Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie
I'm not sure of your concern? here's how I feel:
1. Airservices has openly declared they can save some money (by the way I suspect the navaids save more than the radar in the ultimate).
2. Both VFR and IFR are being offered a carrot. The thought of picking up a 146 GPS and a brand new transponder for an extra outlay of $5000 appeals to me, rather than just the new transponder and a blind GPS.
3. So I'm going to worry about whose name is on the cheque as the 'payer'?
What I'm motivated by is receiving the subsidy. If it's from Airservices, DOTARS, Freddo Frog, or Dick Smith (you'll note my query to him about that remains unanswered) I just don't care - as long as it does not bounce. Something about never looking down the throat of the horse, yes?
My research, and reading of this thread, makes me feel the benefits to me outweigh the (whatever?) negatives.
OzBus
I agree with you. I have no concern about being on an ATC screen. Just might save my life someday.
I'm not sure of your concern? here's how I feel:
1. Airservices has openly declared they can save some money (by the way I suspect the navaids save more than the radar in the ultimate).
2. Both VFR and IFR are being offered a carrot. The thought of picking up a 146 GPS and a brand new transponder for an extra outlay of $5000 appeals to me, rather than just the new transponder and a blind GPS.
3. So I'm going to worry about whose name is on the cheque as the 'payer'?
What I'm motivated by is receiving the subsidy. If it's from Airservices, DOTARS, Freddo Frog, or Dick Smith (you'll note my query to him about that remains unanswered) I just don't care - as long as it does not bounce. Something about never looking down the throat of the horse, yes?
My research, and reading of this thread, makes me feel the benefits to me outweigh the (whatever?) negatives.
OzBus
I agree with you. I have no concern about being on an ATC screen. Just might save my life someday.
James Michael, you said:
"Could you please assist me by prefacing your posts "transmitting blind"."
You've picked it up quicker than a lot of prior posters here. Dick is certainly an intelligent and tricky customer. If he can see an opportunity to re-state his case, then he might reply to you .. however, if there's nothing in it for him ... silence. Most of us know that, and we just accept it and work around it. A very clever debating ploy.
Not a dig, just an observation.
"Could you please assist me by prefacing your posts "transmitting blind"."
You've picked it up quicker than a lot of prior posters here. Dick is certainly an intelligent and tricky customer. If he can see an opportunity to re-state his case, then he might reply to you .. however, if there's nothing in it for him ... silence. Most of us know that, and we just accept it and work around it. A very clever debating ploy.
Not a dig, just an observation.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce
I certainly appreciate and value your comment.
My concern was I had somehow offended Mr Simth, which was not the intent of these aspects of my research.
There has been much good information and debate on here of great value to a newbie as myself. But, it is difficult to seek information when one's hard questions do not get an answer.
This 5000' matter made me feel I had somehow missed or overlooked something. But I again read the JCB last night and I still only come up with Phase 1 = transponder equivalence and Phase 2 = radio equivalence, and the revised proposal is only Phase 1 because of objections needing to be further explored and consulted re Phase 2.
This process strikes me as admirable and your advice reassures me that I should continue to participate on the basis that 'no answer' is probebly an answer in itself
I certainly appreciate and value your comment.
My concern was I had somehow offended Mr Simth, which was not the intent of these aspects of my research.
There has been much good information and debate on here of great value to a newbie as myself. But, it is difficult to seek information when one's hard questions do not get an answer.
This 5000' matter made me feel I had somehow missed or overlooked something. But I again read the JCB last night and I still only come up with Phase 1 = transponder equivalence and Phase 2 = radio equivalence, and the revised proposal is only Phase 1 because of objections needing to be further explored and consulted re Phase 2.
This process strikes me as admirable and your advice reassures me that I should continue to participate on the basis that 'no answer' is probebly an answer in itself
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the revised proposal is only Phase 1 because of objections needing to be further explored and consulted re Phase 2
Could you direct a curios reader to the revised proposal please?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gary
I apologise but I have no paper to direct you toward as I believe this must go from the recent ASTRA meeting back to the other key parties to re-start the amended JCP.
The association I joined to further my aviation pursuit gave me the advice on request. I understand it is from the latest meeting they attended and is a proposal put forward to ASTRA to re-start ADS-B now or move to the radar replacement program which puts the next subsidy chance at 2028.
I reproduce here extract of what I was sent, and I take it in good faith:
"(Notes from today's meeting) The Atlas and Radar replacement/life extension program has run its course, a decision has to be made to transition to satellite technology for enroute surveillance by September. Failure to do so will require replacement of 8 terminal and 11 enroute radars, as these are nearing the end of their useful life, this will also mean replacing and continuing with ground base navaids. Airservices has recently signed a contract to extend the life of current enroute radars, to preserve a contingency (transition) period between the proposed mid-2012 ATLAS mandate and radar decommissioning.
ADS-B implementation is proposed to replace the enroute radars and navaids, by 2012. The timeline of September is critical for decision making, delays beyond this point will necessitate replacing radars and navaids as they have already been extended beyond their useful life, once this occurs then subsidy funding of ADS-B installation in VH registered aircraft will not be available. This does not mean ADS-B will not go ahead, the airlines are equipping existing aircraft and new aircraft will be ADS-B capable.
The ABIT meeting today discussed a proposal to introduce a Phase 1 introduction i.e.. ADS-B for transponder equivalence, subsidies for installation and purchase of equipment along with a back up network of navaids during the transition period.
Phase 11 will continue to be worked on and debated to try and resolve and where necessary elliminate some of the concerns and problems that have bogged down the debate so far.
This I believe is a step forward and was recognised as such by the attendees. The meeting was unanimous in accepting this approach. Phase 1 allows us to utilise the advantages of the technology, take advantage of the subsidy and still continue to debate and resist the onerous issues.
Although the meeting endorsed the proposal, this does not necessarily mean the Minister will give it the go ahead. This process was initiated by the previous government about 8 years ago, a gentleman from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport etc etc made this clear that it would have to be put to the Minister for a final decision."
I apologise but I have no paper to direct you toward as I believe this must go from the recent ASTRA meeting back to the other key parties to re-start the amended JCP.
The association I joined to further my aviation pursuit gave me the advice on request. I understand it is from the latest meeting they attended and is a proposal put forward to ASTRA to re-start ADS-B now or move to the radar replacement program which puts the next subsidy chance at 2028.
I reproduce here extract of what I was sent, and I take it in good faith:
"(Notes from today's meeting) The Atlas and Radar replacement/life extension program has run its course, a decision has to be made to transition to satellite technology for enroute surveillance by September. Failure to do so will require replacement of 8 terminal and 11 enroute radars, as these are nearing the end of their useful life, this will also mean replacing and continuing with ground base navaids. Airservices has recently signed a contract to extend the life of current enroute radars, to preserve a contingency (transition) period between the proposed mid-2012 ATLAS mandate and radar decommissioning.
ADS-B implementation is proposed to replace the enroute radars and navaids, by 2012. The timeline of September is critical for decision making, delays beyond this point will necessitate replacing radars and navaids as they have already been extended beyond their useful life, once this occurs then subsidy funding of ADS-B installation in VH registered aircraft will not be available. This does not mean ADS-B will not go ahead, the airlines are equipping existing aircraft and new aircraft will be ADS-B capable.
The ABIT meeting today discussed a proposal to introduce a Phase 1 introduction i.e.. ADS-B for transponder equivalence, subsidies for installation and purchase of equipment along with a back up network of navaids during the transition period.
Phase 11 will continue to be worked on and debated to try and resolve and where necessary elliminate some of the concerns and problems that have bogged down the debate so far.
This I believe is a step forward and was recognised as such by the attendees. The meeting was unanimous in accepting this approach. Phase 1 allows us to utilise the advantages of the technology, take advantage of the subsidy and still continue to debate and resist the onerous issues.
Although the meeting endorsed the proposal, this does not necessarily mean the Minister will give it the go ahead. This process was initiated by the previous government about 8 years ago, a gentleman from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport etc etc made this clear that it would have to be put to the Minister for a final decision."
Thread Starter
Peuce, if you are going to defame me (ie Dick is a "tricky" customer) have the guts to phone me on 0408 640221 and say it to my face -or at least put your real name on your posts so we have a fair playing field.
To readers of this thread, I am happy to answer any question on any matter but this depends on time available!
James, I will answer all of your questions on Monday, in the meantime I dare you to phone me this weekend for even more important information. If you don't it could mean that you have a more complex agenda than what appears here.
Just why posters have to keep their names hidden when discussing an important technical issue is extraordinary.
I will look forward to the calls.
To readers of this thread, I am happy to answer any question on any matter but this depends on time available!
James, I will answer all of your questions on Monday, in the meantime I dare you to phone me this weekend for even more important information. If you don't it could mean that you have a more complex agenda than what appears here.
Just why posters have to keep their names hidden when discussing an important technical issue is extraordinary.
I will look forward to the calls.
Thread Starter
James, you have been told that the ADSB subsidy decision must be made by September because- "failure to do so will require replacement of 8 terminal and 11 enroute radars-"
This is not the truth-these units can be continuously be updated and refurbished at very reasonable cost to keep operating "like new".
That's one of the reasons no one from Airservices ever actually publically answers my statements or comes on this site under their own name!
The truth would come out!
And the subsidy decision will have to be made by parliament -no individual has the authority to take money from Mum and Dad air fare buyers and hand it to private aircraft owners.
This is not the truth-these units can be continuously be updated and refurbished at very reasonable cost to keep operating "like new".
That's one of the reasons no one from Airservices ever actually publically answers my statements or comes on this site under their own name!
The truth would come out!
And the subsidy decision will have to be made by parliament -no individual has the authority to take money from Mum and Dad air fare buyers and hand it to private aircraft owners.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
I entered this debate as a public forum and anything I say will be public on here accordingly.
If you have information to share, don't make me privy by fone call - share here.
I take exception to your very rude uncalled for comment about agendas. You shoot at Peuce for "defaming" you, then you do exactly that to me:
Please practice what you preach. I am proud of my name James Michael, has been mine for many years. But, if you expect me to exchange matters with you here, kindly do unto others as you demand for yourself otherwise I will ignore you - as you have ignored my recent questions until prodded by Peuce. And his comments about you are in no way defamatory - a 'tricky' customer could be noted as a shrewd and canny operator. I await your proof of that.
Now, turning to radars, I said to you recently (awaiting Monday answer) I don't care how or why the cheque arrives. I find an apparent nett benefit in this for me, I don't intend to tell Airservices how to run their business and lose the benefit.
Surely no-one is naive enough to believe that the Airservices claim of the radar replacement would not be soundly examined by DOTARS, Defence, the Minister, Senate Hearings, etc. I intend to leave those experts to debate that matter rather than being guided by anecdote and conspiracy theory.
I entered this debate as a public forum and anything I say will be public on here accordingly.
If you have information to share, don't make me privy by fone call - share here.
I take exception to your very rude uncalled for comment about agendas. You shoot at Peuce for "defaming" you, then you do exactly that to me:
James, I will answer all of your questions on Monday, in the meantime I dare you to phone me this weekend for even more important information. If you don't it could mean that you have a more complex agenda than what appears here.
Just why posters have to keep their names hidden when discussing an important technical issue is extraordinary.
Just why posters have to keep their names hidden when discussing an important technical issue is extraordinary.
Now, turning to radars, I said to you recently (awaiting Monday answer) I don't care how or why the cheque arrives. I find an apparent nett benefit in this for me, I don't intend to tell Airservices how to run their business and lose the benefit.
Surely no-one is naive enough to believe that the Airservices claim of the radar replacement would not be soundly examined by DOTARS, Defence, the Minister, Senate Hearings, etc. I intend to leave those experts to debate that matter rather than being guided by anecdote and conspiracy theory.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Dick is onto what my question re who signs the cheque for this low level ADSB subsidy.
Airservices is a Corporation, (albeit a quango). Their duty is to their shareholder, (s), not as a benevolent fund to subsidise what is now mandated.
We have a new Government that to date has given no indication to subsidising basic social justice measures let alone subsidising "silvertails" flitting in the GAFA.
Qantas already has ADSB as do all other Airlines and the RAAF operating Internationally, (in the flight levels).
OZBUSDRIVER and others by omission admit they don't own aircraft and my guess is the hire one for 20 to 60 hours per annum.
There appears only three now who can possibly benefit from this impost, they being Airservices, the private pilot, who hires an aeroplane, and the regionals who are **** scared of somebody appearing in their windscreen in a CTAF because they are ingrained into looking at dials and not the real world outside. A CTAF is VFR not IFR (is it not?).
I believe the gift horse is a tactical ploy, nothing else. Being a pessimist makes you enjoy the result if it goes the other way. Optimistics are very usually dissappionted.
I have potentially more to loose financially than anyone who hires a weekend 182 and wants to feel safer than his/ her own aviation skills can give them with technology that doesn't do anything more than what is currently in my aircraft at this date and time.
Perhaps one should push to mandate duplicate seatbelts.
Perhaps some should re-read "the ambulance in the valley".
Perhaps they should leave G airspace as it is.
Airservices is a Corporation, (albeit a quango). Their duty is to their shareholder, (s), not as a benevolent fund to subsidise what is now mandated.
We have a new Government that to date has given no indication to subsidising basic social justice measures let alone subsidising "silvertails" flitting in the GAFA.
Qantas already has ADSB as do all other Airlines and the RAAF operating Internationally, (in the flight levels).
OZBUSDRIVER and others by omission admit they don't own aircraft and my guess is the hire one for 20 to 60 hours per annum.
There appears only three now who can possibly benefit from this impost, they being Airservices, the private pilot, who hires an aeroplane, and the regionals who are **** scared of somebody appearing in their windscreen in a CTAF because they are ingrained into looking at dials and not the real world outside. A CTAF is VFR not IFR (is it not?).
I believe the gift horse is a tactical ploy, nothing else. Being a pessimist makes you enjoy the result if it goes the other way. Optimistics are very usually dissappionted.
I have potentially more to loose financially than anyone who hires a weekend 182 and wants to feel safer than his/ her own aviation skills can give them with technology that doesn't do anything more than what is currently in my aircraft at this date and time.
Perhaps one should push to mandate duplicate seatbelts.
Perhaps some should re-read "the ambulance in the valley".
Perhaps they should leave G airspace as it is.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie
A good consideration but my read of the JCP is that the end result is conditional on the subsidy and cannot occur without it.
I doubt any Minister or organisation would attempt to face a Court challenge by ndeavouring to proceed if the subsidy was overturned. If so, the deal is null and void.
"Perhaps they should leave G airspace as is" - I think in that concept you have thrown away your pessimism and become an optimist. As ADS-B becomes more and more interntional, perhaps the concept of airspace will be revised entirely.
"CTAF VFR not IFR" - certainly, but a lot of effort seems to go in Australia into making it 'safe' for IFR - therefore the CTAF R that may become the CTAF ADS-B (or worse if ADS-B does not eventuate?). Just my thought.
Is not UK going to a Mode S mandate - check Mode S Home Page | Mode S | Airspace Policy
Not ADS-B but perhaps the world we knew is changing as technology changes.
A good consideration but my read of the JCP is that the end result is conditional on the subsidy and cannot occur without it.
I doubt any Minister or organisation would attempt to face a Court challenge by ndeavouring to proceed if the subsidy was overturned. If so, the deal is null and void.
"Perhaps they should leave G airspace as is" - I think in that concept you have thrown away your pessimism and become an optimist. As ADS-B becomes more and more interntional, perhaps the concept of airspace will be revised entirely.
"CTAF VFR not IFR" - certainly, but a lot of effort seems to go in Australia into making it 'safe' for IFR - therefore the CTAF R that may become the CTAF ADS-B (or worse if ADS-B does not eventuate?). Just my thought.
Is not UK going to a Mode S mandate - check Mode S Home Page | Mode S | Airspace Policy
Not ADS-B but perhaps the world we knew is changing as technology changes.
james michael
Info on the radar situation can be found in the following document:
http://www.astra.aero/downloads/ABIT..._Extension.pdf
Not sure if it has already been posted, but here is the master document link (meeting 12 was the latest, last month):
ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT)
I understand it is from the latest meeting they attended and is a proposal put forward to ASTRA to re-start ADS-B now or move to the radar replacement program which puts the next subsidy chance at 2028.
http://www.astra.aero/downloads/ABIT..._Extension.pdf
Not sure if it has already been posted, but here is the master document link (meeting 12 was the latest, last month):
ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie,
A quick explanation of where the money is coming from, its basically the airlines through ASA.
ASA is a corporation it doesn't have shareholder(s), it has one The Australian Government. Any profits basically go 60% to government general revenue(not to aviation) and 40% retained.
Last year they made $106 million.
The thinking behind the subsidy is. The airlines will get cost savings from the reduced separation and increased surveillance due installation of more ADS-B stations, (they are way cheaper to instal and maintain than SSRs), ASA will get cost savings from the removal of the SSRs, which should then manifest in less cost to airlines.
ASA and the airlines need GA to get onboard real soon, hence the subsidy(bribe). GA is in a strong bargaining position but there are time constraints when you will lose your position.
Dick, alot of the SSRs are already seriously close to their use-by dates, they don't have 5 years to play about. ADS-B is up and working.
To a certain extent it works in parallel with procedural separation, but due to ADS-Bs proven surveillance capablities it supplants it, with radar like standards. Think 10 minute separation standards against 5 miles. e.g. 10 minutes after passing at a combined speed of 16 miles a minute equals aircraft 160 miles apart against 5 miles.
ASA will need to replace the radar heads soon. That money would come from the GA subsidy, if ASA have to go to the expense of replacing SSRs they will want to get their moneys worth and the subsidy would go. At the moment the cost benefit analysis leans towards subsidising GA and not replacing the SSRs. If things drag on the SSRs will HAVE to be replaced.
How many GA aircraft travel regularly OS? How many will be affected by what Sweden implement? Our system works, there is a window of opportunity to get a proven system free or cheap. That window is not being manipulated, it will close, the SSRs will need to be either replaced or removed. Unfortunately the deal is close-ended, decisions need to be made.
A quick explanation of where the money is coming from, its basically the airlines through ASA.
ASA is a corporation it doesn't have shareholder(s), it has one The Australian Government. Any profits basically go 60% to government general revenue(not to aviation) and 40% retained.
Last year they made $106 million.
The thinking behind the subsidy is. The airlines will get cost savings from the reduced separation and increased surveillance due installation of more ADS-B stations, (they are way cheaper to instal and maintain than SSRs), ASA will get cost savings from the removal of the SSRs, which should then manifest in less cost to airlines.
ASA and the airlines need GA to get onboard real soon, hence the subsidy(bribe). GA is in a strong bargaining position but there are time constraints when you will lose your position.
Dick, alot of the SSRs are already seriously close to their use-by dates, they don't have 5 years to play about. ADS-B is up and working.
To a certain extent it works in parallel with procedural separation, but due to ADS-Bs proven surveillance capablities it supplants it, with radar like standards. Think 10 minute separation standards against 5 miles. e.g. 10 minutes after passing at a combined speed of 16 miles a minute equals aircraft 160 miles apart against 5 miles.
ASA will need to replace the radar heads soon. That money would come from the GA subsidy, if ASA have to go to the expense of replacing SSRs they will want to get their moneys worth and the subsidy would go. At the moment the cost benefit analysis leans towards subsidising GA and not replacing the SSRs. If things drag on the SSRs will HAVE to be replaced.
How many GA aircraft travel regularly OS? How many will be affected by what Sweden implement? Our system works, there is a window of opportunity to get a proven system free or cheap. That window is not being manipulated, it will close, the SSRs will need to be either replaced or removed. Unfortunately the deal is close-ended, decisions need to be made.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many GA aircraft travel regularly OS? How many will be affected by what Sweden implement?
With plenty more to follow...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention the 1,600 ADS-B ground stations in Mr Smith's beloved USA... for 1090ES (1090Mhz-Extended Squitter). Yes, that's 1,600 ADS-B ground stations worth of continental ADS-B coverage that Mr Smith would have you believe that GA in the United States will not participate in... and that, therefore, Australia should not participate in... does anyone really believe that?
And for the umpteenth time - Where is the contract that states the U.S. will guarantee the ongoing FREE supply of civy GPS signals to run Airservices ADS-B system ???
...... I'm beginning to think that NO such document exists
How long will GPS stay FREE when the hardpressed U.S. tax payer realises that Airservices is making a profit from GPS ??? I think with the realization, that government 'policy' may just change for the worse
...... I'm beginning to think that NO such document exists
How long will GPS stay FREE when the hardpressed U.S. tax payer realises that Airservices is making a profit from GPS ??? I think with the realization, that government 'policy' may just change for the worse
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodnight Sir Murray Rivers
Bing
.
.... OK so now its charging (rather than the off switch) for GPS use ..... ermmm how and on what basis?
.
Are they gunna charge US citizens (road, rail, air, sea, agricultural, and personal users) also
.
Show us one, just one link or sniff that uncle sam is contemplating charging for or considering turning off the constellation/s!
.
Yeh right!
.
.
Ah yes ... the deafening sounds of many a pessimist pennies a dropping!
.
Viva la revolution
.
.... OK so now its charging (rather than the off switch) for GPS use ..... ermmm how and on what basis?
.
Are they gunna charge US citizens (road, rail, air, sea, agricultural, and personal users) also
.
Show us one, just one link or sniff that uncle sam is contemplating charging for or considering turning off the constellation/s!
.
Yeh right!
.
.
Ah yes ... the deafening sounds of many a pessimist pennies a dropping!
.
Viva la revolution
FB, there was an article in a yank mag a few years ago prior to the permanent deactivation of SA. The Yanks decided that more money came into the US economy by purchases of receivers than charging rent to exclusive use.
EDIT- to add, not to mention the uses resulting in more productivity.
EDIT- to add, not to mention the uses resulting in more productivity.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
Do you really think the US taxpayer really gives a stuff in what is going on down here.Tazaksthan and the Eskimos get the same benefit we do,think of all the industries in the States that get the same benefit, US AOPA, truckdrivers, US airlines, US recreational boaties, Mom and Pop in the street.
If you think they are passionate about their gun laws, wait for the outcry if the government tried to take the GPS signal away or start charging for it.
If this is the best you can do for stopping ADS-B, I'd give it away. There is a window of opportunity for getting it cheap or free, when that window closes don't come sooking on here that you weren't told.
Dick re-SSRs
'This is not the truth-these units can be continuously be updated and refurbished at very reasonable cost to keep operating "like new".'
The cost is not reasonable, an ADS-B ground station is a fraction of this cost. Its like telling Qantas they could keep the Classics and that they could be updated and refurbished at a very reasonable cost to keep operating "like new". How much to keep the spares on hand and the Technicians working on them, or Lindsay Fox to keep his old trucks on the road?
Do you really think the US taxpayer really gives a stuff in what is going on down here.Tazaksthan and the Eskimos get the same benefit we do,think of all the industries in the States that get the same benefit, US AOPA, truckdrivers, US airlines, US recreational boaties, Mom and Pop in the street.
If you think they are passionate about their gun laws, wait for the outcry if the government tried to take the GPS signal away or start charging for it.
If this is the best you can do for stopping ADS-B, I'd give it away. There is a window of opportunity for getting it cheap or free, when that window closes don't come sooking on here that you weren't told.
Dick re-SSRs
'This is not the truth-these units can be continuously be updated and refurbished at very reasonable cost to keep operating "like new".'
The cost is not reasonable, an ADS-B ground station is a fraction of this cost. Its like telling Qantas they could keep the Classics and that they could be updated and refurbished at a very reasonable cost to keep operating "like new". How much to keep the spares on hand and the Technicians working on them, or Lindsay Fox to keep his old trucks on the road?