Latest Price for ADSB US$163,000 – AU$213,252 [Archive]

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 02:58

I haven’t been able to sell my Citation so I thought I’d look again at the cost of fitting ADSB – hoping that it had come down.

It appears that if you purchase a unit that will be accepted in the United States you have to go to a DO260-B.

The latest quote from Aeromil at Bankstown to do this is US$163,000 – that is AU$213,252.

Of course, this is all coming about because we are 4 years ahead of the US – they keep telling me the price is going to come down dramatically – but when?

In the meantime, if I want to fly and see Aussie Helpers at Charleville, I am forced to drop down to flight 290, sometimes into bad weather, to meet the applicable current Australian/Airservices/CASA regulations.

No wonder the CJ3 mainly sits in the hangar!

I do have ADSB in the C208 – but at most places Airservices don't have ADSB ground stations - so a waste of money.

I am not complaining – just informing.

Defenestrator

14th Apr 2016, 03:48

Everyone is feeling the pain Dick. Whilst within the 'J' curve you can operate in RVSM airspace without ADSB. However once outside your limited to FL280 as FL290 is in RVSM airspace.

D

peterc005

14th Apr 2016, 05:07

The upside of being a homeless person, or even a starving refugee in Africa, is not being burdened with expensive and possibly unnecessary avionics upgrades.

Keep things in perspective.

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 05:34

Peter. Agree. That's why I said I was not complaining.

Then again when all small Aussie aviation businesses are effected by these high cost it probably results in less being donated to charity to help those less well off.

And I think it's important that the people in Canberra know about these high costs.

Dark Knight

14th Apr 2016, 05:40

However, those who take the risk, provide the capital and do the work can afford the toys whilst, along the way they provide jobs, salaries, security which effectively improves the lives and lifestyle of the homeless who are prepared to work.

Often there is a flow on effect to many countries including Africa which slowly provides an improvement to lifestyle, living standards in these countries. This is often not as great as it should be as the politicians and top echelon in these countries are ripping off as much as they can from the Aid and revenue flowing in enabling them to buy the toys whilst surrounding themselves with nubile maidens (or boys if that is your bent).

Apart from ensuring the revenue flows to where it should instead of claiming to be a `refugee' but an `economic migrant' the starving African refugee (or insert country here) should concentrate on fixing their own country first and foremost.

Rather than an `Academic' perspective solutions will be found with a `real world`and truthful perspective!

Derfred

14th Apr 2016, 05:58

Hi Dick,

If it was my CJ, I think I would wait a few years for the price to come down.

I don't know how much time you have spent studying the specific fuel consumption of your jet at optimum cruise altitude vs FL280. As a reasonably wealthy man, I'm just speculating you may not have bothered in the past.

But if you do, you might find that cruising at max range speed vs max speed at FL280 gives you a much lower flight fuel. You might even find it's only marginally more than cruising at optimum altitude. Yes it will take longer to get there.

If you don't fly often, the increased fuel burn plus lower future upgrade cost may more than offset the cost of upgrading now. Would be interested in your figures if you care to calculate and post them.

For what's worth, I am a narrow body domestic airline pilot, not a private jet pilot, but working for an airline mandates a high awareness of fuel vs schedule decisions when cruising at lower levels. I often cruise at lower levels for headwind or turbulence reasons, and at lower levels your cruising mach/IAS makes a big difference to fuel burn.

Keep up the dedication to the cause. Fred.

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 07:33

Derfred. Really sensible rational reasoning.

I have been putting of a flight from Bankstown to Broome and Christmas Island and back because of the fuel burn.

I will work out the difference in fuel cost - may take a little while as I am supposed to be obsessed with airspace and I can't let blogs down!

Capn Bloggs

14th Apr 2016, 11:28

may take a little while as I am supposed to be obsessed with airspace and I can't let blogs down!
Good one! You must be looking in the mirror... you're the one obsessed, not me. I'm quite happy with the current, risk-graduated system we have at the moment. More ADS-B and transponders in the future will be even better. Bit like the 406 beacons: technology that replaces VHF radio and all that other worry about who is going to hear me and find me when the noise stops. Don't even need a flightplan! :ok:

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 11:50

Cleared. Its plus GST.

The separate transponder way would not be accepted in other countries as its not 260B
Only 260A.

I have asked them to quote the cheapest install even if it means ripping it out before I sell overseas .

Complete Avionics at the Gold Coast have a cheaper way however they can't get approval to work on Citations above 12,500 lbs.. Work that out!

