ADS-B + Subsidy - It's on the table - Submn's close 31 Oct

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Scurvy D

Why is it that someone who has already forked out for a TSO'd GNSS doesn't get a free-bee?

Should be the same rules for all.

The FTDK would look good with two GNSSs.

Dr

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. funnily enough Dr ... you might just get your wish .. if your existing is 129a .. then perhaps you might need 146a ... dunno??
.
.... have just been having a quick gork at NFRM0601AS
.
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/airw...nfrm0601as.pdf
.
and
.
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/DRAFTa...5(00)_0703.pdf
.
.... I have only had a glance, I hope if you chaps and chapesses have some time free you can pour over these and determine if C129a is OK .. I will have a closer captain cook tomorrow.
.
Funnily, 129a was considered in the draft of NPRM0601AS earlier in the year .... I am not sure if it still is though
.
.. comments ... please
.
I'm bangin' out ... quick change tomorrow
.
nite

[gaunty]

Scurvy mate, unless I'm mistaken the 7th cavalry is coming and they've got ADSB write large all over them.

[werbil]

Happy for a fuel levy to pay for safety surveillance.

Jaba A fuel levy to pay for aerodrome maintenance is a idea - who decides who gets the money? 95% of my ops are off salt water or a private landing area - why should I pay for a facility I am not using?

Bushy People not using the radio - provide CASA with time, place and rego - if they see the same aircraft appearing on a regular basis CASA should increase surveillance and take action - radio calls ARE mandatory for radio equiped aircraft even at straight CTAF's. If they're rogue on radio procedures for a couple of $$ they're going to have bigger skeletons in the closet of interest.

Re ADS-B - simply make it illegal to use for commercial or non safety purposes.

FTDK - remove the GPS out of the BO, install ADSB including the "free" GPS, send off the paperwork, put the old GPS back in - simple.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

gaunty ... werbil
.
... love that plan re the GNSS for the Dr

[LeadSled]

Scurvy,

RE.129A the short answer is no. See the ATSO of ADS-B, not too hard to find on the CASA website.

The "alternative" refers to the integrated systems found in airline aircraft, generally an IRS/FMCS integrated box, where GPS (often MilSpec) is only one of the inputs to update the FMC present position. Not often found in a Jabiru.

Good on you Gaunty, ever willing to spend other peoples money, I see, in this case something like $200-250M, the real cost to GA over the life of the program.

Do your mates with TCAS understand they will get nothing more from other aircraft than if it was just transponder mode C equipped. The cobbled up gear RFDS is playing with costs far, far more than $15,000 --- and probably doesn't comply (until the GPS is updated to C145/146 -are King going to do that ?)with the ADS-B OUT ATSO.

Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

werbil I hear you. I did not think it would please all the people all of the time, but most of them most of the time instead. You have a good point, however I pay taxes for many a thing, service etc I will never need but some other poor sod might. I just figure we all take a less selfish approach and try to minimise the effect of those very selfish and unsafe operators that Bushy was referring to. Feel free to come up with a better idea. Then the trick is getting someone to impliment it!!!!

FTDK LeadSled I do believe you will not have a full on GNSS panel supplied FOC at all, rather a GPS engine only, stuck up under the dash like your current altitude encoder. Bit like this one......

generally an IRS/FMCS integrated box

not often found in Jabs.....not ever as far as I know, but some of your old colleagues have included some pretty serious gear in some of theirs!

J

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Ah Lead .... a ray of sunshine ye are

TSO 129a GNSS
.
http://casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c36.pdf
.
RTCA, Inc. document, DO-208, titled "Minimum Operational Performance Standards For Airborne Supplemental Navigation Equipment using Global Positioning System (GPS)" is the internationally accepted industry standard for GNSS receivers from which the GNSS Technical Standard Order (TSO) 129 and 129a are derived.
.
RTCA, Inc. document, DO-229, titled "Minimum Operational Performance Standards For Global Positioning System/Wide Area Augmentation System Airborne Equipment", now at Rev C (DO-229C), is the internationally accepted industry standard for GNSS receivers from which the various GNSS TSO (145 and 146) are derived.
.
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/DRAFTa...5(00)_0703.pdf
.
8.2 ADS-B Transmitter
8.2.1 The ADS-B transmitter needs to comply with the minimum performance standards detailed in RTCA Document DO-260A Para 2.2.
.
8.2.2 For ADS-B data to be universally usable it needs to be transmitted in the formats and characteristics defined in the following standards:
��ICAO Annex 10, Amendment 77;
��RTCA/DO-260; or
��RTCA/DO-260A.
.
8.2.3 To be useable for ATC surveillance in a “radar like” manner, ADS-B transmitters must transmit the following minimum data set:
��Position (in extended squitter surface position message and in extended squitter airborne position message);
��Position Integrity Information (e.g. NUC, NIC etc value transmitted in the “TYPE” code in extended squitter surface position message and in extended squitter airborne position message);
��Pressure Altitude (in extended squitter airborne position message, GNSS height may also be transmitted in this message when barometric altitude is not available);
��Identity (in extended squitter identity & category message); and
��Version Number, SIL and NACP in aircraft operational status message, if the avionics equipment is RTCA/DO-260A compliant.
.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/..._Australia.pdf
.
ATSO-C1004 (interrogator specific) Note specification G2
.
ATSO-C1005 (no interrogation required) Note specification G1 (is there an exemption?)
.
Here is one that is certified TSO 129a and TSO145a
.
http://www.accord-products.com/papers/2004-ray.pdf
.
…and another (for regional FMS types)
.
http://waypnt.com/Documents/Papers/gnssa2.pdf
.
.
The question remains:-
.
... what impediment is their to treating TSO129a (GNSS) as an acceptable GNSS output into an ADS-B TXPDR that complies with ATSO-C1005??

[werbil]

I stand corrected - after receiving a PM I checked and it appears that there is no legal obligation to make any broadcasts at a straight CTAF (except for straight in approaches, operations in reduced VMC, and parachute ops). The AIP uses the word "should" which is defined as "all users are encouraged to conform with the applicable procedure".

However before you turn your radio off CAR1988 243 does require a continuous listening watch to be maintained on the appropriate frequency.

W

[werbil]

Jaba,

1. Make it a legal requirement for calls to be made.
2. Make it illegal for CTAF calls to be used for charging purposes.
3. The owner of the airport will soon work out a way to recover landing charges, it may be more expensive but at least those that use the service pay for it.

W

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

A response ... relevant to this thread

One of the great problems of the JCP and all previous iterations is the glossing over of vital technical details, in the hope that the great unwashed in aviationland won't notice what the Lord High Technopoobah is NOT saying.

… bwahahhah …. Technopoohbah …… Hey X was that for you or me or the dude at CASA that came up with this??? ….. perhaps he meant poohbah’s
.

-- be very clear that (even if available) ADS-B IN, from a transponder to a TCAS equipped aircraft does NOT give any more information than if the non-TCAS aircraft only had a Mode C transponder ---- no advantage from ADS-B out.

I think everyone gets that bit
.

If (as has been suggested) a manufacturer produces an "ADS-B only" tx., a TCAS aircraft will see nothing

.. at the moment, how many times and in how many references does it need to be pointed out that TCAS ADS-B ‘IN’ standards are being finalised, and by the time (2009-12-14) ADS-B is being fitted to target aircraft, it will be being fitted to TCAS aircraft …. Which leads to your next point
.

"Somebody" going to have it all in the same box? As a Mode S transponder , C, with ADS-B in DF17/18 message slots, or just the ADS-B component without the Mode A/C/S ??

… the stuff that is coming out for GA does all ... does it not? … if not could you point out which and where … genuine question!
.

Given the $$$/availability of sourcing C145/146 is the major stumbling block, I will believe it when see it ---- C145/146 availability is not like C129A.

True, thus my question earlier, for the purposes of VFR (or 129a IFR non WAAS) GNSS input to an ADS TXPDR, are you saying it will not output GNSS data to an ADS-B box?
.

XXXXXXXX intended one box, not a Mode S transponder plus a Freeflight Inc. FFS 1201 as a separate box --- but is that how it turned out?

.. do you know, cause I don’t, and as X (who might well know :wink: ) seems to indicate it will??
.

One of the "features" of the CBA is to thoroughly confuse claimed benefits of ADS-B and the potential benefits of C145/146.

This claim worries me. My understanding is that C145/146 are for providing LPV vertical guidance to IFR.
.
C129a is still a TSO IFR nav (albeit not sole means) that still provides GPS in lieu of DME etc …. There is no confusion that I can see in so far as the ‘back-up’ navaids mentioned in the CBA, such as the not location sole means VOR’s and NDB’s does not reduce the utility to 129a existing installations. In other words the navaid reductions and the bolt in ADS-B out box should have no detrimental effect on 129a IFR and glass VFR, particularly if the box and its installation is covered by the funding. …. Is that a fair assessment of the 129a IFR/ VFR situation??
.
Thus my earlier question regarding existing 129a IFR and VFR compliance?
.

A large % of the benefits claimed in all the CBAs are nothing to do with ADS-B and everything to do with C145/146. XX. XXXX has made this very clear.

…. Hmmm and that’s the perplexing bit …. This cross industry funding proposal as I read it is to provide at least as good if not better (for those that already have a GNSS system) GNSS nav capability (perhaps including terrain) for free, to support the ADS-B out signal for CDTI (TCAS) equipped (particularly RPT) and ATS ... that is after all the system being replaced (Enroute MSSR) to fund the ADS-B system ….. Getting GNSS Nav is a benefit to the industry of the ADS-B requirement not the other way around!!
.

Not all C145/146 are created equal, the Freeflight Inc. FFS 1201 does not have the capabilities of the C145/146 in the Garmin 430W, 480 and 530W, and W is WAAS, and without WAAS, and WAAS enabled --- NO precision (LPV) vertical guidance and lower minima ---- Regional and Rural Australia left out in the cold, again.

…. There is the Nub …. WAAS is by no means a done deal in Oz, in fact from what I read of late, probably will not be the way many countries go (including Europe), irrespective, WAAS LPV was not the purpose of the subsidy was it? … the fact that 145/146 was preferred as I understand it (you can correct me if I am wrong your poohbahness) was more to do with the accuracy of the ranging etc than to provide LPV .. the fact that LPV is delivered to IFR where most do not have it now provides the platform for whichever augmentation system is eventually chosen … VFR and other IFR who do not want it or (have 129a glass that do not want or cannot afford that upgrade) will still have the ‘traffic’ benefit of ADS-B through 129a … which again brings us back to my question regarding 129a compliance
.

Once again, the mantra, there is considerable economic potential in the use of ADS-B for ATM purposes by airlines----- but it has nothing to do with "safety", and nothing to do with the needs (if, indeed there is any demonstrated need) of low level unpressurised aircraft.

…. that depends on whether the risk management expert commenting on behalf of the XXXX has considered some of (but not limited to) the following benefits:-
.
1. The accuracy of ADS-B out compared to existing mode A/C
2. The number of aircraft covered by ADS-B as opposed to the number currently equipped with a ‘serviceable’ mode A/C
3. The number of IFR aircraft that will have some form of CDTI by 2012-14
4. The number of VFR aircraft that will have some form of CDTI by 2012-14
5. The cost neutrality for VFR fitment (particularly if 129a is acceptable)
6. The cost neutrality for light IFR fitment (particularly if 129a is acceptable)
7. The cost effectiveness for IFR wishing to upgrade to 146a LPV ready
8. The cost savings to industry into the future from ADS-B vice MSSR
9. The safety enhancement of cost effective surveillance in areas where RPT operate
10. The add on technologies the baseline ADS-B system provides
.
And the unknowns;
.
1. VFR traffic densities and complexities in areas IFR operate OCTA outside radar coverage
2. VFR traffic densities and complexities in CTAF areas outside radar coverage
3. The number and disposition of IFR/VFR/VFR conflict pairs OCTA outside radar coverage
.
… vanishingly small risk no doubt …. but how small when there is no data on which to base that assumption? … against VFR/VFR/IFR enroute accidents in the US and elsewhere ….. it only takes two aircraft to form an aluminium welder! ….perhaps you might quantify the difference in risk say west of the ranges in OZ to the mid west enroute areas in the US for us? … hmmm ……
.

The absence of WAAS really does limit the use of LPV capable GPS, no lower minima than you get now, and no precision vertical guidance. So, about the only C145/146 advantage over c129A left., as far as I can see, is sole source navigation to, and an instrument approach at an alternate with no other aid (not possible with a C129A GPS).

…. See you knew all along that 145/6a was only gunna benefit IFR
.

Not a lot of interest to VFR.

… that’s the real issue isn’t it … it does not cost the average XXXXX VFR owner squat ….. what is the kick for the small number of IFR owners ... nil I would reckon???
.

So Airservices need "you" to spend lots of money so they can "save" lots of money

…. so AsA are gunna pay your members up to 10K VFR, 15K IFR to get a GNSS and ADS-B out (prolly ‘in’ by then as well) and will cost them virtually nothing .. so AsA can remove the enroute MSSR that industry are paying to maintain at a much larger premium than the ADS-B that will replace it, and in return for your free GNSS they are gunna remove ONLY the back-up VOR and NDB’s …… to save industry more money in maintance and replacement cost
.
… are you that jaded from years of confrontation that you cannot see anything positive in anything? …. It is trust isn’t it? …. I hear you on that score!
.

As a quite senior and very enthusiastic AsA proponent of ADS-B was compelled to admit, to a group of us ---- "we need to force widespread adoption of ADS-B to force widespread adoption of C146/146 GPS so we can get on with pulling almost all the NDB(T) and all but a few terminal VOR/DME". But why does it have to be forced on VFR ?? It doesn't.

If it does not cost you anything, and you can use 129a .. why would you object? …. Even if it is a 145a engine and it cost you nothing why would you object? ….. if you cannot physically put a box in the aircraft or power it you are exempt ….. what’s the issue?
.

A fundamental of proper cost/benefit principles is to compare the costs to whoever is the subject of increased cost,

… exactly, who is subject to increased cost?
.

versus the benefits that accrues to those who directly bear the cost.

I say again, what negatives (or non-benefits) are there?
.

Throughout this who exercise there has been an almost complete disconnect between who incurs the costs and who reaps the benefits .

.. yer dam’d right about that, and it seems pretty obvious where the disconnect is!
.

What's going on here, to me, is more like taxation, I get to pay, somebody else gets the benefits.

That’s Camel fertiliser and you surely must know it!
.

Increased costs for some "national benefit" also sounds like taxation to me.

.. I say again, where are the increased costs?
.

On a peripherally related subject, now that Melbourne is going to get a Cat 111 ILS, (can Sydney be far behind) what does this say about GBAS as the answer to a maiden's (or a Virgin's ) prayer.

… at a guess .....in the average year there might be 4-7 mornings during winter when diversions are needed …. Many aircraft, much money, much irate passengers, much screwed up hull and crew networks …. How much do ya reckon that is worth each year?
.
.. now work out how long it will be for 00 RNP type approaches to be certified on each hull on each crew ( you know the requirements, FMS, HUD, training blah blah) … how long do ya reckon ?????
.
.. do you know what’s involved in upgrading a Cat I to a CAT III ….. ???
.
I’ll let you sleep on that one!
.
Nite happy

[werbil]

-- be very clear that (even if available) ADS-B IN, from a transponder to a TCAS equipped aircraft does NOT give any more information than if the non-TCAS aircraft only had a Mode C transponder ---- no advantage from ADS-B out.

WRONG - It gives accurate position and vector information - with further development of ACAS it will allow RAs to command lateral as well as vertical avoiding action.

I do believe you will not have a full on GNSS panel supplied FOC at all, rather a GPS engine only, stuck up under the dash like your current altitude encoder.

FROM the JCP

Provision of ADS-B OUT capability, including installation, is expected to cost less than $10,000 for a typical GA VFR aircraft. Provision of ADS-B OUT and ‘solemeans’ GNSS navigation, including installation, is expected to cost less than $15,000 for a typical GA IFR aircraft. Obviously costs will vary with the individual choice of avionics and complexity of installation in the particular aircraft, as will the value to the owner of replacing existing avionics made redundant by the new equipment.

and

A voucher with a maximum value of $15,000 would be issued for IFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics and TSO-C146 GNSS navigation equipment. IFR status will be determined from the aircraft’s latest maintenance release.

A voucher with a maximum value of $10,000 would be issued for VFR aircraft to support the installation of ADS-B OUT avionics driven by a TSO-C145 GNSS engine.

So any aircraft with IFR ticked on the MR gets a full on C146 "GNSS panel". VFR aircraft get the box.

Providing it is cost neutral, what is the issue for aircraft below 5700kg MTOW? This seems to be an excellent opportunity to have the maximum benefits of ADS-B enabled with a comprehensive installation of ADS-B OUT equipment at no cost to the little guy.

W

PS Many, many years ago I lived in a little country town which installation of sewerage system was likely. The council wanted to explore low cost alternatives using government grants, however there was huge opposition by the residents of the town and the idea was abandoned. A couple of years later a sewage system was installed without the benefit of the grant. As an aviation community are we going to have this small town mentality and end up shooting ourselves in both feet?

[Jabawocky]

werbil

Thanks for your usefull post, and.......

As an aviation community are we going to have this small town mentality and end up shooting ourselves in both feet?

J

[gaunty]

**** off Leadsled, I'm seeing your $200-250M and raising you another $200-250M that ADSB and associated technology is not only now globally ubiquitous but is the way of the future.

If you care to poke your head out from under your rock you may be surprised to learn that despite your harumphings, life goes on without you and, this is the worst part, nobody really cares what you may think.

I'm sure you'll manage to construct some cutting retort which will play to your self confessed fellow cognoscente but hey as they say "talk to the hand".

[LeadSled]

Werbil,

WRONG - It gives accurate position and vector information

No question that, in theory, an ADS-B position could/should be more accurate, but see the relevant RTCA doc.,it doesn't work out that way, hence the total disinterest of Boeing/Airbus and their customers ---- the TCAS II will perform exactly the same, with or without ADS-B IN, provided "the other aircraft" has a Mode C transponder or TCAS (ACAS if you prefer).

The Joker in the pack is that several putative manufacturers are proposing a "cheap" solution,(you can only have one transponder alive at a time on an aircraft) that would not be a full transponder Mode S with ADS-B out, but just the "ADS-B" component.

I am advised (French for a bloody good authority) that this would not trigger any reaction from a TCAS aircraft -- dumb or what.

As to prices, NOBODY has come up with an ATSO compliant set of boxes yet, less than about double the (proposed only, Gov./AsA/ those who will foot the bill have not agreed) "IFR" subsidy.

Gaunty,
M'old darlin', bitchy and bitter as ever, I see.

Why don't you do something useful, and ask the RFDS across your back fence the total cost of the three Bendix/King boxes (GPS/Mode S TXPD/Display)they are playing with, which, at the end of the day, does NOT meet the ADS-B TSO, the GPS is only C129A. Tell us if it all fits within AUD$15,000 including installation ---- for the information of whoever reads this thread.

Thread drift ---Gaunty, I see that your Yarpie's are back for another go, I wonder what Vaile will say this time. Martin Ferguson is making far more sense on the subject, to the surprise of quite a few.
Tootle pip!

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Installation

Page B7 of the JCP acknowledges that it's going to be a logistics problem to do 7000 installations in 4 years, but I'm not keen on having

skilled people recruited from outside the aviation industry

doing any installation.

My experience is that unrelated items stop working properly whenever any work is done behind the instrument panel.
Personally, I can't see it taking less than 3 days to do an install and then a mini 100-hourly recheck, (assuming that nothing major goes wrong).
yes..., it'll certainly

represent a challenging task for the available LAMEs

[Biggles_in_Oz]

werbil

Providing it is cost neutral, what is the issue for aircraft below 5700kg MTOW? This seems to be an excellent opportunity to have the maximum benefits of ADS-B enabled with a comprehensive installation of ADS-B OUT equipment at no cost to the little guy.

I no longer see any nett benefits. I wanna change my poll vote from 3 to 1

If I'm at around 8000' and more than 100nm from one of the 39 ground stations, then ATC can't see me and can't pass me any traffic. = status quo.
If the subsidy won't cover ADSB-IN, then I can't get my own traffic info. = status quo.

[werbil]

Biggles_in_Oz

You will be able to get your own traffic info if either you or your company decides ADS-B IN is a good investment. But it would be pointless without widespread fitment of ADS-B OUT.Cost ????

If your aircraft is IFR and below 5700kg MTOW you WILL get a TSO C146 GNSS. Cost $0 (if you believe the JCP).

If your aircraft is VFR and below 5700kg you don't get any real benefit but being able to fly in C, E, above A050 and in CTAF(R)'s. Cost $0 (if you believe the JCP).

Foreign airlines that hold an Australian AOC (ie any that fly into Australia) will be required to have ADS-B OUT fitted to aircraft and will have to pay for it themselves. Cost ???.

By the JCP it appears that the US will require ADS-B carriage in the future too.

Out of interest does anyone know if any other countries are planning to cross subsidize fitment of ADS-B equipment?

[LeadSled]

Werbil

Out of interest does anyone know if any other countries are planning to cross subsidize fitment of ADS-B equipment?

The short answer is NIL, because no other country is planning to force low level IFR and particularly VFR to to have "mandatory" ADS-B.

Just because any airline operating to Australia has to have a Part 129 AOC, does not give Australia the power to enforce unique Australian rules onto foreign operators. Be very clear about that little detail.

Don't bank on ICAO SARPs requiring ADS-B any time soon. Don't forget Eurocontrol has only just "mandated" Mode S for IFR high level in western ECAC countries -----and there is a significant installed base of VDL-4 ADS-B (not 1090ES) in northern Europe.

The only new "mandate" in USA/ECAC is for VDL-2 communications to replace ACARS ---- VDL-4 does that very nicely ---- VDL-4 ADS-B is the VDL-2 datalink plus the ADS-B function. As VDL-2 will become the standard "airline" datalink to replace ACARS ---- makes the 1090ES a dumb choice ---- as has been said in previous posts.

Everybody should clearly understand -----
The equipment costs and hence, subsidies in the JCP (just carried over from previous "studies") WAS NEVER BASED ON ACTUAL EQUIPMENT, and ----
just dreamt up by those selling the idea, aided and abetted by some disastrously low estimates from "potential" ( ie: not existing ADS-B)manufacturers, and -----
The "subsidy" is not "cost neutral" for GA, and ONLY covers existing aircraft, and ---
After 2013 any new aircraft will carry the full whack of the price of ADS-B.

ADS-B should be an economic decision, for AsA if they can make a buck selling the service "improvements", and operators who think they can benefit from availing themselves of the improved services.

The core of the whole issue for GA is: There is NO SAFETY CASE to demonstrated a problem, to which mandatory ADS-B is the answer, let alone the cost/benefit justified answer.

There is a great lack of logic in all this: All the mid-airs in Australia ( and almost all in the US) happen below 5000 AGL, except in rare cases, below 2000' AGL. The records speak for themselves. We know (ask for the AsA studies) the collision risk above 5000 is vanishingly small (see AS/NZ4360.2004 for a definition), a statistical zero, and an even smaller "statistical zero" above 10,000 (see AsA Class C v. E studies above 10,000). "Mandatory" radio above 5,000 feet is a remnant of pre-AMATS days.

In Australian aviation, we are demonstrably no good at rational risk management, but much prefer what are irrational and emotional arguments about "safety", all the while ignoring rational analysis of where the "safety" problems actually exist --- to find out where that is, look at the ATSB records ---it is not in mid-air collisions.

Take all the rose coloured glasses off, and go back and very carefully re-read the posts of Dr. Hall's documents.

Tootle pip!!

[gaunty]

Right ......well I guess that's it then. How stupid of us all, RFDS and Airservices included.

So how about getting your little mate to join you in enjoining mandatory TCAS in every GA charter aircraft regardless of seat numbers and mandatory transponders in everything that is airborne. I certainly don't speak for the RFDS, but in a recent convo with them about getting the Perth operators to join those realy dumb trials, we agreed that at the end of the day whilst we would much rather have an accurate altitude encoding from the traffic, that is secondary to being able to "see" him and/or an ADSB out would improve the accuracy on the TCAS outa sight. At least you know there is "something" out there.

But hey it's clear there is only one answer, so we should just stop wasting our time and get on with it.

And/or be prepared to personally console the bereaved when the otherwise inevitable coming together of a GA charter and a terry toweller flying responsibly without unecessary costs.

The yarpies, well it took some know nothings about 6 months to get a letter out of Vaile which should and did send shockwaves through the airport/real estate developers. You only need to be a student of Tom Sharpe to know how to play em. No they will not give up, the prize is too big, at least until the definition of "fit and proper" for owndership is more clearly defined. It would have been nice if there had been some attribution to the JACC from a certain association who all but claimed the success for themselves.