No agreement in the USA for ADS-B

[Dick Smith]

In an article in Aviation International News issue September 2008 page 107 (see here (http://www.ainonline.com/ain-and-ainalerts/aviation-international-news/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/user-consensus-on-ads-b-remains-elusive/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Bstory_pointer%5D=16&tx_ttnews%5Bmode%5D=1)), it makes it clear that the FAA is in total disarray in relation to ADS-B. After receiving several hundred comments from organisations such as AOPA and the NBAA the common theme in relation to ADS-B is “no thanks”. It will be interesting to see what is resolved in the USA.

Wasn’t Australia supposed to make a decision last month regarding the low level ADS-B program? Does anyone know what has happened?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I reckon I know what the yanks are upset about and I reckon I know what will happen here....But, I am no longer going to say anything about it:E

You've got researchers, Mr Smith! Get to it!


By the way, I commend you on finally linking to the actual source Mr Smith. Well done:ok:

[T28D]

ADSB is a dead duck, no in the U.S. means no developed reasonably priced General Aviation kit.

Ergo no matter what the dumbo's here decide it is a futile exercise if the decision is any form of yes.

[Dick Smith]

Thanks OZ, remember I'm just a simple car radio installer!

Took me 5 years to work out how to do it.

[C-change]

Doesn't matter if it goes ahead or not. ASA have bigger problems to worry about, such as not having enough controllers to monitor / separate aeroplanes.

Make sure your transponder and TCAS are working. Good luck.

[skycatcher]

Mr Smith

The ONLY thing the AIN article makes clear is:

When the FAA called in March for public comment on its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ADS-B equipage, it was with the understanding that there was wide user community acceptance of the system as the vital stepping stone to modernizing the National Airspace System. Everyone appeared to agree that ADS-B would be an essential element in the agency’s NextGen project.

Ninety days later, at the close of the comment period, the agency had received several hundred comments from across the user spectrum. The common theme was “No, thanks.” And the responses didn’t coalesce around one or two critical issues that the agency could negotiate with the users. Rather, the objections were as diverse as the particular interests of the group making them, from private pilots to airframe manufacturers to major airlines.

Very few user/interest groups had similar views. Go figure.

Oh and several hundred comments across the user spectrum does not in the US a summer make.

The FAA had to go to a different method of consultation, an ARC.


“We have these teeter-totter exchanges, where satisfying one group’s objections only increases the objections of the other groups.”

Pretty much says it all, sound familiar?

What the article did NOT say was that ADSB was a bad thing, what it did say was.

A more probable outcome is to extend the ARC’s term, although one observer has described some of the differences between certain groups and the FAA, and among the groups themselves, as “irreconcilable.”

There is absolutely no question at all that it use by the airlines and transport industry is a stand out economic success. The FACT that there is no agreement between all the parties is no more relevant than your attempt to introduce your idea of a NAS. See above.

UPS, who have developed its use to a very high degree, have stated that were their system able to be developed globally in the US to facilitate flight idle descents to landing, ALL airlines would go instantly into profit on fuel savings alone.

[TWT]

Took me 5 years to work out how to do it

Are you talking about installing the car radios or posting hyperlinks ? :p

[Dick Smith]

Both! I am sorry for not being clear.

[Captain Nomad]

Wouldn't part of the mixed feeling response in the USA be at least partly due to less 'need' for it in the sense that they have a much more extensive radar network? I hear that operators in Australia who are trialling ADSB seem particularly pleased with its use in areas of Australia that are remote but yet busy with traffic at times (eg. NW WA).

Not trying to stir the pot here, just looking for reasons behind the differing oppinions.

[james michael]

CN

Well said. It's an apples and oranges comparison - but not for radar coverage so much.

The Australian plan is premised on a subsidy - the US is not and that means they must get personal value for their dollar.
The Australian is one system - the US is two, with the second based on my first point.
The US airspace is different but ADS-B out here enables us to move closer to Dick's NAS by providing more E airspace.
And so on.

Making comparisons with what is happening in the US is interesting - a bit like looking at financial meltdowns :)

[peuce]

Captain Nomad,

You are correct; and it only goes to emphasize what many people here keep saying ... comparing the US aviation environment with Australia's is not comparing apples with apples ....

Thank God we don't copy their financial system ...:{

Having said that, Dick is right about one thing ... if the US doesn't go down the ADSB road, the black boxes are going to become very expensive for us.

[Maggott17]

ADSB:

Another
Dick
Smith
Beatup :suspect:

[T28D]

Maggot you have an appropriate name

A Aopa

D Disaster

S Sycophant Driven

B Bloody expensive short term experiment

[james michael]

Dick

Wasn’t Australia supposed to make a decision last month regarding the low level ADS-B program? Does anyone know what has happened?

Correct me if I am wrong but my last understanding was that you posted you were going to stop the lower level ADS-B project in Australia because it offered no safety benefit.

Am I recollecting right? If so, why do you need to ask on here - he who has the power to stop the train usually doesn't need to ask the passengers :hmm:

[Dick Smith]

Why don't you quote exactly what I said?

[james michael]

Dick

I would not wish to steal your thunder - that's why I asked if my recollection was right :)

[Dick Smith]

It's about half right- do your research and put in a link to my full post if you really want to be properly informed.

And remember- you are taken no notice of because you don't put your real name on your posts - thats why I do.

[Carlos169]

I know on other Internet Forum Boards there are options that allow you to set an ignore for a particular user. This renders all their posts invisible. You can read everyone elses posts excluding the ignored users as they are invisible!

[Quokka]

Here we go again... :E

[cbradio]

And remember- you are taken no notice of because you don't put your real name on your posts - thats why I do.

oh the irony!

Most of your posts would have MORE notice taken of them if your name WASN'T on them!! :ugh:

[james michael]

CB

You beat me to it!

Fact is Dick gets a journalistic award for that quote, I think it's one he learned from his old school mate John Howard.

Dick takes plenty of notice of plenty of anon posters (although determined to keep prodding the rule at the bottom of each page) - unless they ask questions too hard :D

Give ADS-B another fortnight and there may be even less notice taken - of Dick :ok:

[Dick Smith]

There is nothing in the PPRUNE rules which prevent a poster using his or her correct name.

Commonsense alone means that a poster will be more likely to be listened to when that person has the strength of conviction to put a real name on the post. Of course sometimes there is a fear of retribution- how sad to be in that position.

We don't all walk around with balaclavas on for fear of being identified when we say something

James, what in your view will be the decision on the low level ADSB subsidy? And remember most of us know who you are so stick to the facts!

[james michael]

Dick

You are at it again - there is nothing in the rules that prevents anon posters, in fact it is quoted at the bottom of every page. Get over your identity crisis, Dick - and stop fishing for association.

My view on the low level subsidy? I believe it will go ahead and you will then do a complete about turn and remind us all how you supported it all the way. But, when that time comes and the safety benefits are evident and you get over your pique about not being consulted by the Minister and DO jump on the bandwagon remember most of us know who you are so stick to the facts! ;);)

[Dick Smith]

If they both disappeared who would Airservices then have to spruik their monopoly?

James, if you are correct and the low level ADSB mandate goes ahead as planned I will always state that it was a major mis-allocation of safety resources and led to the further destruction of our once viable GA industry.

I will also say how sad it was that the AOPA committee appeared to have been conned by a very astute Government bureaucracy

[Flying Binghi]

...the AOPA committee appeared to have been conned...

Interesting comment.

RAAus seem to be looking into the ADSB fine print detail a bit more then AOPA -

An extract from John McKeowns blog (South Queensland Board Member for RA-Aus)

(re ADSB in the U.S.) ...to the technical side of things. There are good and bad here. The "good" is this will not become compulsory until 2020 and like in Australia only the uplink (out) will become compulsory. It will only become compulsory above 10,000 ft and it will only apply to "high usage" airports listed in their document 41 CFR part 91
Now the bad. The compulsory (out) must be TSO'd (certified) and maintained by certificated technitions. It must be hard wired (with seal?) and must not be able to be turned off by the pilot. The current cost of available units by approved manufactures (Garmin being one) is US$10,000 PLUS instillation. Instillation alone is many thousands of dollars.
ADSB is to be considered a "primary" and it will also be compulsory to keep and maintain a "secondary" mode C transponder. New aircraft, or those wanting to fly in the ADSB airspace must fit and maintain both ADSB out and Mode C.
Also the current control "steps" will go and a wall will drop down from 10,000 feet to the surface with a radius of 30 miles. Here is some of that "devil in the detail" Those pilots who think they will be able to fly around the US at 1,000 to 5,000 ft and stay out of ADSB airspace by flying under the steps are in for a big shock. If you look at a US aviation chart and put a 30 mile radius around their "RPT" type airports you don't get much "free" airspace left, except in the desert, and the military have a big chunk of that.


The blog link wont work so type - ragandtubeaviator. then blog then spot.com

[james michael]

Bing

This link may further help if we are going to compare apples with apples (ie the USA with the USA).

AOPA Online: Senate committee agrees with AOPA's ADS-B objections (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080731ads-b.html)

As you know this is in a non-subsidised environment over there at present (although refer the Reason Foundation report).

Extracts from above link (the second underline being at odds with some others thoughts posted hereon) - for AOPA read AOPA USA, and given their size they might be looking into it in even more fine detail than RA Aus ;)

AOPA has argued that if the benefits are there, pilots will voluntarily equip with new technology, just as they did with GPS.

That’s why AOPA is arguing in the ADS-B ARC meetings that began this week that GA should either be exempt from the mandate that all aircraft equip with ADS-B by 2020, or that the FAA’s implementation plan be reconfigured to provide robust benefits to GA pilots.

As it stands now, GA pilots would have to install ADS-B to get no more guaranteed utility than what they get currently from their transponder—which they would also have to keep in their aircraft. “ADS-B technology could significantly improve safety, as has been demonstrated in Alaska and here at AOPA headquarters,” said Kenagy. “But without changes to the implementation rule, we won’t get those benefits.

“AOPA will push hard to make ADS-B benefits widely available, at the lowest cost,” Kenagy said

[Flying Binghi]

ADS-B...as has been demonstrated in Alaska...

james michael, how many AK aircraft have ADS-B fitted ?

[james michael]

Bing

Best ask AOPA USA - they are the ones citing it and are closer toi the action there.

But, in the bits you did not query we find AOPA USA actively pushing hard to make ADS-B benefits widely available.
In a situation of:
1. No subsidy
2. Voluntary equippage.
3. Having to retain the existing transponder due to UAT being on a different band.

Ain't we got it easy with a subsidy and only one system ;)

But you do make a point re RA Aus in your earlier post. Given most of their aircraft may not qualify for subsidised ADS-B fitment one would expect them to be looking very closely at the fine print and with a different perspective on how to make this a viable matter.

[Flying Binghi]

Best ask AOPA USA - they are the ones citing it...


james michael, actually - you introduced the reference to this thread.


ADS-B technology could significantly improve safety



james michael, what is the "safety enhancement" being refered to - Traffic advisery perhaps ? (hint- its been covered in prunne before)


But you do make a point re RA Aus in your earlier post. Given most of their aircraft may not qualify for subsidised ADS-B fitment one would expect them to be looking very closely at the fine print and with a different perspective on how to make this a viable matter.

Thats not the impression I got from the blog referenced. I guess now the RAA elections are out of the way we may get some clarification.

[james michael]

Bing

In order.

1. I cited an authority of which I am a member, if you wish to canvass their authority Google is your friend (they have a contact us email).

2. Re-read 1. However, you may care to indicate your position - is traffic advisory a safety enhancement?

3. Not sure what you mean. If you examine the JCP and son of JCP which is the transponder mandate only, I believe my comment is sound.

[Flying Binghi]

Bing

In order.

1. I cited an authority of which I am a member, if you wish to canvass their authority Google is your friend (they have a contact us email).

2. Re-read 1. However, you may care to indicate your position - is traffic advisory a safety enhancement?

3. Not sure what you mean. If you examine the JCP and son of JCP which is the transponder mandate only, I believe my comment is sound.

james michael, I thought as you were the one pushing for ADS-B, you might have half an idea about the AK ADS-B 'safety' results.

james michael, on another thread I discovered you had no idea what an avidyne TAS was!!! ...thats a Traffic Advisery System - been around a few years now.

Heres some other TAS types -

- Avidyne TAS 600 Series
- Ryan TCAD 9900BX
- Honeywell KTA870/KMH880 TAS/IHAS
- L3 Skywatch/Skywatch HP
- Garmin GTX 330 TIS Transponder
- and theres TCAS for the big boys

james michael, if 'traffic' is so important to you, why hav'nt you used these systems before??? ...you did claim to be a private pilot.

[james michael]

Bing

I am always intrigued at the timing of your appearances and the content thereof.

Yes I do have an idea of the ADS-B safety results. And potential. Let me ask you again - what is your position on traffic advisory, is it a safety enhancement.

If you are into correction of misquotes, I am well aware of TAS, TCAS and TPAS. What I wanted to determine from you at that time was whether your unit was passive or active, if you cast your memory back :E

Did I claim to be a private pilot? If you like, not that it matters to a risk analysis. Traffic is quite important to me, that's one reason I know ADS-B is a safety enhancement.

[Flying Binghi]

Around in circles we go... :hmm:

My previous question re "as has been demonstrated in Alaska" , was - james michael, what is the "safety enhancement" being refered to - Traffic advisery perhaps ?

And the earlier question was - james michael, how many AK aircraft have ADS-B fitted ?

...and the answer is ?


james michael, you made the AK reference. If the questions are a bit hard to answer, perhaps I need to put it another way - Can you can tell me what percentage of AK aircraft currently have ADS-B fitted ?
There is an implyed claim that ADS-B reduced the accident rate - What are the accidents being refered to ?, mid air collisions perhaps ?

james michael, after you stop playing games, these couple of questions you do have the answer to. though, you still have no answer on how to counter the terrorist miss-use of GPS ...thats the little problem that stops ADS-B working.

[xinhua2]

It all just died in the Senate courtesy of an astute Government and an answer by Senator Conroy.

So where to for the towelling hat brigade now ??

They need a new leader James M has been shot down.

[LeadSled]

Traffic is quite important to me, that's one reason I know ADS-B is a safety enhancement.
James, my dear chap, is this the best you can do ??

So typical of what passes for risk evaluation, such faith in the unknown, or what passes for "expert opinion" around Aero Club bars ( a sadly diminishing venue, given the steady destruction of GA).

One should really read the CAPSTONE (Alaska ADS-B) reports more carefully, the "increased safety" was largely brought about by a GPS/Moving Map, not improved surveillance or reduced aircraft to aircraft collision risk - ie; the ADS-B component. Collision with terrain was the major risk, not collision with other aircraft.

The FAA "ADS-B" proposals discount collision reduction as a significant issue, and (correctly, if Boeing and Airbus statements are to be believed) are only assuming ADS-B out as being the fitment.

In many of the submissions to the ADS-B JCP, this was pointed out, including the incorrect "assessment" the benefits of ADS-B, attributing the benefits of C145/146 GPS to "ADS-B", instead of to carriage of C-145/146 equipped GPS.

It is the availability of C-145/146 equipped GPS, NOT ADS-B, that enables pulling remote area nav. aids, and the resultant savings.

In general terms, the aviation community is appallingly bad at proper risk analysis, as Bro' James has just so helpfully illustrated.

Even if the earth being flat is important to you, that does not make it flat, even if, James, you "know" it's flat.

Tootle pip!!

[james michael]

Leaddy

You have made my day, if not Dick's. "increased safety" was largely brought about by a GPS/Moving MapNow, if we could just re-open that BLA thread again and revisit what we suggested to Dick about GPS moving maps :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Do you mean it was not brought about by ATC intervention - go make your peace with your mate Dick, Leaddy.

If I follow your 'flat earth' logic then the earth is flat also to AOPA USA who stated, as noted earlier
“ADS-B technology could significantly improve safety, as has been demonstrated in Alaska and here at AOPA headquarters,” said Kenagy. “Separately AOPA USA said In the past few years, ADS-B has proven a viable replacement for ATC radar. Using robust datalink technologies, affordable improvements to the National Airspace System will also result in benefits to pilots, too.
ADS-B provides real-time, fast update traffic information to pilots who have on-board traffic displays. For most pilots, graphic depiction of traffic is currently unavailable. With each aircraft's ADS-B system receiving position reports from other aircraft in the vicinity, pilots will be able to determine not only the position of conflicting traffic, but will clearly see the traffic's direction, speed, and relative altitude.AOPA USA did not seem reliant on your moving maps

In 2000, AOPA installed UAT ADS-B systems and multifunction displays in the aircraft flown by staff. The ADS-B systems have been well received and have been continuously operational ever since. An ADS-B ground-based transceiver (GBT) was also installed at AOPA's headquarters. It provides traffic and weather uplink to ADS-B aircraft within a 75-mile radius (at 6,000 feet).

In conjunction with this final stage of planning, AOPA continues to represent the interests of our members by communicating the best alternatives to ensure the transition to ADS-B is beneficial and affordable for the largest group of aviation users in the world.Oh well, what is one more flat earther (me) when the largest group of aviation users in the world is also so relegated. Still, at least your flat earth theory will save them a lot of oxygen and icing issues where the mountains used to be :D

Edited to add - Bing (M) in reply to your query below I have answered it - try post 102
Dunnunda & Godzone (http://www.pprune.org/dunnunda-godzone-24/) > D & G General Aviation & Questions (http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions-91/) http://static.pprune.org/iconimages/d-g-general-aviation-questions/australian-airspace-discussion_ltr.gif (http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/344668-australian-airspace-discussion-6.html) Australian Airspace Discussion

[Flying Binghi]

james michael - You havnt answered my questions yet :hmm:

[Flying Binghi]

Edited to add - Bing (M) in reply to your query below I have answered it - try post 102


All right, we'll play games

james michael, via your link,
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/space/22mar/alterman_testimony.pdf

I get - pp9 - the FAA Capstone project in Alaska where more than 250 light aircraft are equipped to broadcast ADS-B position information. Using ADS-B, Alaska has reduced its accident rate by 47 percent and has done so in areas that radar could not be installed because of rugged terrain.

I've seen this claim before - interesting numbers :hmm:

...so the lack of radar is whats causing all those mid-airs in AK ?

[james michael]

Bing (M)

You are at this tack of repetition questions again, but not following the debate.

Leaddy has posted just above One should really read the CAPSTONE (Alaska ADS-B) reports more carefully, the "increased safety" was largely brought about by a GPS/Moving Map, not improved surveillanceSo if Leaddy is credible - and I have a high regard for much of his research - he has answered your question.

This also from AOPA USA re Capstone Traffic - emphasis on 'traffic'.

Stephen Beck, a pilot for Grant Aviation, is flying one of three Cessna 207s making the short hop from Bethel, Alaska, northeast to the Eskimo village of Akiak. One of the other Stationairs climbed 500 feet above him, and then passed a mile off to his left.
Because of his Cessna's high wing, Beck couldn't see the other airplane until it pulled ahead of him. But he watched it overtake him on the UPS Aviation Technologies (UPSAT) MX20 color multifunction display (MFD) in his panel.

[Flying Binghi]

You are at this tack of repetition questions again, but not following the debate

james michael, I read the LeadSled post. I was interested to see just what you understand -the impression I'm getting is, very little.

Stephen Beck, a pilot for Grant Aviation, is flying one of three Cessna 207s making the short hop from Bethel, Alaska, northeast to the Eskimo village of Akiak. One of the other Stationairs climbed 500 feet above him, and then passed a mile off to his left.
Because of his Cessna's high wing, Beck couldn't see the other airplane until it pulled ahead of him. But he watched it overtake him on the UPS Aviation Technologies (UPSAT) MX20 color multifunction display (MFD) in his panel.

Errr... whats the piont of this - did they have a mid-air ? ...or is it a sales spiel.

[K-941]

sales spiel :p

had "One of the other Stationairs climbed through him opposite direction" without displayed traffic :ooh: now that would have been more than a sales pitch eh Bing-le ;)

cause it happens all round the world and sometimes ends in soiled undergarments or worse - tears!

I guess you are right - a sales spiel - or is it really a sale - if it is as good as FREE :ooh: :E :D

[OZBUSDRIVER]

xinhua2????? The Senate doesn't sit this week. Conroy certainly didn't say anything about this last week. Care to post a link:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ah, I now see that Senator Conroy has scuttled GRAS, going by the antics on another thread. GRAS and ADS-B are two very different animals, xinhua2.

[Flying Binghi]

sales spiel http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif

had "One of the other Stationairs climbed through him opposite direction" without displayed traffic http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/icon25.gif now that would have been more than a sales pitch eh Bing-le http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

cause it happens all round the world and sometimes ends in soiled undergarments or worse - tears!

I guess you are right - a sales spiel - or is it really a sale - if it is as good as FREE

Three aircraft in near foremation... Hmmm, the voice in my headset would be repeatedly saying, "traffic"..."traffic"... and might soon be ignored :hmm:

Mine is a different system though, I hav'nt got any experience with the "UPS Aviation Technologies (UPSAT) MX20 color multifunction display (MFD) in his panel" system - perhaps there is some form of electric shock through the seat ... :cool:

[xinhua2]

Binghi, The real shock is the unsubsidised capital cost and ongoing calibration cost annually.

[Jabawocky]

XINHUA2

Binghi, The real shock is the unsubsidised capital cost and ongoing calibration cost annually.


And what massive impost would that be? Your TSO146 GPS is pretty maintenance free, the ADSB/Mode C transponder is pretty much the same. Your altitude encoder is a biannual event for GA so what is new there?

Correct me if I am wrong but what has changed for most of GA? Nothing!!!:ugh:

J

[Flying Binghi]

XINHUA2

Quote:
Binghi, The real shock is the unsubsidised capital cost and ongoing calibration cost annually.
And what massive impost would that be? Your TSO146 GPS is pretty maintenance free, the ADSB/Mode C transponder is pretty much the same. Your altitude encoder is a biannual event for GA so what is new there?

Correct me if I am wrong but what has changed for most of GA? Nothing!!!

Ah, yes - thankyou for that Jabawocky :)

What happens when that electronic thingy is out of warrenty and gets the old 'wont work' problem - who pays for the repair, or more likely, the replacement cost/install ?

re GPS - I've had several fail over the years. GPS is good but not fail-proof ... plus, there is that little matter of GPS signal availability - taint much use having ADS-B if theres no sat signal :hmm:

[Jabawocky]

What happens when that electronic thingy is out of warrenty and gets the old 'wont work' problem - who pays for the repair, or more likely, the replacement cost/install ?


Get it fixed like you should.:ok:

[Flying Binghi]

Get it fixed like you should

Will there be an on-going subsidy for the life of the aircraft ? :hmm:

How will the possibly lost GPS signals be 'fixed' ?

[james michael]

Bing (M)

And you an aircraft owner :E

Will there be an on-going subsidy for the life of the aircraft ?I believe the same ongoing subsidy as for your transponder, radio, panel clock, ADF ..... and Avidyne ;)

How will the possibly lost GPS signals be 'fixed'VFR - navigation. IFR - backup navaid network coupled with navigation.

It's been a long day - your tongue in cheek brightens ones outlook :)

[xinhua2]

Jaba VOR is reliable but you can't fly IFR unless you havev AD RAD 47 every year.

[Flying Binghi]

And you an aircraft owner

james michael, it would appear you've finnaly acepted my claims about...hmmm, 300 posts ago, that I'm nothing special, just an aircraft owner and pilot :hmm:

I note your posts are reading far better - none of the outright abusive nonsence anymore, names like 'dickmite' and the like. I had the feeling for a while there that you thought I was Dick Smith :hmm:

I believe the same ongoing subsidy as for your transponder, radio, panel clock, ADF ..... and Avidyne

james michael, I still dont think you understand the aurgument I've put forward - the cost of avionics dont worry me too much, if I want something for the dash, I just go buy it ... my argument covers some concerns I have for the future of Oz aviation.

As I've written before james michael, just what do you understand, the impression I'm getting is - very little. I question if your even a pilot :hmm:

[james michael]

Oh Bing (M), you lighten and brighten all our day. Tonight is Greek Lamb followed by waffles, so I won't bother responding to your waffle as I have hated (since a child) tripe.

Dodged any GPS guided whizzy bombs lately? At least if Dick succeeds you will get an ATC alert when they are coming - although you might have to put a coin in the slot (user pays naturally) :p

Let me know if you intend to return to the thread topic. Your GPS security concern has been done to death, what now?

[Flying Binghi]

Oh Bing (M), you lighten and brighten all our day. Tonight is Greek Lamb followed by waffles, so I won't bother responding to your waffle as I have hated (since a child) tripe.

Dodged any GPS guided whizzy bombs lately? At least if Dick succeeds you will get an ATC alert when they are coming - although you might have to put a coin in the slot (user pays naturally) http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Let me know if you intend to return to the thread topic. Your GPS security concern has been done to death, what now?

james michael, I see your back to your old nonsense posts again :hmm:

I think I've wasted enuf time with you james michael :)

[Flying Binghi]

No takers!!! Heck, I thought ADS-B was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread -


When Gov. Sarah Palin signed the law creating a special loan program for equipping Alaska aircraft with NexGen avionics, the aviation industry heralded it as an historic event. Today that loan sits waiting for its first applicant.


Theres a bit more to it though, full article via -

http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/083108/hom_20080831035.shtml

[Quokka]

...the replacement for radar in less congested areas of the U.S. and for use in rural and Third World locations.

FB... exactly what Australia has become.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

FAA have re-opened the NPRM for ADS-B as of 03OCT.

[Jabawocky]

Maybe someone should tell them about following our lead.......

I reckon we could have a good shot at having a fully functional system before they even get their act together!

They need to ditch the dual system and just do what we are doing and subsidise it so the Yanky AOPA have nothing to complain about.

Maybe our AOPA folks here whoever they are could whisper in their ears!

J:ok:

[Flying Binghi]

Maybe someone should tell them about following our lead.......


..............DME(A) :)

[Jabawocky]

Yeah good one FB :ok:, I'll pay that.

But nothing else! :}

[Air Ace]

"I reckon we could have a good shot at having a fully functional system before they even get their act together!"

How absurd! DME(A) and the VAN 5 all over again! :ugh:

Bing, thanks for the link to that Alaska Journal. Interesting quotes:

"The Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association said it is opposed to the national ADS-B plan, and officials there argued that the plan was limited in its scope and is expensive."

"Current Alaska cost estimates range from $14,000 to $18,500 per aircraft for installation and the hardware."

So, some here expect the Australian tax payer, by one means or another, will fund around $150 million to pay for ADSB installation in all private and GA aircraft? :confused:

Yeah, right! :hmm:

[CaptainMidnight]

DME(A) is often quoted as some sort of folly on Australia's part, usually by those who weren't around at the time.

The reality is in 1955 while the rest of the world continued to argue over standards, Australia introduced and enjoyed the benefits of DME some 5 years ahead (i.e. significant increase in navigation accuracy, reduced separation standards, introduction of DME descents for terrain clearance etc. etc.).

When the 1000MHz system pushed by the U.S. was eventually implemented worldwide, the DME(A) system continued to be supported in parallel until 1995.

[Air Ace]

CaptainMidnight.

You are correct and in it's day it was an excellent system.

The fiasco was that Australia failed to promote our Australian DME as a world standard and in the end it became an orphan. Also in the late 1950's technology had not developed to the extent that navigation and communications systems in the UHF range were feasible or financially practical.

In air navigation, as in marine navigation, we must be part of a world standard system.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Further to the re-opening of the NPRM-

ADS-B ARC Report (http://www.aea.net/Tech_Pubs/ADS-B%20ARC%20Report.pdf)

Go to page 46 of the document and have a serious read. 360 pages all up.

My my, What do the Americans think of ADS-B?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Read this report with some care, particularly the cost estimates (to meet Australian regs. it will be the full house DO-260A transponder, antenna diversity $$$$ etc) and then come back and, with your hand on you heart, declare that we can do all this for $10,000 in a VH aircraft.
Tootle pip!!

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Folks,
Read this report with some care
.
For the first time in a long time, we agree (on some minor points)!
.
... so Leadhead what do you perceive as being the outcome? :}
.
The ARC have laid out the field of options globally, and, in that context, in the US :E ... what is your take? :E
.
... In the OZ context, what would you suggest :E :ok: