction. The Bankstown collision in May 2002 was the only collision involving contra-circuit operations to parallel runways.
See comments re base joins on the other thread!

The point I make to you is that this report predates current CTAF op’s and only reports on ‘collisions’!! It does not include statically relevant airprox’s that could have been collisions except for blind luck! … that is why your reliance on this data is fundamentally flawed in the context of collision probabilities!

Do you get it yet? .. I think you do, you just cannot accept being wrong!!

The US experience
In terms of general location of midair collision accidents in the US between 1981 and 2003, 16 could not be classified due to a lack of information. Of the remaining 368 accidents, 169 (46 per cent) occurred in the circuit area, and 56 (15 per cent) occurred near the circuit area. Of the remainder of the US collisions, 46 (13 per cent) involved ‘deliberately close’ flying, and 97 (26 per cent) occurred away from the circuit area.
These rates were essentially the same for the periods 1981-1990 and 1991-2003.

Most of the accidents in the circuit area involved one or both aircraft on final
approach. Fifty-nine (26 per cent) of the accidents in or near the circuit area occurred at airports with a tower. The accidents away from the circuit area involved a mix of both aircraft in cruise flight, one or both aircraft climbing from or descending to an airport, or both aircraft involved in airwork activities. Of the 384 midair collision accidents in the US, 225 (59 per cent) involved fatalities. There was a total of 754 fatalities (or 2.0 fatalities per accident). If the accidents involving RPT aircraft are excluded, there were 220 fatal accidents and a total of 628 fatalities (or 1.6 fatalities per accident).

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently conducted a similar review of midair collisions in the US for the period between 1983 and August 2000, involving a total of 329 collisions.19 Findings of this review included the following:
• All occurred in visual meteorological conditions. Only six occurred at night and four occurred at dusk. Bright sun was on the only commonly sighted factor related to weather.
• About 88 per cent of pilots involved in midair collisions do not see the other aircraft in time to avoid a collision.
• Most midair collisions involve low closing speeds, as one aircraft usually strikes the other from behind, above or from a quartering angle.
• Most midair collisions occur near airports, especially airports without a control tower. Midair collisions at high altitudes are rare events.
• A common factor in midair collisions was pilots using inappropriate entries into the circuit and failing to use radios at non-towered airports.
• The 329 midair collisions indicate that see-and-avoid has inherent limitations as a tactic or strategy for avoiding midair collisions.

4.2 Midair collisions in other countries

The Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses pour la Securite de l’Aviation Civile conducted a review of midair collisions that occurred in French territory between 1989 and 1999 and involved at least one civil aircraft.23 The review excluded formation flights and glider-glider collisions. Results of the review provided included:
• There were 17 collisions, which resulted in 42 fatalities and 27 aircraft destroyed.
Air transport aircraft were involved in three collisions, and gliders were involved in four collisions.
• All of the collisions occurred during daylight in visual meteorological conditions. In two cases, pilots reported poor visibility conditions, and in six cases one of the pilots had ‘the sun in his face’.
• Seven of the collisions occurred near an aerodrome with aircraft in the circuit. Another eight collisions took place in areas where aircraft concentration was high, such as near an aerodrome, overhead a radio navigation device, or where there were a large number of gliders. Only two occurred during cruise.
• Twelve collisions occurred in uncontrolled airspace and the remaining five in
controlled airspace, although communication was not compulsory for three of
these situations. Non-use of radios or other communication problems was an issue with several of the collisions. Only one of the aircraft did not have a radio.

In a recent accident investigation report,24 the Transportation Safety Board of Canada noted that in the 10 years prior to August 1999, there were 17 midair collisions in Canada. Of these, ‘8 involved some form of formation flight, 3 occurred in practice training areas, and 6 occurred in the vicinity of uncontrolled airports’. None occurred in a control zone where an advanced level of air traffic control was being provided.

Figure 4: Comparison of midair collision accident rate between Australia and the US for general aviation

• Australia had a general aviation midair collision accident rate 1.1 times higher than that of the US in or near the circuit area during the period 1981-2003. This comparison excluded collisions involving aircraft deliberately flying close to each other. This difference was not statistically significant.28
• The US had a general aviation midair collision accident rate 5.8 times higher than that of Australia away from the circuit area during the period 1981-2003. This comparison excluded collisions involving aircraft deliberately flying close to each other. The test of the difference between the two countries was not significant.29

However, this test had a low level of power to detect differences in the rates as the Australian rate was based on only one event (Moreton Bay, 1988). The fact that only one event also occurred during the period 1961-1980 (Cecil Plains, 1980) suggests that the Australian rate may be reasonably reliable. There was a significant difference in the hours flown per collision involving general aviation between the two countries, indicating that there was a higher collision risk in the US away from the circuit area relative to Australia.30

It would be reasonable to expect that the US had a higher rate of collisions per flight hour away from the circuit area as it is generally accepted that it has a higher traffic density in this airspace relative to Australia. For example, the US had 17.5 times more general aviation flight hours than Australia during the period 1981-2003. However, quantifying the difference in traffic density is a complex issue and beyond the scope of this study. The extent of any difference in the average traffic density for general aviation aircraft in or near the circuit area between the two countries was also beyond the scope of this review. ... like I said .... Keep it up boys!!! :p :E

[jeta108]

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower. If you read the data you would see how and why the fugures were arrived at and what universally accepted system was used to extropolate the data. When seen in context of total hours flown the rarity of the event makes the probability of actual collisions so minute that they are statistically a non event. The report also answers your other questions.

Statistically lightning strikes people on a regular basis but what is the probability it will strike you? Should lightning protection be mandated for anyone who walks around outdoors. Should a subsidy be offered to make sure nobody sees it as a dumb idea and refuses to pay for the equipment.

Near misses or near hits are not part of the study. If you want to make some study of this look at birdstrikes. You will have to fudge your own figures.

I think what you are advocating is absolute safety. You simply won't achieve this under any circumstances unless you stay in bed. Most certainly ADSB won't guarantee immunity from idiots or human factors.

What makes you think that ATC will be watching and advising VFR traffic of conflicts at Burketown? What makes you think that all VFR traffic will have ADSB IN? Only TSO'd ADSB OUT was mentioned in any talk of subsidy. If the Regionals have ADSB IN why would traffic avoidance be of concern to BN Centre?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Ostrich in the sand alert :} :p :E

[jeta108]

Nothing posted alters the bottom line. I am unaware of any up to date study that would take in the period 2003 to 2008. Do you have evidence to suggest the report is flawed or not relevant in context.

"Air traffic controller. Where did those names come from? They control nothing at all. The people in that tower talk to airplane pilots, advise them of conditions. The pilots do every bit of controlling thats done. A semantic detail, that, and of no importance? How many times have you heard nonfliers say, your airport has no control tower? Isn't that dangerous? Imagine how they feel when they find that the official terminology for a no-tower field is uncontrolled airport. Try explaining that to a news reporter! The words alone show an accident waiting to happen, airplanes trembling to fall out of the sky onto schools and orphanages. Here is a description of millions and millions of takeoffs, the kind of takeoff made every day, every minute: 'the light aircraft took off from an uncontrolled airport, without radio control, without a flight plan. Wow"

Richard Bach: A gift of wings. Pan books ISBN 0 330 24481 7.

Something some "thugs with microphones" should consider.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Honestly, you can lead a horse to water.

ADSB will happen, for two reaons there is the perception that we need safer skies and ASA will not put RADAR stations and control towers all over the country, if you can not deal with that perhaps you should find another hobby/profession, for some, change is a hard thing to deal with.