Plazbot

14th Apr 2016, 11:58

Like last time Dick, are we to assume that 210K includes about 150K of other stuff?

Chronic Snoozer

14th Apr 2016, 18:12

Garmin | ADS-B (http://ads-b.garmin.com/en-US)

Would this suit the CJ?

WannaBeBiggles

14th Apr 2016, 21:02

The separate transponder way would not be accepted in other countries as its not 260B
Only 260A.

I have asked them to quote the cheapest install even if it means ripping it out before I sell overseas .

If you're prepared to rip it out if the citation sells overseas, then what's the problem of having a 260B transponder? If you keep both a mode C and 260B transponder in the aircraft you wouldn't even have to worry about flying it over in the states for the next 5 years, so I fail to see the issue?

Dick Smith

16th Apr 2016, 02:34

Problem is that if I used the aircraft to earn an income I would clearly go broke as there is no saving in operational costs from fitting the expensive equipment.

No wonder the BK charter business's have nearly all closed down.

Jetgo Management

16th Apr 2016, 10:06

Al Fentanyl

16th Apr 2016, 13:03

Here's an idea for you Dick.

Have your CJ3 valued. RFDS in Qld is looking for a jet, so donate your CJ3 to this iconic Australian charity, and claim the valuation as a tax deduction. I'm sure the RFDS would pony up a couple hundred thousand for an avionics upgrade that would give them the capacity to do their life-saving work further, higher and faster. Use the tax advantage to buy yourself another already compliant jet, like a Premier or Mustang.

You will get instant credibility with the aviation fraternity by supporting such a worthy organisation. They will get a jet without having to sell a billion lamingtons. You will have a shiny new jet with all the bells and whistles.

Everyone wins.

WannaBeBiggles

16th Apr 2016, 21:19

The CJ3 like our ERJ aircraft are fitted with TCAS 2. You cant just bang in another independant transponder as it interferes with the TCAS equipment. We too investigated this after a $200 000 plus installation into 1 of our aircraft. The only aircraft that can take a GTX33 type stand alone transponder are GA aircraft with out sophisticated full EFIS cockpits such as the CJ3 and ERJ

The current Airservices mandate ( 1090 Squitter out) does not even match the USA equipment, so the fact is that when we sell our fleet they may be have to be modded again! Thanks Airservices for forcing Australian operators into a upgrade years before the manufactures themselves have even come up with a economical solution. The reason? It saves Airservices billions in not having to upgrade ground based radar systems the same as the US.. Our aircraft are already fitted with Mode S 'Enhanced" which is fairly new and way ahead of just Mode C... No wonder we do it tough here

Thanks for well thought out, factual response!

Dick, maybe you should contact the above poster to manage your online identity and releases, you'd probably win a whole lot more support with these style of responses than the general "oh dear, he's started another thread to complain about something". Both posts have the same intent and I think we can all see there is no malice in either post, but it's amazing how much better people will respond to this sort of post.

Just my 2 cents!

Dick Smith

16th Apr 2016, 22:04

Al. You seem to think I could buy another aircraft from the "saving" I would make as a tax deduction.

Wow. I wish it worked like that! It doesn't. Still losing money from any donation- just not as much.

But good idea re donating all the money.

I will donate all the money from the sale , but to various charities inc the RFDS. But I have to sell the aircraft first! If prune enthusiasts have suggestions on what aviation charities should be supported please advise me . I like Angel Flight and the RFDS as well as others .

Worked out the extra fuel cost of the trip to Christmas Island and back. It's a little over $8,000 of sheer waste plus a couple of extra landing charges.

Poor commercial side of the industry- will be sent to bankruptcy - especially the IFR trainers who from Feb next year will have to fit ADSB to any aircraft that operates IFR.

Jetgo Management

17th Apr 2016, 01:26

If prune enthusiasts have suggestions on what aviation charities should be supported please advise me

You can donate $200 000 x 2 to us Dick, to install 2 more ADSB equipped aircraft !

thorn bird

17th Apr 2016, 03:03

Jetgo at least your outfit is a legitimate business, rather than a business masquerading as a charity.
If Dick did give them his CJ, they'd just bid for commercial contracts using their Tax free status and government subsidies to undercut legitimate business.

missy

17th Apr 2016, 03:17

Jetgo Management wrote
It saves Airservices billions in not having to upgrade ground based radar systems
Who is this "Airservices" and how are they funded?
That's right, this "Airservices" is funded by Industry.

Replacing (and expanding) the ground based radar systems would be funded by Industry, which would mean higher charges.

AerocatS2A

17th Apr 2016, 04:05

Everyone is feeling the pain Dick. Whilst within the 'J' curve you can operate in RVSM airspace without ADSB. However once outside your limited to FL280 as FL290 is in RVSM airspace.

D

Nope, can't do that anymore. ADSB exemptions for operating above FL280 in the J curve expired in December and haven't been renewed.

mgahan

17th Apr 2016, 15:17

Folk,

Sorry I cannot immediately respond to posts. Usually I'm off working as a sole trader consultant having to earn a quid to stay on top but, to tell the truth, yesterday and today I was at the Singapore Rugby Sevens: did you see Kenya demolish Fiji in the final? Great weekend but back to PPRuNe watching.

Re posts 16 and 22. As I remember, there was a bit of a dummy spit within AirServices about the rejection of the low level ADS/B programme and the enroute radars have been or are in the process of being replaced.

En route Radar Replacement Program | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/errp/) seems to refer. As I remember the tender only allowed for one on one replacement of the existing SSR ennroute radars and no non complying alternatives -but I may have misread the tender docs based on my limited understanding of surveillance needs and technologies.

My abject apologies for injecting fact into the argument.

MJG
lay about ex military guy and airspace regulator in several States whose international ATM surveillance technology experience is limited to only two and a bit decades.

Jetgo Management

17th Apr 2016, 22:10

@megahan

Sure, replace the ageing 'existing'radar ie 'The J Curve" where does it say about new stations to cover all the areas that ADSB do now.

We can get airborne out of Osborne/ Trepell mine these days and be identified at 8000 feet. In our aircraft that aren't fitted we then have to trudge along in the weather at 280 until close to Hughenden before they will let us up. It was cheaper for AS to ask industry to fund ADSB and put in ADSB receivers around the country than what it would have been to upgrade / increase their ground based radars to cover more of Oz

Sure America is going this way as well due to their ageing radar equipment but not for years to come and not by way of enroute charges that we pay as well. Additionally the US government offers an interest free loan to operators to install ADSB equipment in commercially operated aircraft, but that will never happen here either

Supermouse3

17th Apr 2016, 23:47

Forgive me if this sounds naive but surely the industry as a whole has some say in what CASA can and can't do...
pressing the issue to government re the huge cost should see them back down and bring us more in line with the US? what happens in Europe? are all a/c there required to have ADSB? what about low level IFR?

AOPA don't appear to have much power, shown by the amount of threads on pprune complaining about CASA,
Is it time for a new union to represent the industry?
there are a great deal of wealthy and influential people on pprune,
if a factual breakdown of the costs incurred by the industry surely at the very least an interest free loan could be offered to cover the cost of the installation,

all the ADSB mandate favors is the large and established operators who can easily afford the $200K fit. (who are then favored by lower fuel costs as they can operate above FL290) what about the myriad of operators running old iron, how much did it cost Alliance to upgrade?

At the end of the day i see Australia as the country where the little guy is afraid to tell the big guy to get f*cked,
and that's not just against the government, i see it all the time in big business,
laws/ requirements are introduced without consultation with the little guy who is then shot down for trying to negotiate back.
e.g. needless safety measures that do more to hinder than 'keep safe'

so has anyone said f*ck off to the big guy?
or more reasonably, lets relax and follow the US example?

Dick Smith

18th Apr 2016, 22:02

ATCs Can you assist with this query.?

I note from Flight Radar 24 that there is rarely an aircraft above FL410 over the Aus mainland.

I can fly my Citation to and from Christmas Island above this level. Obviously I can climb out of BK in radar airspace so this should not be a problem.

En Route I would have to be treated procedurally however this would also happen if I was at FL290. So what would be the difference?

On descent into Broome I would also have to be procedurally separated from other traffic. If any traffic was there!

Now if at 290 wouldn't I have to be separated from other traffic descending into places like Alice and Ayers Rock from higher flight levels ?

Doesn't this mean all the controllers will have to be procedurally rated and current?

So what's the problem in approving my flight at FL450? Or is it just sheer bastardry ?

Remember John Mc Cormac wanted to give dispensations but AsA said not acceptably safe.

Yes. I can afford the $8 k of extra fuel- but what a rediculous ( ree-DIK-ulus) waste. I would rather donate it to Angel Flight so they can do some extra good work.

fujii

18th Apr 2016, 22:46

Hell Dick. When will you learn to spell ridiculous?

CaptainMidnight

18th Apr 2016, 22:50

I note from Flight Radar 24 that there is rarely an aircraft above FL410 over the Aus mainland.
You've been told a few times that FR24 only displays around 10% of traffic outside the "J" curve and capital cities/major towns.

From their site:

Why don't you have coverage in my area?

Flightradar24 only have coverage in areas where someone has installed an ADS-B receiver and feeds his/her data into Flightradar24. If there are no connected ABS-B receivers in an area, then there is no coverage in that area.

Dick Smith

21st Apr 2016, 08:21

Ok just look under the J curve to Adelaide. Virtually no aircraft above FL410.

Can someone answer my post number 27?

LeadSled

21st Apr 2016, 08:55

Supermouse3,
The Eurocontrol ADS-B mandate is on their web site, it is very similar to the FAA mandate, potentially actually less restrictive.

The Australian mandate is far more restrictive than either, for absolutely no good reason.

You will not find any serious airline people that will tell you that ADS-B is saving them any money. The last big improvement was RVSM, that had minimal (compared to ADS-B) compliance costs, and the savings of cruising closer to optimum more of the time has been measurable.

ADS-B is just the opposite, very high compliance costs for no measurable savings.

It will be interesting to see what happens in US. The US airlines are way behind any feasible schedule to have ADS-B fitted to all the fleets by the "mandate" date, they are betting that FAA will bend to pressure.

The American airlines objections are very simple, nobody has been able to show a return for a huge capital expenditure, and unlike here, nobody in US is dishonestly claiming a spurious "safety" benefit from ADS-B.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The terrible cost of refitting Dick's CJ-3 is actually at the lower end of costs to retrofit ADS-B to any "glass cockpit" aircraft built in the last 30 or so years, that didn't roll out of the factory so fitted.
It is a reasonable statement to make to say some VH- A320 have been retired early rather than fit ADS-B.

WannaBeBiggles

21st Apr 2016, 09:08

Can someone answer my post number 27?

Yep... Post #29

Quote:
I note from Flight Radar 24 that there is rarely an aircraft above FL410 over the Aus mainland.
You've been told a few times that FR24 only displays around 10% of traffic outside the "J" curve and capital cities/major towns.

From their site:

Quote:
Why don't you have coverage in my area?

Flightradar24 only have coverage in areas where someone has installed an ADS-B receiver and feeds his/her data into Flightradar24. If there are no connected ABS-B receivers in an area, then there is no coverage in that area.

Showa Cho

21st Apr 2016, 10:02

The thing with ADS-B is that you can't really measure the savings effectively. It's the times you DON'T get moved that aren't apparent. Instead of a controller having to use 10 minutes (or another rather large procedural standard) between flights, they can now have 5NM (plus some for mum and the kids) between aircraft, but this is transparent to the crew/operator.

gerry111

21st Apr 2016, 10:09

".. but this is transparent to the crew/operator."

Showa Cho, I suspect that you may have meant: "not transparent."?

Showa Cho

21st Apr 2016, 11:13

Maybe Gerry - the crew can't see what the controller doesn't have to do, if that makes sense? I think you know what I mean! They just amble along at their most economic level without knowing that without/pre ADS-B there's a high chance that they would have been shunted up and down a few times along their track in the GAFA.

Lead Balloon

21st Apr 2016, 11:17

I think the word you're looking for is "invisible"...

donpizmeov

21st Apr 2016, 11:54

Dick not many apart from Business Jets get above FL410 anywhere in the world. Seems reasonable to be able to use higher levels as you suggest.

Agent86

21st Apr 2016, 12:07

Ah, but to fly AT F410 you have to negotiate all those other pesky pilots between the ground and that level. Unless you're like the invisible VFR pilot who can magically transition from one VFR level to the next without crossing an IFR level.

ADS-B also means we don't have to make all those pesky position reports that may just happen to block out the MAYDAY on the area frequency :)

All we do in the west is respond to the "reduce speed by ...." calls.:zzz:

donpizmeov

21st Apr 2016, 13:25

Can anyone remember when Australia was innovative and not rule bound?

So from Fl280 where he can cruise now to above 410, what do you think 20min on a hot day? 10min for the descent? I am sure even Australia's finest could organise separation for that (without blocking all those Mayday calls....really?).

I guess you could Squawk standby and go No SAR No details...oh wait there.

LeadSled

21st Apr 2016, 14:29

The thing with ADS-B is that you can't really measure the savings effectively.

Showa,
Particularly if they are not there.

Having worked for airlines, I know just how much details of flight records are analyzed looking for possible savings --- using facts, not anecdotal pilot opinion.

The fact is that no savings have been identified over AU by major operators, that can even remotely be attributed to ADS-B ---- believe me, it would have been picked up. One carrier analyses (by QAR data) almost every sector flown, the effect of RVSM savings was clear, just not so ADS-B.

Most of you are just trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Tootle pip!!

missy

21st Apr 2016, 15:16

LeadShed said
The fact is that no savings have been identified over AU by major operators, that can even remotely be attributed to ADS-B ---- believe me, it would have been picked up. One carrier analyses (by QAR data) almost every sector flown, the effect of RVSM savings was clear, just not so ADS-B.

I find that statement very interesting. Are these major operators reporting any savings from flying flex tracks vs fixed route structures?

LeadSled

22nd Apr 2016, 05:04

Are these major operators reporting any savings from flying flex tracks vs fixed route structures? Missy,
A couple of things to say about that: By various names, flex track long predates ADS-B, in particular in oceanic areas, where there is no ADS-B, and isn't going to be, any time soon.

Over Australia, RVSM did produce very obvious savings, the domestic route network is close to optimum tracks anyway, direct tracking under TAAAATS produced a bit more flexibility, much of the claims for ADS-B never were realistic, more your standard snakeoil salesman.

The two CASA alleged "cost/benefit" studies were proof of that! The first showed big benefits for airlines, so GA was just going to have to lump it.

Then the missing decimal point was "pointed out", and the airline benefits evaporated, to be replace by all sorts of mythical benefits for GA in the second --- but none of which accrued to those who had to spend the money --- and all of said benefits required widespread low level coverage --- the satellite links from the ground stations, alone, would have needed at least one new bird in space, probably two. Please don't quote me, but the "GA benefits" would have needed about 390+ ground stations --- $$$$$.

The reduced separation standard with ADS-B is obviously fact, turning that into measurable savings is another matter entirely.

At least FAA don't make a lot of spurious claims for ADS-B, it will be interesting to see how close to the wire it will go, before shifting said FAA mandate years into the future ---- because that is what will happen, because the alternative is going to be grounding a large percentage of the US airline fleet, and that will not happen.

GA is way ahead of airlines in US, in fitting ADS-B, but that is going to degenerate into a shambles, no doubt.

Here, airlines just roll over to bureaucratic impositions, and the customers pay. Sadly, GA is fading away.

Tootle pip!!

CaptainMidnight

22nd Apr 2016, 05:39

The benefits of reduced separation standards due to ADS-B across the country outside radar coverage isn't something that is readily apparent to operators.

They are flying closer and level changes can be accommodated far more readily than was possible using pre-ADS-B procedural separation.

Flex tracks & UPRs are often vastly different from the published route structure which just tend to be fairly similar to Great Circle tracks, so the benefits of flex tracks & UPRs to operators have been significant.

LeadSled

22nd Apr 2016, 07:43

Midnight,

The benefits of reduced separation standards due to ADS-B across the country outside radar coverage isn't something that is readily apparent to operators.

On the contrary, it is very apparent to the analysis of major operators, who have a continuous dialog with various CNS/ATM providers, if it is there.

They are flying closer and level changes can be accommodated far more readily than was possible using pre-ADS-B procedural separation.

Theoretically true, but in practice, the difference between AUSEP standards and ADS-B has not been apparent, as there is just not enough traffic over most of the Australian FIRs to make a difference.

For the short distances of the major routes BNE-SYD-MEL, it's hardly applicable, but RVSM did make a measurable difference in costs.

Flex tracks & UPRs are often vastly different from the published route structure which just tend to be fairly similar to Great Circle tracks, so the benefits of flex tracks & UPRs to operators have been significant.

True, but not necessarily dependent on ADS-B.

Tootle pip!!

le Pingouin

22nd Apr 2016, 12:02

The continued introduction of more flex tracks and UPRs is dependent on ADS-B.

Dick Smith

25th Apr 2016, 16:55

Is there any measurable safety improvement to come from the GA $30 million ADSB mandate coming in next February ?

What safety issue are they addressing ?

WannaBeBiggles

25th Apr 2016, 18:19

Is there any measurable safety improvement to come from the GA $30 million ADSB mandate coming in next February ?

What safety issue are they addressing ?

Just imagine it's 2022 and Australia doesn't have ADSB. Then just take whatever anecdotal evidence you would use while you're on your high horse touting how amazing and safe the American system was and how we're all doomed to die due to the regulator not implementing it.