Good bye.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Nothing posted alters the bottom line. I am unaware of any up to date study that would take in the period 2003 to 2008. Do you have evidence to suggest the report is flawed or not relevant in context.
Read the words Jet ... it does and it is clear!! :ok: .... should you or I go to the ATSB site and drag up the midairs and airprox's for 03-08' ;)
"Air traffic controller. Where did those names come from? They control nothing at all. The people in that tower talk to airplane pilots, advise them of conditions. The pilots do every bit of controlling thats done. A semantic detail, that, and of no importance? How many times have you heard nonfliers say, your airport has no control tower? Isn't that dangerous? Imagine how they feel when they find that the official terminology for a no-tower field is uncontrolled airport. Try explaining that to a news reporter! The words alone show an accident waiting to happen, airplanes trembling to fall out of the sky onto schools and orphanages. Here is a description of millions and millions of takeoffs, the kind of takeoff made every day, every minute: 'the light aircraft took off from an uncontrolled airport, without radio control, without a flight plan. Wow"

Richard Bach: A gift of wings. Pan books ISBN 0 330 24481 7.

Something some "thugs with microphones" should consider.
Oh that hurts :} :p ... NOT! :} :E

Anyone left in any doubt about the veracity of the case for the negative .. read Jet's last post ... it says it all!!

I'm a pilot who gives a sh1t as well D1ckhead!!!! :=

LHRT I know the frustration ... :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

might be so with a blunt instrument like TAS .. please do not compare the two as they are like chalk and cheese!!

Please do compare Scurvy.D.Dog - be interesting to know the differences you found :hmm:

Compare TAS with its audio "traffic, traffic" and the current ADS-B with its ?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

How about:-

TAS – “Traffic Traffic” with no azimuth or intuitive clues (as there is no positional azimuth to rely on i.e. no accurate azimuth display), be it buzzer or generic bitching betty!

Verses’

ADS-B – “Traffic, left 10 o’clock, 3 miles, 800feet above, descending” (and only tells you about traffic that has a good chance of actually hitting you because it has accurate azimuth and closing algorithms in both vertical and azimuth fields)

Add a FLARM input - could also be the same aerial input as they are close freq's - TBA - even if not combined, a separate FLARM input sitting on the glare shield (and plugged in), and gliders are visible also (albeit at closer range)

Next! :E

[james michael]

Jetski

The pilots do every bit of controlling thats doneFunny, I recollect a lot of debate by a certain team re the Benalla TNP matter where ATC should have saved the day. At least be consistent.

Bing

Oh, somebody remind me - will these ADS-B units work Oz wide to ground level ?Answer - yes. ADS-B OUT does not need a ground repeater to provide IN to another aircraft. Actually allows "The pilots do every bit of controlling thats done" to become true.

SDD, LHR, OZ

Eloquently put and well put. ADS-B alone is not the answer, ADS-B added to existing threat resolvers (eg the see and be seen big sky theory) is yet another level of safety that does not require third party surveillance.

From memory a certain person was going to stop the low level mandate. Let's hope aviation safety is not compromised by ego tripping.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I am still waiting for the spoofing demonstration.......I just hope it isn't what I think it sounds like:eek::}

[Flying Binghi]

ADS-B – “Traffic, left 10 o’clock, 3 miles, 800feet above, descending” (and only tells you about traffic that has a good chance of actually hitting you because it has accurate azimuth and closing algorithms in both vertical and azimuth fields)


Which ADS-B unit is this Scurvy.D.Dog ?

3 miles eh....so what happens at the GAAP or other high traffic VFR circuit area ?

There has already been a mid-air in the US where a pilot had identified an aircraft on TAS - and yet there was still a prang. So much for the 'IN' screen eh.


Good bye

After reading that the majority of Oz mid-airs happen in the circuit - it looks like Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower has realised just what a waste of money any 'Traffic' system (ADS-B) will be for VFR aircraft safety in Oz - infact, IMHO, it will probably kill pilots :(


....NEXT :hmm:

[Flying Binghi]

Whats the story with the Garmin TAS - me-hears that some Garmin GPS can talk to each other, and give an 'INs' traffic for nearby aircraft ? ...does this mean we dont 'need' ADS-B ? ....:E

......of course theres little profit to others if a Garmin portable can give 'INs'

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Whats the story with the Garmin TAS - me-hears that some Garmin GPS can talk to each other, and give an 'INs' traffic for nearby aircraft ? ...does this mean we dont 'need' ADS-B ? .... :E really Bing ... and how would that occur ..... :E

As regards scale (distance) it is as I said scaled based on speed and closing .. what part of that do you not understand??? .. the example given might be indicative of enroute flight!!

In a GAAP CTR, (as one example) whilst on base you might get a traffic alert on opposite base traffic if you are possibly/likely to swap paint!

......of course theres little profit to others if a Garmin portable can give 'INs' little profit for who? in any of it? ... or is the real motive introspective :suspect: you that is ... ***** corp anyone?! :=

[jeta108]

Dog's breath. Show me the signed chit for the subsidy. Your waffle is a meaningless interpretation.

Budgie Bottom. I was quoting Bach, even gave the ISBN, why do you mislead the thread by claiming I said those words? Perhaps you can show me and the enthralled masses the written proof of a subsidy if Doggy Doo Doo can't.

[Flying Binghi]

Try answering my post (117) Scurvy.D.Dog - or are you trying to aviod, eh :E

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

No cross industry funding, no mandate ... what do you not understand fly with no wings :E
.
Which of course translates to a walk :} :p

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Bung .. I have :} ..clearly you are not happy that you and Garmin have gone to the ADS-B dark side without knowing :D
.
tool :ok:

[ferris]

So, after reading page upon page of garbage, the issue jet109 (for you), is actually funding. Why have you written inumerable posts on your perceived lack of any benefit of ADS-B? Ok, maybe there is little/no benefit to YOU, or other small pockets of the overall aviation that occurs across the country, but if thats the case- why not focus your effort on ensuring that you receive the subsidy? For the life of me, I cannot understand why you (and others here) keep trying to denigrate ADS-B.

If it's about the subsidy, make sure you get the subsidy.

If you believe that ADS-B will not deliver the benefits as described, then good luck. The benefits, as described, to the entire aviation community, that is. Go ahead, make a case that there will be no benefit to FIFO ops in the west etc etc. As the airlines recognise that they will be the major benefittees, they have agreed to be the benefactors by way of airways charges that would have been spent on radars, being used to subsidise those (like you) who wont receive the same benefit. If you are worried about a bueracratic hijack of those funds- then do something about that rather than try and derail something that will be good for the country.

[Flying Binghi]

Tell me Scurvy.D.Dog - at present, should I use my transponder when doing circuits at a GAAP ?............. :hmm:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Pages and pages of garbage ... :hmm:

Here is some more garbage related to TSO 146 Nav (JCP) opportunities The FAA recently commissioned its 1,333rd WAAS approach (technically known as Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance or LPV) and that means there are now more of them than ILS approaches. The agency calls it a milestone in the transition to universal space-based navigation. The system is in use at 833 airports and the agency says it's planning to add 500 approaches a year until every qualifying runway in the U.S. has one. "This is clearly a turning point for aviation and the way pilots navigate," the agency said in a news release.

Something the agency doesn't mention but which is undoubtedly a factor in the rapid deployment of LPVs is they cost of a fraction of the millions of dollars that ILS systems cost. WAAS, or Wide Area Augmentation System, was commissioned in 2003.

But lets not bother!!! :hmm: :rolleyes:
Tell me Scurvy.D.Dog - at present, should I use my transponder when doing circuits at a GAAP ?............. .. well you tell us Bung .. oh yeh you already have, TAS is a dangerous distraction := IYHO :rolleyes:

[Flying Binghi]

Tell me Scurvy.D.Dog - at present, should I use my transponder when doing circuits at a GAAP ?............. .. well you tell us Bung

You dont know!!! com'n Scurvy.D.Dog, I thought you had all the answers :E

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

I have and I did :ok: .. are you illiterate as well as compromised? :ooh: := :p
.
comon, tell us what you know .. you know, what you and your political master are responsible for :suspect: :oh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Bung, there used to be time that acft doing circs within a GAAP left transponder on STBY. This is no longer the case. According to ERSA its on and thats it!

Unless, of course, you know otherwise:E

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

No matter OZ ... they tried and failed to wrongly blame QANTAS ... all and sundry know who is really behind the curtain!!!!! ;)

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm...we now have some outlines to work with :) ...interesting just where the majority of mid-airs happen.

TAS is a dangerous distraction

Scurvy.D.Dog, from my experience, and watching pilot pax focus on it in the GAAP circuit - yes.

I would be interested to see what studys have been done on ADS-B 'IN' in the GAAP (or simular) VFR environment - will it kill pilots ? Obviously not relavent if theres only 'out' for VFR - but then is the history of VFR mid-airs relavent to the discusion ?


...and I'm not foregetting this is all a side show to me - when terrorists start putting $1,000 GPS guided flying bombs into a WAAS assisted 1.5 metre diameter target - we'll see how long a GPS based ADS-B system lasts :hmm: ...of course OZBUSDRIVER doesnt think it is possible, a sparrow would'nt get thru, eh :rolleyes:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. focusing only on the part blind dog barking that you own ... yep really relevant in the context explained above.... but you don't want to differentiate do you := NO!!I would be interested to see what studys have been done on ADS-B 'IN' in the GAAP (or simular) VFR environment - will it kill pilots ? Obviously not relavent if theres only 'out' for VFR - but then is the history of VFR mid-airs relavent to the discusion ? ... hmmm, and the difference between your blunt instrument TAS and ADS-B is obvious .... what do you not grasp?
.
I have one word for you Bing Galileo!!!! ;) … and whilst we are at it spell checker!!
.
Keep trotting out garbage and ignoring the information provided to you and the readers, that’s fine. They are wise enough to see through the deliberate ignorance ;)

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

FB
it looks like Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower has realised just what a waste of money any 'Traffic' system (ADS-B) will be for VFR aircraft safety in Oz - infact, IMHO, it will probably kill pilots

http://ny-image0.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.11925780.jpg

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

:} ..... :D :D

[Flying Binghi]

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower - do you often photograph the back end of animals, sounds like you have an interesting fetish there....:D



Galileo

Tell me more Scurvy.D.Dog - sounds religious....is it your saviour ? :)



...anyway, nuff for now. Tommorow, Scurvy.D.Dog can tell us how ADS-B will stop all those GAAP mid-airs :cool:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Tomorrow ;) .. oh Bing ... run out of interference puff have ya :}
.
It is all here, re read it when you and the fishing float are sober! ... you might learn something! :p ;)
.
What was it that ‘Bond’ said … tomorrow never dies!!
.
Nite D1ckhead!!! :} :E

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Sorry to get involved in the tete a tete gentlemen but I'm a bit confused. As someone who uses ADSB In every day I'm wondering what exactly the problem is. Someone has evolved a new technology that uses the best of several older systems, makes it smaller, hopefully affordable, hopefully subsidised and increases coverage over a much wider area over our large brown land. Where is the problem?

Is it because it will increase the visibility of all aircraft with the units fitted?

Is it because it will reduce the capital costs of dated infrastructure?

Is it because more aerodromes will be safer in the circuit due to the visibility of aircraft from both ATC and other aircraft?

Is it because aircraft will be able to get more data on what other aircraft are doing with audible and visible alarms.

Is it because search and rescue will be significantly enhanced with the increased visibility from both aircraft and ATC?

Is it because VFR aircraft can be fitted with a funky new display that does many more things than just show your track at a reduced price because the industry feels it would be safer for all if you can be seen a new way electronically?

Is it because you use the politics of fear of guided missile accuracy of 0.5m, which I can do pretty easily now without the need for an encrypted ADSB unit, using off the shelf items that I won't tell you how but believe me can be done?

Is it because we'll be able to possibly send and receive more than just position/alt/speed/trend/ID/destination, maybe things like wx and safety alerts as well?

Is it because it will cost about 2 100hrlys on a standard twin for the install?

Or is it because it's new and we should always be scared of new things?

Can someone please show me what I'm missing?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

W.O.G .. how dare you speak the truth ..... :=
.
There is a scare campaign to be had lad!!!! :} :ooh: :E
.
Wake up man :} :E

[james michael]

W.O.G.

A superb summation.

If we take the proposition by Jetski et al that there is no risk of a collision, at least it gives us the opportunity to read the Herald Sun or Australian en route.

Bung

So an aural traffic alert in a GAAP won't stop midairs? I'll let the towers know, they too can read the newspaper.

To continue the W.O.G. proposition, I fail to see how adding an EXTRA layer of safety, that reports directly to the PIC without third party need, is a negative.

In aviation safety the chance of a midair is - as Jetski pointed out - miniscule, although increasing nearer the CTAF. It's the consequences of the midair that make mitigation worthwhile.

[jeta108]

There is always the possibility of a collision. What I have been asking all along is what is the probability? Is this probability quantifiable and does the risk justify the expenditure.

The answer is so small a probability as to be unmeasureable in statistical form and the claimed enhanced safety does not justify the expense.

The only mob who can gain measureable benefits are Airservices.

Now I don't care if somebody gives me a free gadget. What I want is proof of this actually happening. The absence of which makes me very suspicious of scaremongering snake oil salesmen that live in Airservices pocket.

If there is a chance that I will have to pay for it I want a better reason than anectdotes of near misses.

Honestly, some of you should stay in bed if you think you need ATC to help you fly into Burketown. The only other aircraft looking out for you will have ADSB IN which is not part of any proposed subsidy. Thems that will probably have it, are thems who already have TCAS anyway.

Horses arses is very apt when you consider what's in front of it. Campaigning for a mandate before a subsidy is like;

http://jilldenton.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/cart-before-horse-2.jpg

[james michael]

Jetski

What is missing in the picture, if not in real life, is the blinkers on the horse :)

Those without blinkers may care to examine a current thread Collision Avoidance in Cloud

The only mob who can gain measureable benefits are Airservices.

Perhaps ask the pilot of the TCAS equipped a/c on that thread how he would have fared in a non-radar environment and the other a/c with txpdr off (remember the Bo at Dubbo quoted recently).

ADS-B IN means both a/c would have seen each other independent of third-party advice.

If the risk is so small, why TCAS anyway - back to reading the paper, buy a lot of newspapers for a TCAS cost?

What I want is proof of this actually happening. The absence of which makes me very suspicious of scaremongering snake oil salesmen that live in Airservices pocket.

Might be a few posting on here who don't appreciate being labeled SSOS for supporting what they see as a better approach to safety :E

The absence of it actually happening makes me suspicious also. Suspicious that one who advised he intended to stop the program has found a way to do so - to the detriment of aviation safety in Australia. The radar replacement deadline has passed and we need an answer sooner rather than later. Perhaps one of those SSOS can get an answer from "the pocket"? :hmm:

[jeta108]

Buzzard Scrotum.- See and avoid obviously doesn't work in the clouds because you can't see. Near miss is a relative term. he missed him by a mile.

I wonder do birds fly in the clouds. Never seen one, have you? How many COULD we have nearly missed with near fatal consequences? Perhaps until this is cleared up we should all stay on the ground.

When discussing VFR cowboys remember history is full of IFR pilots busting minimums. The ones we read about are usually fatal and account for more deaths than mid air collisions. The ones we don't read about just get away with it. Can we assume all IFR pilots are cowboys or is it just VFR pilots.

Why do you continue with reference to ADSB IN? Do you now want this mandated. It's not part of any subsidy I have read about. How much will this cost?

[james michael]

UPDATE

The answer is so small a probability as to be unmeasureable in statistical form and the claimed enhanced safety does not justify the expense.

The only mob who can gain measureable benefits are Airservices.Occurrence Number: 200800771
On 13 February 2008, a Piper Aircraft Corporation Super Cub aeroplane and a Robinson Helicopter Company R44 Raven helicopter collided in midair during feral goat culling operations. The aeroplane impacted the ground at a steep angle, fatally injuring the two occupants. The helicopter, though damaged, was safely landed.

The investigation is continuing.

ADS-B IN aural would not have helped? :mad::ugh:

Lucky we know Statistically there is no measurable risk of mid air collision in class G airspace.

[jeta108]

Flying a hazardous mission probably so low as to be in ground effect and thermal activity in close lateral proximity and with a focus outside the cockpit and manouvering to shoot goats nearly qualifies as a fatal taxi accident.

But new statistics deduced by james michael from this hive of activity justifies a mandatory fitment of ADSB for the entire Australian fleet and mandatory monitoring of IN COCKPIT devices while flying at these nose bleeding heights?

It would be safer and cheaper to poison the goats, probably safer and cheaper to poison a conservationalist who is more likely to be the real cause of the accident.

[james michael]

Jetski

You are correct of course. Your headphones are an "in cockpit" device.

ADS-B IN does not have to be mandated if integral in the box. Did you not read what Planky posted? (PS Integral in the box means gets any subsidy).

What news from your leader re attempts to shaft the subsidy? Or should one ask Qantas :rolleyes:

[jeta108]

Nobody I know of is trying to "shaft" any subsidy you bitter and twisted individual. This sounds like you accept that it could be a dud and you are looking for someone to blame.

More to the point, you are the one trying to sell me some aluminium cladding for my house on the promise that it will cost me nothing. (and you reckon you don't work for the Company).

I want an irrevokable promise in writing and signed by the Boss, not the silver tongue salesman.

Then they can start work and we can stop pestering each other can't we.

If you can't arrange this, I'll take it that you are lying and are only interested in the commission.

[james michael]

Fascinating psychological study, involving numerous theories including conspiracy :hmm:

The document was called the JCP.

I am certain I saw your leader say on here he was going to stop the low level rollout - am I in error?

No cross industry funding = no mandate for ADS-B below FLs. The two are inexorably linked.

[Flying Binghi]

Whiskey Oscar Golf
Is it because you use the politics of fear of guided missile accuracy of 0.5m, which I can do pretty easily now without the need for an encrypted ADSB unit, using off the shelf items that I won't tell you how but believe me can be done?


Whats the ADS-B unit got to do with it ??? - no idea methinks :hmm:

[Flying Binghi]

Soooo....wheres a link to the manufacturer of this ADS-B unit that will not only give me .0005 seconds visual advice of impending doom in the GAAP - it will do it audibly :E ...I need never look out the window agin....:cool:



......one must not foreget to thank Scurvy.D.Dog for providing a breakdown of the mid-air figures for Oz............all about the circuit it is......:)

[PlankBlender]

Binghi, the business is well known and respected by many on this forum, and it's their expressed wish to keep details under wraps until the unit's commercial success can be assured, which I think is in the interest of most of us here.

I have seen a demo of the unit, as have other people here (including some well known names in the industry :hmm:), and the review that is linked in one of these threads speaks volumes too..

Let's hope AsA get their act together rather quickly, and we can start reaping the benefits :D

[james michael]

Jetski (Biggles, this next may partly answer your original thread starting question)

Nobody I know of is trying to "shaft" any subsidy you bitter and twisted individual.Have a browse of (among others) the thread "Australian Airspace Discussion"

At post 90 as one example you will find Dick (I have been holding off this comment pending his return) state (and I am certain I have seen something even stronger from him re holding off ADS-B) No Not stop ADSB, just delay the decision so we have all the factsThings seem to have gone very quiet on the news re the JCP and radar, apart from Dick fishing for news.

But, one thing is inescapable. If anyone has succeeded in "delaying" the decision on ADS-B, then:
1. The radar contract will have to be signed, and,
2. The cross industry funding (the 'subsidy') is therefore lost until 2028.

Any delay tactics re the JCP - be they pressure on the Minister over a repeat of unique Oz technology past attempts, right through to pressure re the Airservices alleged Delaware money losses and the effect on the dividend - have one final consequence.

They "shaft" the subsidy. Like I stated. :{

I hope that is not a likely possibility. Industry should decide the way forward with ADS-B, not individuals. I have my fingers crossed.

(Planky, you could say it is an enigma to me ;) )

[jeta108]

it's their expressed wish to keep details under wraps until the unit's commercial success can be assured, which I think is in the interest of most of us here.

Bull$hit:

Read this as let's wait until there is a guarantee of a subsidy and preferrably a mandate and, plus approval for this particular piece of equipment. Commercial interests are at play here, and you reackon it's in the best interests of most of us here.

The thing should sell on it's merits but they are doing what I have been asking for, and that my naive poster is show me the proof of the money. Not some wank tank of vested representatives interests who can't sign cheques giving verbal assurances.

McDonalds are opening a new joint near me, the place is under construction and they are advertising like mad. They won't know of any commercial success until they start business.

Do they qualify for a mandate and a subsidy?

EDIT to add for the cladding salesman.

Dick is not my Boss, but given your interpretation of his posts I must put my hand up and agree with him. As the Australian manufacturer is waiting on clarification and approval, so should we.

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Mr. Binghi, Sorry if my post was ambiguous, what I was saying was if I was to use a corrected gps signal to guide anything, I can get better than 0.5m accuracy and I can do it without WAAS. But thank you for your inference that I had no idea. Much appreciated.

Regards

[james michael]

While we are in "no idea" mode, I'll add for Jetski's elucidation that a business with outstanding new equipment in a competitive market is unlikely to go open public until the market calls for it.

It's called 'business' and 'competition' and not offering the competition your market secrets. Usually results from R&D money spent- which is not funded by the competitors.

Perhaps check the Microair offering if a comparison is needed - they are also in business and likewise reticent. Or see what Garmin is offering - and be assured they aren't waiting for the subsidy to design and protype. ;)

[Flying Binghi]

Whiskey Oscar Golf
Mr. Binghi, Sorry if my post was ambiguous, what I was saying was if I was to use a corrected gps signal to guide anything, I can get better than 0.5m accuracy and I can do it without WAAS. But thank you for your inference that I had no idea. Much appreciated.


.....handy thing them ADS-B towers :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

PlankBlender
the business is well known and respected by many on this forum, and it's their expressed wish to keep details under wraps until the unit's commercial success can be assured

Some extracts from the writings of a Mr N. E. Renton -

New Products......in the small Australian investment world such inovation is often a mixed blessing, because it leads to increased overheads and to confusion among investors (we pilots) and even among financial advisers.....Some new products will succed and some will not......but the community has to pay for the hidden costs. .........Furtermore, investors who buy products which they do not understand are very likely to get their fingers burnt.

Basic stuff there.

Unless we have a proven fully costed product for this debate, we are wasting our time even discusing it.

[PlankBlender]

Binghi, I'll bite to some degree :hmm: Someone else has stated in this discussion that the price is planned to be within the VFR subsidy (including installation), knowing the basics of the setup I would assume this to be realistic.

Just come clarification, the pilots (more correct: owners) aren't the investors here, with the subsidy the customer (wouldn't call them investors either) is AsA. The actual investors in the product are the ones providing capital to bring the product to market, and I won't go into the rationale why I would be one of them (to protect said business interests), but I know I would if I could..

What do you think are the hidden costs here?

Even without this specific development, the discussion makes a lot of sense as it a) elicits the opinions from all different corners of the aviation spectrum and b) there are other products in the market or under development that would, albeit less ideally, fit the bill, and c) the market will be awash with products once the US makes its decision.

The challenge for the designer builders of the great box I've seen at work is indeed to find enterprising investors, but I would think that with a lot of the riskier investment opportunities having dried up recently, there'll be a few angels willing to fund this. It's not a Trump sized investment..

What I don't understand is why one very vocal aviation personality hasn't already snapped this one up :confused:

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Handy things those omnistars:ugh:

[peuce]

A questions for Bob & Bing (there's a movie in there somewhere !) ...

IF the subsidy becomes a reality and IF the new In/Out kit prices within the subsidy ... would all your concerns be allayed ?

[Bob Murphie]

peuce;would all your concerns be allayed ?

No, but I would be happy for you.

[Dick Smith]

In a recent article in Aviation International News (see here (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/industry-awaits-arc-report-on-changes-to-ads-b-plan/)) it is reported that there are further problems in the USA. To quote – in relation to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on ADS-B:

Of the 1,372 responses to the document’s 85 separate issues, there were 101 positive comments, versus 1,271 negative–or “non-positive,” in FAA terminology–comments.

That is about 12:1 against the proposal – quite a resounding negative.

The article goes on to state:

What did this tell the FAA? Essentially, it said that however wonderful new technology solutions may appear to their advocates, intended users are concerned primarily with the ratio of cost to benefits, and most of the users believe the agency’s ADS-B out equipage mandate will not produce a positive cost-benefit equation for general aviation or anyone else who flies below jet altitudes.

It will be interesting to see how this issue in the USA is resolved. I would say we have quite a long way to go before they finalise exactly what they are doing.

[peuce]

Okay Bob,

So from your response, can I summarise as follows:


You've been given a free piece of kit ( as per my scenario above)
You still don't want the kit


The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't want to be "seen" by the system or other pilots. If this conclusion is correct ... what is the reason?

If my conclusion is wrong, please tell me why you don't want a FREE piece of equipment ... remember cost isn't the issue, it's free in my scenario.

[peuce]

NEWSFLASH ..... NEWSFLASH ..... NEWSFLASH

" ...A new poll of Americans has found that 90% of them don't like their Medical & Hospital insurance system ..."

In response, Kevin Rudd has decided to immediately abolish the Australian Medicare system untill the American situation can be resolved ....

[james michael]

For once I'm right behind Dick.

The USA does not propose a cross industry funding (i.e. subsidy). Therefore their cost-benefit equation would be somewhat (i.e. massively) negatively skewed against.

It's no secret the deal in Oz was to save $ on the radars and save $ for the airlines and that's where the XIF originates.

Then along came ADS-B IN as a bonus for safety that was quoted in the JCP but not provided in the subsidy. Then along came at least one local manufacturer with integrated ADS-B IN in the price and the cost-benefit equation tipped very positive for Australia.

Peuce, I'm right behind you also. The two proposals are absolutely unrelated and there is no valid comparison.

The window of opportunity for Australia is at the death knock. Can Dick shut it in time :hmm:

[Bob Murphie]

Read my response again and try to take in what I said. Then ask me the same question after the subsidy materialises.

[PlankBlender]

Dick, this may be provocative or naive, but how 'bout this:

Approach the manufacturers of the integrated ADS-B in/out unit, provide them with the funding to bring the unit to market (you'd no doubt profit handsomely in the long run), at the same time approaching AsA with the plans to bring the kit to market ASAP if they put the JCP into action?! Make the two things dependent on each other contractually and your risk is negligible :cool:

Is this really too simplistic? What are the problems I'm not seeing?

[jeta108]

This is the reason vested interests here are fighting so hard for a mandate. The great unwashed mustn't be allowed to have any say in the matter.

If that happens before any subsidy, you can watch any free handouts go up in a cloud of smoke and mirrors.

In my research, I am today advised that there has been no formal proposal submitted to Airservices in relation to a subsidy. That would explain why we can't get anything in writing from anyone who signs the cheques.

[james michael]

Jetski

Research needs a basis and a statement needs an anchor of reality.

I am today advised that there has been no formal proposal submitted to Airservices in relation to a subsidyWhat on earth is that meant to mean and what relevance? The JCP is a paper issued by FOUR Government heads PROPOSING a subsidy.

Why does anyone need to submit a proposal to Airservices and exactly who should submit same?

I don't follow your logic. Where four departments are involved, would it not be a matter for Treasury?

Planky

My understanding is that Dick has known about the Oz ADS-B unit since the BLA investigation as there was commonality of those involved in the avionics investigation. Yet he has not said boo about it on here nor seemingly done as suggested and backed an Australian organisation with a winning package. Strange support for GA in Oz.

Find me one thing Dick has written supporting ADS-B in Australia. This thread is another attempt to denigrate the Oz proposal - using the absolutely unrelated USA experience and I don't need to point out the disparities again.

It is my belief that if the 2008 window of opportunity shuts, Dick can take some of the credit for NOT supporting the JCP. :(

[jeta108]

Why does anyone need to submit a proposal to Airservices

So they need not go out and spend those $millions on Radar head replacement and save me, the taxpayer/ shareholder, from wasting any more money.

Why would it be a matter for Treasury when the subsidy is allegedly coming from across the industry. And why doesn't this industry back an Australian organisation with a winning package

I'll be glad when the bloody window shuts. What will you do then? Go back to trying to kill AD ENG-4 again Strange support for GA in Oz.

It is indeed strange that some people would attempt to get rid of Australia specific AD's because they don't harmonise with the US but support Australia specific avionics despite,using the absolutely unrelated USA experience as the basis.

Your anchor is dragging.

[james michael]

Jetski

Send us all some of whatever you are smoking :confused:

No one has to submit a proposal to ASA - they submitted one to the APG - thus the JCP.

I did not ask why did not this INDUSTRY back a winning Oz org, I repeated another's question on here why DICK has not. Used to be one of his claims to fame - no?

Now, sit down in a quiet spot and get ready to think this one through.

The USA ADS-B is NOT, repeat NOT, the Oz ADS-B. It is two interlinked systems, not one. It has translators, a transition layer, no XIF, and so on.

Therefore, the issues quoted re the USA in ADS-B are different. Although, even acknowledging the different systems and fundings, the ARC Report still SUPPORTS ADS-B.

Now, here's the test of logic for you ( and thank you for calling me a buzzard scrotum on a thread in case anyone feels I'm being harsh on you).

Thread drift I know but you asked the question - my question in return to you - are the aircraft we fly here and in the USA made differently or are they the same. Perhaps if you think that through you will understand why one comparison is OK, the other not.

By the way, my research indicates CASA are deleting unique Oz ADs hand over fist thus saving owners many many $$$ by moving to manufacturer and FAA guidelines (on the basis that they may kknow a tad more than CASA about it). Good on CASA for doing so, and good on CASA and a certain association for ensuring that a few AD that have been negotiated and proven FAVOURABLE to owners are not thrown out with the bath water.

Your anchor has gone down with the ship. Perhaps you are 'free on' a russian submarine at present? :D

[K-941]

So they need not go out and spend those $millions on Radar head replacement and save me, the taxpayer/ shareholder, from wasting any more money.
Tri-pacer Spat What part of:-

the ENROUTE RADAR's NEED REPLACEMENT by 2016 (it is not optional - unless another technology option of a lesser overall cost is incepted instead)

do you not understand :ugh:

[K-941]

The cross industry funding would apply to you how exactly?

Intending to install an ADS-B box in a balsa model are you? :p

[jeta108]

Омбудсмен следующем:mad:

[jeta108]

james dribble. I don't smoke. Are CASA talking to you?

Grumman Goose. I don't believe anything you say or do. Probably something to do with your previous treachery.

[K-941]

Угрозы от замаринованных сельдей. :p

Имейте другое питье. ;)

[jeta108]

I'll drink to that.

[peuce]

Bob,

I'm really trying to break down your objections ... into parts, so that I can try and understand your point of view.

I'll try and be more succinct ..

Say, you owned a C210.
Say, an ADS-B IN/OUT box was offerred to you FREE, installation included, would you object to using it ?

[Flying Binghi]

IF the subsidy becomes a reality and IF the new In/Out kit prices within the subsidy ... would all your concerns be allayed ?

Oh dear...somebody aint been reading about the terrorist misuse of GPS causing the loss of same :hmm: ....of course, if this ADS-B thingy dont need GPS - then we got no worries.........................................


One thing about a non GPS based ATC, is it is very robust agin a terrorist attack.

[ferris]

FB, you have converted me. There is a very real, prescient risk that the entire ATC system would have to revert to procedural control in the event of a terrorist attack using GPS guided weapons. This reversion represents an unacceptable risk, certainly. Procedural control, as used across oz and every ocean in the world, is just the sort of blatant terror-cherry-ready-to-be-picked-type thing Al Quaida search the world hoping to have invoked.

I suspect that when you make statements about the robust ATC system being terrorist proof, you have never actually visited a centre. A man with a pistol could take one out for days, and if carrying explosives, weeks/months. Imagine if the terrorists got their hands on TWO pistols, and TWO explosive vests? My god....

Then I've just realised- what if they woke up to the vulnerability of the power grid....imagine what a couple of truck bombs could do....no power in a major city for weeks/months..... no traffic lights, no refridgeration.....this could happen without warning at any time!! I know you will join with me in lobbying the govt to ban road use and refridgerated food. Lets set up outside Coles tomorrow- the people must be warned of their folly! I'll let you choose which Coles; I'll bring the foil hats.

I forgot about the dams.......but then again, it's far more likely that terrorists will build marine-launched flying GPS guided buzz bombs capable of delivering a payload from off-shore that will be big enough to be effective, yet small enough to evade detection, enabling repeated attacks requiring the shut-down of the GPS constellation......sort of an invisble, floating, GPS-guided V2 rocket launch vessel. That's MUCH more likely than anyone with a pistol, explosive jacket, or truck bomb.....right? Right?

[Dick Smith]

I have now been informed of the decision that has been made in relation to ADS-B. For some incredible reason I have been sworn to secrecy.

However I will say that Brian Hannan, the Vice President of AOPA, who has long supported the subsidy, will be extremely disappointed.

I’m glad that rational heads have prevailed.

[james michael]

Dick

As another who has vigorously supported increasing Australian airspace safety and airspace architecture with the cross industry funded ADS-B project, I too am disappointed with last Monday's news, which seems to have finally reached the hinterlands of aviation :) Why on earth would you be sworn to secrecy at the end of the queue, though?

I'm uncertain 'rational heads have prevailed'. Bureaucratic blockages do not rate as rational heads in my opinion. I thought you were against bureaucracies. Particularly when those same bureaucrats are paying millions to subsidise gas fitment to autos, proposed billions to bale out the car industry, and big money anywhere but aviation.

Looks like we now join the USA in going down the ADS-B track incrementally and on an 'owner pays' basis. Transponders in E all over again. Owners should be ecstatic at being saved from subsidised ADS-B and TSO 146 GPS fitment - shouldn't they :rolleyes:

Can you just confirm or refute for the record - so we all have it correct - that:
1. You have pushed for a 5 year overlap of radars and ADS-B, knowing that stuffed the cross industry funding, and,
2. You have opposed the ATLAS mandate throughout (lower level ADS-B).

I believe we have snatched defeat from certain victory.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Ferris,

You can count me in, could you please bring a spare foil hat, i'll bring a case of blueberry pop tarts and seasons 1 through 6 of Zena, princess warrior, in HD of course, KAPLAW !!!!! ( klingon for victory) :).

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Sworn to secrecy :rolleyes: .. oh please :hmm:
.
So from the sounds of it, I guess you are cock-a-hoot that industry will pay 300million to replace existing Enroute radars and Navaids i.e. that 300million will provide ... hmmm, nothing more to industry than .....errm .... what exists now!! ... well thank the (insert deity of choice) :suspect:
I’m glad that rational heads have prevailed. … cannot wait to see the detail of WHY this has supposedly occurred!!
.
In the meantime, chalk it up on your list of 'wins for the industry' .. :D

[PlankBlender]

Dick, methinks you need to explain that 'rational heads' comment, by itself it reeks of BS :ouch:

Why would it be rational to support old, expensive technology in lieu of a move to next generation technology that delivers traffic information to all airspace users within a few years at no or very little cost to the individual aircraft owner?

If I want traffic info in my aeroplane now, I need to spend 10 grand on a TAS600 or similar. Great! :yuk:

[james michael]

Planky

Rational heads?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

:ok::ok:

Edit to add - getting slow in my old age.

"secret briefing"!

Who was the self-announced guest speaker at tbe AEA conference in Qld?
Is it not fact that the announcement about the JCP was made public there by Greg Dunstone of Airservices.
Let the secrecy end. The whole avionics industry knows. Shhhhhhh :p

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I have just read, an announcement released today by AsA and mentioning Greg Russell's statement that ADSB is to be introduced into WA on a trial basis for the mining industry flights.

And now, my 'oletimers' has set in and I can't find it for posting here.

It concluded with the explanation that the communications network had to be converted from analogue to digital - and apparently nobody recognised the scope of work required to do this - hence the delay.

I thought I saw it on the RAA site - but ........

I'll go quietly....

:ok::ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

If I want traffic info in my aeroplane now, I need to spend 10 grand on a TAS600 or similar

I think the last price I saw was about US$12k plus installation. You may not get much change out of A$20k.

I have a Zaon XRX PCAS in the Bo (after a recent close encounter), but the jury is still out on whether it was worth the A$2k.

Dr :8

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

ADSB In WA? (New or Old News?)

"Australian air navigation service provider Airservices Australia is in discussions with operators that provide fly-in, fly-out charter services for mine companies in Western Australia (WA) on an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) trial to be run in the state next year.

The trial would contribute to the service provider's case for an extension of its existing ADS-B programme. Airservices Australia is already implementing ADS-B above flight level 300 in a programme that involves the installation of ADS-B ground stations throughout the country to provide radar-like surveillance. The service provider had proposed extending ADS-B coverage below FL300 in a move that would require the country's general aviation fleet to be equipped with ADS-B avionics. However, that programme stalled in 2006 when it became clear that some parts of the industry and government required more information, particularly relating to cost issues. Last year saw the release of a consultation paper that included a proposal for a cross-industry subsidy scheme for the acquisition and installation of ADS-B avionics for GA operators.

Airservices chief executive officer Greg Russell says "a lot of work" has been done on the "highly complex issue" and a recommendation on a subsidy scheme will be presented to the minister of transport in the next few weeks.

The WA trial would provide Airservices with "a better understanding of what is required" with the lower airspace programme, as well as providing improved surveillance for WA's booming mining charter market. ADS-B ground stations are currently deployed at 14 sites in Australia, with eight of these in WA and more due to come on line in the state before the end of the year.

Meanwhile, nationwide ADS-B coverage above FL300 will be available in 2009 - four years later than originally planned. Russell conceded at the Australian Airports Association national convention earlier this week that the programme, which required rebuilding the country's communication network from analogue to digital, was "much more complex than we first understood". Despite the delay, Australia will still be the first country in the world to roll out nationwide ADS-B coverage, says Russell. "


Like I said above, whether this is 'new' or 'old', I dunno.
But it DOES sound GOOD!

:ok:

[Bob Murphie]

FACT.

No proposal was ever put to The Qantas Board of Directors and Qantas never agreed to a cross industry subsidy.

FACT.

No proposal was ever put to The Virgin Board of Directors and Virgin never agreed to a cross industry subsidy.

[PlankBlender]

Bob Murphie, stop spreading BS. := Get your facts straight, your persistent spreading of half truths and confusion is :yuk::yuk::yuk:

Your "FACTS" are non-sensical, airlines have nothing to do with cross industry funding.

From here: http://www.astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/ABIT12_IP09_ATLAS_Overview.pdf

This in turn will ensure that funding is available (in the form of savings from the avoided
cost of ground infrastructure replacement) to fund the required airborne infrastructure.

The savings and hence subsidy would come out of AsA budgets. I.e. money already set aside to maintain radar systems would instead be spent on ADS-B avionics in GA aircraft.

[Bob Murphie]

james michael: No cross industry funding = no mandate for ADS-B below FLs. The two are inexorably linked.

Why does anyone need to submit a proposal to Airservices and exactly who should submit same?

Because they were going to administer the subsidy remember.

I know who is spreading half truths and confusion and it's not me.

I have said all along it's a good chance it's a fizzer. YOU preferred to listen to other BS because you didn't want to venture outside your own little self interest cube and listen to the alternate view. Now if it is mandated and you have to pay for the installation, you know who to blame.....

I predict there will be no mandate for low level VFR ADSB, common sense will prevail.

[bushy]

What makes you blokes think ASA would listen to you anyway? The airlines spend the big money in aviation (inside the j curve anyway) and it appears to me that ASA and CASA are both subsidiaries of Qantas.

In a few years, when they figure out how to do it and get the technology working they will mandate ADSB (if they can) so the airlines can get "nannied" in the few outback places they go to, and ASA can make more money by doing it. The GA pilots and operators will gain very little from it, and will have to carry it and maintain it. Just like the transponders. ASA will also win by having cheaper surveilance gear. The major beneficiaries should pay for it.

There is equipment aqvailable, or coming which will bbe much much more valuable to GA. Some of it may cpmpete with ADSB, and this , of course cannot be permitted. Shock horror.

Ten thousand little aeroplanes are not considered important, but a few hundred airliners are. They will get what they want.

[Plazbot]

And finally you understand.

[james michael]

Plaz

:ok:

Bushy

Thanks to the smear campaign of those in a certain camp there was much b..s spread about ADS-B in Oz and the JCP. I think Plaz is hinting you might have believed some of it at the time.

You've summed up the result - ADS-B will ultimately be mandated WITHOUT any funding for GA. At our expense in other words. Was always the second chance.

Had the naysayers seen the logical business end of the deal, a $10K subsidy or $15K is better than none. Of course some can afford the $ so why should they worry about the common man.

One of my researchers is preparing a compendium of wisdom on ADS-B from Dick's previous posts on the matter. When the post mortem is conducted, at least his position will be clear when I post that compendium given he has been very quiet today (possibly at more secret briefings :rolleyes:).

[Jabawocky]

Well Dick, FB and Bob etc.....

I HOPE THEY MANDATE IT VERY SOON FOR ALL AIRCRAFT

Why? because I have already the bulk of the equipment cost covered already and I want to see you lot fork out full price for it! Yes I am being spiteful but hey, from where I sit right now I can afford to be. I hope it bites the lot of you on the arse.

The only thing you have on your side is ASA and CASA are so slow to do anything some of you will have retired from flying by then!

J:ugh:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Oh !! Shock!! Oh!! Horror!! ---- Now I don't get the subsidy to solve the problem I don't have !!! ---- And nor does anybody else have.

Looks like I will be able to stick with my existing Mode S transponders for a while yet.

Seriously, a few of you ADS- Bophiles, or should that be ADS-B Tragics, in light of what was always going to be the most likely outcome, should now go back and read some of the saner and more logical of the JCP submissions (ASAC for one)----- or, perhaps, look at what FAA and Eurocontrol are actually planning with ADS-B ---- to use it as another tool in providing separation services ----- and not ( as has been almost the total concentration on these and related threads) as an aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance device.

I just love the argument going on, a few posting back, about where the money was going to come from, and ---- what if?? just possibly ??? all the cost savings from "radar" were very inflated (the NZ costs to upgrade exactly the same equipment is public information and in JCP submissions) and don't forget ----

Most of the ASA proposed cost saving came from pulling out ground based navaids (not "radar"), and that didn't and doesn't need ADS-B, just GPS with TSO C-145/146 chips.

Jabberjabber, have a look at the published figures for the number of Qantas, Jetstar, and Virgin aircraft that cannot be economically upgraded to even ADS-B OUT.

Jabber, old chap, perhaps the airlines did call the shots, because the great bulk of the present Australian airline fleet cannot be "economically" upgraded, (anything is possible, given the application of unlimited cubic dollars - a rather scarce commodity right now) so do you really think they (senior executive management --- not the low level office types who go to consultation meetings) were going to accept a "mandate" that rendered a substantial proportion of their fleet un-usable in Australian airspace.

Fantasyland mugged by reality probably just about describes the ADS-B outcome.

Tootle pip!!

PS:
Bob Murphie was quite correct, in the Virgin case, I challenge anybody to produce evidence that the Virgin board signed off on fitting ADS-B OUT to all their own aircraft, let alone pony up any subsidy. Did the mini-jets come already fitted ??

Ditto: QANTAS mainline.

By whatever accounting entries might have been used, the ASA major customers were going to pay.

[james michael]

Leaddy

That's great rhetoric - then one grabs the magnifying glass and :eek:

have a look at the published figures for the number of Qantas, Jetstar, and Virgin aircraft that cannot be economically upgraded to even ADS-B OUTI challenge anybody to produce evidence that the Virgin board signed off on fitting ADS-B OUT to all their own aircraftand this is so logical it is absolutely unarguable - why didn't we think of it

do you really think they (senior executive management --- not the low level office types who go to consultation meetings) were going to accept a "mandate" that rendered a substantial proportion of their fleet un-usable in Australian airspace.So, Leaddy, the mugs read this and say "oh Leaddy guru, you make it all so clear".

But then someone suggests - hey, wasn't there two programs - the UAP (Upper Airspace Project) and the JCP (Lower airspace)?

So Leaddy you may be absolutely correct. Let's now await whether a mandate occurs for above 29,000'. Last time I looked, apart from climb and descent, that's where Qantas and Virgin fly. Should that occur, your post becomes a nonsense.

QF delivered a letterheaded paper at Dec 2007 ABIT which stated inter alia:

QANTAS believes that ADS-B (1090 ES) will be central to any future Australian ATM surveillance strategy and will be key to delivering future airborne situational awareness and separation applications (ASAS). It is consistent with the ASTRA vision which is supported by all major stakeholders.

Time will tell Leaddy - you may be right, Qantas may be wrong :ugh:

[Dick Smith]

JM, run all my previous quotes if you like - they will all be consistent.

I am delighted with the decision. I have just left a briefing by Freeflight here in Cairns re updating Aussie aircraft to ADS-B.

There are some exciting products coming and rumoured - including a combination Mode S extended squitter and UAT in transponder from Garmin.

Now that we have time we can benefit from substantially lower costs and more up to date equipment.

I will now work towards the cost savings that can be gained by removing old ground based nav aids - millions will be saved by our industry as shown in the JCP. There is no need to link this with the future fitment of ADSB.

[Jabawocky]

Maybe back in your day they were not economical to upgrade, but last I looked the Q group fleet had a lot of ADSB already and I do believe I read that Q letter somewhere myself.

Somehow I think the NDB & enroute radar costs were well known to ASA in their original proposal, surely you know roughly how much cash is in your wallet!

J

[james michael]

Dick

Ever heard of an oxymoron?

a combination Mode S extended squitter and UAT in transponder from Garmin.

Now that we have time we can benefit from substantially lower costs and more up to date equipment.Tell the world Dick - how does UAT provide lower costs?

Perhaps also tell the mugs who believed your "consistent" anti-1090 anti-JCP preachings, Dick - did you qualify for the subsidy or not?

And for those who stood to get ADS-B fitted for FREE, Dick, but now have to pay for it - where are THEIR 'substantially lower costs'.

Priceless :yuk:

[LeadSled]

Dear James,

You really don't understand, do you, and probably never will.

I have never said that ADS-B will not play a major roll in ATC in the future, in fact, in the last post, I suggested you and a few others look at what Eurocontrol and FAA intend for ADS-B ---- another ATC tool.

None of that needs to mandate ADS-B in GA for low level operations, or even high level, for that matter --- you do understand why, do you ??? Probably not.

Do you have any understanding of our bi-lateral obligations for airspace access --- and Australia's legal ability to impose a unique "Australian mandate" on foreign aircraft ---- don't kid yourself about Australia's power (legally or diplomatically) to refuse access to foreign aircraft.

Fleet rollover will mean that the proportion of the Australian airline fleet that has (at least) ADS-B OUT will increase, but many airline aircraft presently on the Australian register will never be retrofitted, because it is too expensive ---- ask those operators who have aircraft where the holder of the Type Certificate is Stork --- as just one example.

There will be no "mandate" that stops them operating, the economy can't afford it.

By your own admissions, you are the bloke with all the contacts, what does Boeing say about retrofitting ADS-BOUT (let alone IN) to B737NG-700/800/900?? ---- if they didn't come factory fitted.

Booze Allan Hamilton (BAH) knows the answer to the above question, Dick Smith knows (because he asked Boeing, Airbus and FAA), and I know the BAH answer, do you??

Actually, ADS-B always was relatively simple policy issue, but the issue was hijacked by quite unrealistic expectations on the part of a number of players, with a number of motivations, varying from the venal to the misguided, through to those blinded by their rose colored glasses ---

----none of whom were ever going to directly foot the bill.

Into which category do do you fit ??

Tootle pip!!

[Bob Murphie]

james dribble said And for those who stood to get ADS-B fitted for FREE, Dick, but now have to pay for it

So there you go Jabawocky, no need to kick the cat, it's been mandated.

[james michael]

Leaddy

Thanks for answering what I did not ask or say. To save further convolution on your part

Let's now await whether a mandate occurs for above 29,000'.

(PS You quoted ASAC earlier - why does the thought 'some exemptions' come to mind :suspect:)

Murphie

A beautiful demo of dumb. The removal of the XIF subsidy associated with the JCP mandate means any chance of GA being subsidised vanishes until long after ADS-B arrives. It does not imply a mandate. No wonder you had trouble following the debate.

You and Leaddy should cut back on the dickmite or you'll become that brand of matches - I forget what they are called. :=

Let's await the official release of the JCP demise.

[Bob Murphie]

james dribble. My post was directed at the organ grinder, not the monkey.

Jabawocky. Do you have irrational fears of mid air collision? Do you suffer from dystychiphobia? Miracle cures available for the GA pilot; Zaon Flight Systems - PCAS MRX Overview (http://www.zaon.aero/content/view/2/41/)

[james michael]

Bob

A second beautiful display of dumb. No wonder you were lost with the JCP. Have you been imbibing jet fuel?

Tell us how the unit you posted works outside radar cover :D

(Is that an organ I hear grinding, or your teeth). :hmm:

[Bob Murphie]

Zaon Flight Systems - PCAS MRX Technical Specifications (http://www.zaon.aero/content/view/4/56/)

Receiver signal modes X Y A C S 2 3a

[Plazbot]

That's a nifty little box.

[james michael]

Bob

Thank you for that demo of technical superiority.

You will note that is the RX specifications.

Most Oz a/c have a MODE A/C transponder.

You will find that the little light shines when you are
1. Pinged by radar
2. Pinged by TCAS

Then the transponder RESPONDS.

So, tell us again - how does the unit receive information when away from radar coverage - what tells the target a/c transponder to respond? :ugh:

[Bob Murphie]

Receiver signal modes A. C.and S. This tells me it receives these signals? Why would you need to be in a radar environment if it works like TCAS? Does TCAS not work outside the J curve?

You are the expert in everything, so you tell us. I am drawing Jabawocky's attention to a device that Hawker Pacific, you know that Australian mob, advertises as agents a portable GA collision avoidance for what appears to be a very cheap price. This may allay some of his fears of flying. They advertise a phone number, 1 800 654 983 so you can ring and ask yourself.

REf P12 Recreational Aviation Australia magazine November 08.

Again the post was not intended as some sort of an invitation for you to vex me. You are the bloke who fraudlently promised the world to everyone and then couldn't deliver on your sales speil. You should hang your head in shame.

[james michael]

Bob

Now everyone will understand why you shouldn't have been allowed near the ADS-B debate.

Receives - exactly.

The transponder in an aircraft responds to interrogation. MSSR and TCAS are two such interrogations. One reason TCAS is so expensive is that it has to TRANSMIT an interrogation.

The el cheapo passive units receive information only when something interrogates. So they are not worth a pinch of nanny goat excreta away from radar or TCAS.

I find nothing in the item you posted to assist Jabba as you claimed. In radar you already have ATC cover, the TCAS a/c pinging you knows your whereabouts - BUT AWAY FROM THAT YOU ARE BLIND.

Don't talk to me about fraudulent. I endorsed something for the good of aviation safety and aircraft owners. Something you bagged but could not explain why to Peuce. And obviously from this latest 'drivel' don't understand. Go hang your own head in shame and go back to imbibing Avtur.

But first read up and comprehend why you have no understanding of the Zaon unit. The price was the dead giveaway for starters.

[Bob Murphie]

Then it gives an added level of VFR safety in the radar environment. doesn't it? That's if ATC are monitoring VFR paints now, and it gives two way TCAS information. You're the one who making noise about absolute safety.

peuce was dealing in hypotheticals.

[james michael]

Don't apologise to me for your lack of comprehension, apologise to Jabba.

Fact is it does not do what you claimed - it is USELESS without MSSR/TCAS as it is PASSIVE. To quote your other mentor earlier today "You really don't understand, do you, and probably never will." :* Still, you can find out more - follow your own suggestion "They advertise a phone number, 1 800 654 983 so you can ring and ask yourself."

Alternatively, ADS-B IN works in ALL airspace drongo. Unless you go down the Dick path mentioned today of UAT like USA where you need 1090/UAT translator stations. :ugh:

[Tidbinbilla]

Well children, this thread has once again degenerated to a one-upmanship tit for tat argument between Messrs. Murphie and Michael.

Perhaps it's time for you all to move on to another forum where your efforts will be more appreciated.:ugh: