Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
There needs to be one individual who is there for the long term, totally understands the project, and will be held accountable for its success or failure.
In the past I have been involved in the decision making for complex air traffic equipment where risks were high. I offer my services to the Government in an advisory capacity to help ensure the correct decision is made.
In the past I have been involved in the decision making for complex air traffic equipment where risks were high. I offer my services to the Government in an advisory capacity to help ensure the correct decision is made.
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
Mr Michael said it earlier
.... of the Bitter and Twisted brigade:-
A slow-witted man? or persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably? bit like the other bloke
and
Such as Alphabet airspace, The G Airspace trial, Location Specific Pricing for GA, AusNAS, ARG and the Taskforce to name but a few!
Both have form in the 'Old Guard' GA aviation arena
And in full knowledge that were they sucessful
... the GA Subsidy is gone!
Anyone else not see the pattern here
Tolstoy
"Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration."
"Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration."
Tooth Fairy stuff.
Airservices can't give GA money because as a Corporation they have a duty to their shareholder ...
.... I simply want to know where is any documentation by the Airlines from these collected taxes will guarantee the laundering of this cash to pay somebody
.... such a simple question
Airservices can't give GA money because as a Corporation they have a duty to their shareholder ...
.... I simply want to know where is any documentation by the Airlines from these collected taxes will guarantee the laundering of this cash to pay somebody
.... such a simple question
I ask (as I have asked many other Ministers) that you make sure this project does not go ahead until proper research and consultation takes place, and capable people are put in charge.....
.... The same situation exists with the Airservices ADS-B proposal. There needs to be one individual who is there for the long term, totally understands the project, and will be held accountable for its success or failure.
..... there was never one individual who had the responsibility, really believed in the project, could listen to advice from others and be held accountable for the decisions.
..... there was never one individual who had the responsibility, really believed in the project, could listen to advice from others and be held accountable for the decisions.
..... In the past I have been involved in the decision making for complex air traffic equipment where risks were high.
I offer my services to the Government in an advisory capacity to help ensure the correct decision is made.
Both have form in the 'Old Guard' GA aviation arena
And in full knowledge that were they sucessful
Of course, running the two systems in parallel will completely remove the $100 million claimed cost saving that was the basis of the JCP proposal.
Anyone else not see the pattern here
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Dick Smith's letter published on his site is dated 3rd July 2008 - written, well, well after the closing date for responses to the JCP of 31st October 2007.
Dick I assume you submitted a response to the JCP - you were certainly aware of it in August 2007 as you participated in the thread started by Scurvy.D.Dog to encourage responses. Would you care to publish your response?
Before you ask, the response I provided to the JCP at the time was:
and included my name and ARN. Here my identity can remain anonymous - it neither adds or subtracts the credibility of my arguments - if you really think it makes a difference and want to know PM me and I will tell you.
Dick, you are quite adament in you opposition to the JCP proposal. What do you suggest should be done instead, and how do you suggest it should be funded?
Dick I assume you submitted a response to the JCP - you were certainly aware of it in August 2007 as you participated in the thread started by Scurvy.D.Dog to encourage responses. Would you care to publish your response?
Before you ask, the response I provided to the JCP at the time was:
I support the proposal providing the subsidy will cover the cost of installing the minimum necessary equipment in the aircraft and there is the availability of LAME’s to complete the installations.
Additionally, I see no reason why aircraft without an engine driven electrical system cannot be included in the proposal. Battery technology has progressed to the point where with an increased subsidy these aircraft could be included as well.
Additionally, I see no reason why aircraft without an engine driven electrical system cannot be included in the proposal. Battery technology has progressed to the point where with an increased subsidy these aircraft could be included as well.
Dick, you are quite adament in you opposition to the JCP proposal. What do you suggest should be done instead, and how do you suggest it should be funded?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob M,
Take a moment to read, I mean actively read, what has been previously written.
ASA do not have Shareholder (s).
They have one, the Australian Government (as I have written before). Ready, they have one shareholder, the Australian government.
They , after consultation with the interested parties which you have previously posted yourself,
"ABIT includes representatives from Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, Defence, international airlines,
domestic airlines, regional airlines, airports, general aviation, sports aviation, recreational aviation,
avionics manufacturers & installers, flying training, and search & rescue"
are making a pitch to their 100% shareholder, the Australian Government to bring in ADS-B coverage . Alot of the area it will be covering had NO previous surveillance. Dick, this means they are NOT in most cases replacing SSRs, but putting in radar like coverage where previously there was NONE.
For this to work effectively, ie to see everyone, they are going to subsidise the fitment into the GA fleet of ADS-B. As an Air Traffic Controller the ability to see aircraft in 'real time' is a god send. We are not there to play Big Brother, we are there to make sure people get from A to B safely with as few delays as possible.
Bob, I understand when you say "something that seems too good to be true. usually is". This case is the exception, the airlines are willing to pay so that we (ATC) can see you.
They understand that you would scream blue murder if you were forced to pay for your own kit (and you vote, and have members of Parliament, who happen to be the Australian Government, who happen to be the 100% shareholders of ASA). Please grasp the fact that the airlines and ASA know that GA have to be, for want of a better term, 'bribed' through the subsidy.
It is no skin of my nose , if you kill the whole thing. We will just have to continue with the very restrictive procedural separation.
I hope you now have a better understanding of why they are willing to pay for your fitment. ADS-B(Broadcast) is being used outside of radar coverage right now.
ADS-C (Contract), where aircraft downlink via satellite or ground based VHF on a time or event based reporting rate, has been used for at least 8 years in Australia. It allows us to use 30nm longitudinal separation over the ocean, instead of a 10 minute (about 70-80nm) standard.
It also incorporates Controller Pilot Dialogue (CPDLC)which comes up on our, and the pilots displays, to ask for level changes, Wx diversions, football scores etc, we have been using this for over 11 years, and Flying Binghi,guess what, it kept working right on through the morning of 911 and was invaluable for communicating with the aircraft already in the air from the States coming to Australia on that fateful day.
Dick, our ADS(C) guru goes to the States (they pay) to instruct and lecture the US military, he is also a front line controller. He is internationally regarded as one of the leaders in the field. Sometimes you might want to admit that we actually are leaders in the field and some of what we do is 'Worlds Best Practice'. (I hate that saying)
Take a moment to read, I mean actively read, what has been previously written.
ASA do not have Shareholder (s).
They have one, the Australian Government (as I have written before). Ready, they have one shareholder, the Australian government.
They , after consultation with the interested parties which you have previously posted yourself,
"ABIT includes representatives from Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, Defence, international airlines,
domestic airlines, regional airlines, airports, general aviation, sports aviation, recreational aviation,
avionics manufacturers & installers, flying training, and search & rescue"
are making a pitch to their 100% shareholder, the Australian Government to bring in ADS-B coverage . Alot of the area it will be covering had NO previous surveillance. Dick, this means they are NOT in most cases replacing SSRs, but putting in radar like coverage where previously there was NONE.
For this to work effectively, ie to see everyone, they are going to subsidise the fitment into the GA fleet of ADS-B. As an Air Traffic Controller the ability to see aircraft in 'real time' is a god send. We are not there to play Big Brother, we are there to make sure people get from A to B safely with as few delays as possible.
Bob, I understand when you say "something that seems too good to be true. usually is". This case is the exception, the airlines are willing to pay so that we (ATC) can see you.
They understand that you would scream blue murder if you were forced to pay for your own kit (and you vote, and have members of Parliament, who happen to be the Australian Government, who happen to be the 100% shareholders of ASA). Please grasp the fact that the airlines and ASA know that GA have to be, for want of a better term, 'bribed' through the subsidy.
It is no skin of my nose , if you kill the whole thing. We will just have to continue with the very restrictive procedural separation.
I hope you now have a better understanding of why they are willing to pay for your fitment. ADS-B(Broadcast) is being used outside of radar coverage right now.
ADS-C (Contract), where aircraft downlink via satellite or ground based VHF on a time or event based reporting rate, has been used for at least 8 years in Australia. It allows us to use 30nm longitudinal separation over the ocean, instead of a 10 minute (about 70-80nm) standard.
It also incorporates Controller Pilot Dialogue (CPDLC)which comes up on our, and the pilots displays, to ask for level changes, Wx diversions, football scores etc, we have been using this for over 11 years, and Flying Binghi,guess what, it kept working right on through the morning of 911 and was invaluable for communicating with the aircraft already in the air from the States coming to Australia on that fateful day.
Dick, our ADS(C) guru goes to the States (they pay) to instruct and lecture the US military, he is also a front line controller. He is internationally regarded as one of the leaders in the field. Sometimes you might want to admit that we actually are leaders in the field and some of what we do is 'Worlds Best Practice'. (I hate that saying)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie...
If your opposition to this thing is that you dont believe you will be given a subsidy, then I suggest you withdraw. Regardless of whether AsA can or can't pay you a sudsidy, the government can. Off the top of my head, the govt pays subsidies to individuals, sole traders, corporate entitites etc. for a wide range of things like LPG conversions, solar hot water conversions, farm subsidies, apprentice workers etc. etc. Yes, it's true, I myself have received such subsidy.
So from that point of view, I dont see a whole lot of difference between an LPG conversion or an avionics conversion. I'm not familiar with the instruments or modality of how such subsidies are paid, but I'm pretty certain that if AsA as a corporation, or the govt., promise to pay you something, and subsequently didn't, you would have no shortage of litigation available to you.
Reading over the thread, the reasoned argument for going with ADS- B fitment, as opposed to what is offered as "argument" against, is pretty compelling. So for that, I'd like to thank Mr. Smith. Well done. Any objective reader or decision maker should have no problem now.
Tooth Fairy stuff.
I have never been given anything from any Government Quango in my life, indeed the exact opposite.
Airservices can't give GA money because as a Corporation they have a duty to their shareholder (s), not PBGA.
I have never been given anything from any Government Quango in my life, indeed the exact opposite.
Airservices can't give GA money because as a Corporation they have a duty to their shareholder (s), not PBGA.
So from that point of view, I dont see a whole lot of difference between an LPG conversion or an avionics conversion. I'm not familiar with the instruments or modality of how such subsidies are paid, but I'm pretty certain that if AsA as a corporation, or the govt., promise to pay you something, and subsequently didn't, you would have no shortage of litigation available to you.
Reading over the thread, the reasoned argument for going with ADS- B fitment, as opposed to what is offered as "argument" against, is pretty compelling. So for that, I'd like to thank Mr. Smith. Well done. Any objective reader or decision maker should have no problem now.
Spend a day out in the paddock, and look what greets me...
No aurgument from me max1 
james michael, The scenario I presented is NOT about V2's. It is compareing the terror effects of a Buzz bomb like device, basicly a small UAV. My understanding of Hitlers terror weapon, the buzz bombs, were that the British military deemed them to be not worth bothering with as they caused little real damage. The politicians of the time thought otherwise, and had considerable resources (and lives) diverted to suppress these highly inaccurate terror weapons.
Imagine what it would have been like if Hitlers Buzz bombs had a delivery accuracy of 30 metres...
... and the reason it has'nt happened yet .... ??? I dunno, pax jets were around for 40 odd years before 9II.
And re truck bombs - they will come from within Oz, and will damage a particular target... not indirectly take out the entire Oz air-nav system (edit - an ADS-B air-nav system) The Oz security people are pretty good at identifying 'in-house' terrorists (exhibit A - the Footy bombers) the problem is stopping terror weapons launched from outside Oz.
IMHO, we need to think very, very carefully, before we throw away our current well proven radar based air-nav system.
.
and Flying Binghi,guess what, it kept working right on through the morning of 911 and was invaluable for communicating with the aircraft already in the air from the States coming to Australia on that fateful day.
Terrorist scenario - red herring of miniscule impact - Binghi, ADS-B is working NOW around the world, how many terrorist GPS guided V2's have landed? But, let's turn off the constellation and that will stop them, won't it? Whoops, now they're using trucks. Let's ban them - you can drive to the farm for your produce.
Imagine what it would have been like if Hitlers Buzz bombs had a delivery accuracy of 30 metres...
... and the reason it has'nt happened yet .... ??? I dunno, pax jets were around for 40 odd years before 9II.
And re truck bombs - they will come from within Oz, and will damage a particular target... not indirectly take out the entire Oz air-nav system (edit - an ADS-B air-nav system) The Oz security people are pretty good at identifying 'in-house' terrorists (exhibit A - the Footy bombers) the problem is stopping terror weapons launched from outside Oz.
IMHO, we need to think very, very carefully, before we throw away our current well proven radar based air-nav system.
.
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
Bing
'Our current well proven radar based air-nav system' will be retained where it matters i.e. Primary radar (you do know the difference between PRIM and SSR radar I take it) in the capitals, that will uniquely provide non-SSR skin return radar + MLat + ADS-B .... surely you can see the significance of that PRIM radar decision ... WITHOUT IT BEING SPELT OUT!
In Enroute airspace (where SSR only exists), it would be replaced with ADS-B! ... more accurate, reliable, cost effective where wide area procedural ATC separation can be utilised immediately as a back-up! .... the loss of SSR only radar in these areas will effectively make no negative difference. What will make a difference is the ability at comparatively very low cost (where a need is identified), provide addtional areas of accurate ATS surveillance where it currently exists and where it is needed elsewhere such as the goldfields!
That all said (and its been said many times by many folks already) .... in your scenario .... would said persons (who would seek to harm us) equip said airbourne delivery device with a god damd TXPDR???
.... think about it mate! The areas that need the PRIM eyes to see sneekies will still have it, and where it won't exist, it currently does not anyway!
Fecken hell
IMHO, we need to think very, very carefully, before we throw away our current well proven radar based air-nav system.
In Enroute airspace (where SSR only exists), it would be replaced with ADS-B! ... more accurate, reliable, cost effective where wide area procedural ATC separation can be utilised immediately as a back-up! .... the loss of SSR only radar in these areas will effectively make no negative difference. What will make a difference is the ability at comparatively very low cost (where a need is identified), provide addtional areas of accurate ATS surveillance where it currently exists and where it is needed elsewhere such as the goldfields!
That all said (and its been said many times by many folks already) .... in your scenario .... would said persons (who would seek to harm us) equip said airbourne delivery device with a god damd TXPDR???
.... think about it mate! The areas that need the PRIM eyes to see sneekies will still have it, and where it won't exist, it currently does not anyway!
Fecken hell
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... think about it mate! The areas that need the PRIM eyes to see sneekies will still have it, and where it won't exist, it currently does not anyway!
Secondary Surveillance Radar - SSR, over a broader area of the East Coast, plus Perth, Adelaide and Darwin, is the RADAR that is proposed to be replaced by ADS-B. SSR is not a surveillance RADAR used by Defence because it is a participatory system of surveillance, that is, you have to agree to participate in the system for the the surveillance to register your presence. If you don't turn on your transponder, we can't see you.
ADS-B is also a participatory system of surveillance, but a far more advanced system... more accurate, more reliable, more data transferred (not just a selectable four-digit code and pressure altitude), and a lot more cheaper. Because it's cheaper, we can justify installing it across the continent, and thereby achieve a RADAR-like system for the whole country, not just a small corridor around the East and Southern coastlines plus a small circle around Perth and Darwin... instead, the whole continent.
If your argument is that SSR should be retained for security reasons... think again. It is total useless as a form of surveillance for Defence purposes. But then, there are far, far better means of surveillance in use than RADAR. It has had it's day, a very significant day, but it is no longer the means of surveillance of choice, it is primitive and antiquated when compared with other technologies and therefore... insignificant in the security world.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe what FB is trying to say is that if terrorists were to somehow employ the GPS system in some sort of attack, the US might turn it (the constellation) off. His reasoning is, therefor, it would be short-sighted to base the entire aviation surveillance and navigation systems on GPS.
IMHO, I think he is correct insofar as; if there were some sort of large-scale, co-ordinated attack using GPS guided weapons against the US, they might indeed interrupt the signal. In much the same way as pretty much EVERY commercial passenger jet in the WORLD was grounded on 9/11. For a short time.
However, based on the RISK, should we not proceed? Well, was every passenger jet permanently grounded? Did everyone regret ever having passenger jets, thinking "they were a huge mistake"? No, we mitigated and moved on. If every aircraft in oz is being navigated and surveilled using GPS technologies, what would happen if they signal was interupted unexpectedly? Would everyone crash? Would anyone crash? No, there are mitigators. As has been stated (over and over), the surveillence aspect is covered in that ATC would revert to procedural control and primary radar surveillance ie. go backwards a few years- inefficient, yes, dangerous, no. Aircraft navigating- well, there are plenty of aircraft using only GPS already. Pilots are trained (hopefully) in what to do, and there will be other mitigators (retention of navaids etc). If you are a GA pilot wandering around without any idea where you are without your GPS, then your airmanship might be questioned. But will you immediately perish? No.
Mr. Binghi would have to agree, that the risk of the GPS signal being interrupted is minute. The reward for utilising ADS-B now is massive. Risk/reward? It's a no-brainer.
It doesnt hurt to raise things, FB, and now hopefully another perceived problem is given it's proper perspective and put to bed. Thanks.
IMHO, I think he is correct insofar as; if there were some sort of large-scale, co-ordinated attack using GPS guided weapons against the US, they might indeed interrupt the signal. In much the same way as pretty much EVERY commercial passenger jet in the WORLD was grounded on 9/11. For a short time.
However, based on the RISK, should we not proceed? Well, was every passenger jet permanently grounded? Did everyone regret ever having passenger jets, thinking "they were a huge mistake"? No, we mitigated and moved on. If every aircraft in oz is being navigated and surveilled using GPS technologies, what would happen if they signal was interupted unexpectedly? Would everyone crash? Would anyone crash? No, there are mitigators. As has been stated (over and over), the surveillence aspect is covered in that ATC would revert to procedural control and primary radar surveillance ie. go backwards a few years- inefficient, yes, dangerous, no. Aircraft navigating- well, there are plenty of aircraft using only GPS already. Pilots are trained (hopefully) in what to do, and there will be other mitigators (retention of navaids etc). If you are a GA pilot wandering around without any idea where you are without your GPS, then your airmanship might be questioned. But will you immediately perish? No.
Mr. Binghi would have to agree, that the risk of the GPS signal being interrupted is minute. The reward for utilising ADS-B now is massive. Risk/reward? It's a no-brainer.
It doesnt hurt to raise things, FB, and now hopefully another perceived problem is given it's proper perspective and put to bed. Thanks.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binghi
I think the point you miss is that UAV are designed to be piloted by a ground station and do not need GPS guidance. A simple matter of navigation from a ground station using a forward looking camera or FLIR on a datalink.
Have a look at the BAE Systems information if you can track it down.
They DO NOT need a GPS to blow you out of your paddock (although nice to know you are a man 'outstanding in your field'
Bob Murphie
Have a look at the signatories to the original JCP - they are going to make fools of themselves by making such an offer then having the airlines withdraw - "I'd like to see that"
Does anyone know where I can get a polka dotted TSO 146 GPS to match my dashboard - ADS-B, coming to an aircraft near you
I think the point you miss is that UAV are designed to be piloted by a ground station and do not need GPS guidance. A simple matter of navigation from a ground station using a forward looking camera or FLIR on a datalink.
Have a look at the BAE Systems information if you can track it down.
They DO NOT need a GPS to blow you out of your paddock (although nice to know you are a man 'outstanding in your field'
Bob Murphie
Have a look at the signatories to the original JCP - they are going to make fools of themselves by making such an offer then having the airlines withdraw - "I'd like to see that"
Does anyone know where I can get a polka dotted TSO 146 GPS to match my dashboard - ADS-B, coming to an aircraft near you
Thread Starter
James Michael, when you came on this thread not that long ago, you made statements and asked questions as follows:
When I offer to have a phone conversation with you so that some of the information can be explained far better than it can be going backwards and forwards on PPRuNe, you refuse. Why would this be so? You have not even taken up my offer on a ride in the Citation.
You say that you post under your own name James Michael but a check with Google brings no hits that could be meaningful. It is obvious from your quotes from Leo Tolstoy that you are educated and not as confused as you make out.
Actually, I think I’m on to you. Has anyone else worked out what I have?
Thank you for confirming my limited understandings.
I'm confused about
(I think I will soon need a dictionary of aviation acronyms.)
Mr Dick Smith
My confusion is still with me.
My confusion is still with me.
You say that you post under your own name James Michael but a check with Google brings no hits that could be meaningful. It is obvious from your quotes from Leo Tolstoy that you are educated and not as confused as you make out.
Actually, I think I’m on to you. Has anyone else worked out what I have?
Thread Starter
Max1, I can tell you who will be paying for the $100 million subsidy for ADS-B – it is the passengers. Don’t think for a second that the airlines pay the airways charges – they don’t. They pass every cent (and a bit more) on to the passengers. Once the passengers know that they will be subsidising equipment in general aviation aircraft when there is no measurable safety advantage, they will object to it.
How will the passengers know? Eventually it will filter out through the media and to the political players.
How will the passengers know? Eventually it will filter out through the media and to the political players.
Thread Starter
Werbil, you ask:
With the limited amount of information I have (because I’m kept out of the loop in every way possible – as is everyone who doesn’t blindly support the JCP), I believe that we should continue with the high level ADS-B installation as planned. Then we should iron out the problems and take a careful look at how it works compared to the multilateration system currently being installed in Tasmania. A proper discussion paper should then be released showing the advantages and disadvantages of each system, with the relative costs.
In the meantime, I believe we should enter into a contract which keeps the existing enroute secondary surveillance radars operating until at least 2020.
Gradually, during the intervening years, we should encourage the installation of ADS-B equipment as it becomes available – or as it is installed at no charge in new aircraft.
I believe within the next two years, we will find which system will become the de facto world standard. That is the one we should stick with.
In relation to funding, I believe that the costs will be so low by 2020 that they will be no more than an existing transponder, and this price will also provide an ADS-B or TCAS ‘in’ equivalent.
As I have said before, I totally support ADS-B, but not rushing into it when we don’t even have proper certified units at a reasonable price for GA aircraft.
Dick, you are quite adamant in you opposition to the JCP proposal. What do you suggest should be done instead, and how do you suggest it should be funded?
In the meantime, I believe we should enter into a contract which keeps the existing enroute secondary surveillance radars operating until at least 2020.
Gradually, during the intervening years, we should encourage the installation of ADS-B equipment as it becomes available – or as it is installed at no charge in new aircraft.
I believe within the next two years, we will find which system will become the de facto world standard. That is the one we should stick with.
In relation to funding, I believe that the costs will be so low by 2020 that they will be no more than an existing transponder, and this price will also provide an ADS-B or TCAS ‘in’ equivalent.
As I have said before, I totally support ADS-B, but not rushing into it when we don’t even have proper certified units at a reasonable price for GA aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
There you go again - if one does not ring you they are guilty of something. Would you like me to drive or fly down from Canberra to visit you as well?
No hits on google? Wow, that's definitive. Ever heard of a non-directory listing?
I know you are out of puff when you have to attack the player instead of the theme.
You state
Well, Mr Smith, let me tell you what I have worked out about your efforts with ADS-B.
In your letter to the Minister you state
Well Dick the next opportunity for the subsidy is in the year 2028. So here you come thundering in to save whom from what - knowing full well that if you succeed YOU are consigning General Aviation - not all of whom have your boundless bucks - to a possible ADS-B mandate at a later stage - THAT WE ALL HAVE TO PAY FOR OURSELVES.
And, even if the whole ADS-B 1090ES project turns out to be overtaken by new technology in 5 or 10 years - it's no skin off the nose of GA because WE are not out of pocket.
What can you tell us of ICAO Annex 6, 6.13, and its likely consequences without ADS-B, Dick?
Getting back to what's posted - have a read of the information to those who post on Pprune, Dick. If you are on here, live with what you see is what you get.
My confusion? - I'm a fast learner Dick. And my research has gained a lot from the commonsense posts placed upon here by many people.
There you go again - if one does not ring you they are guilty of something. Would you like me to drive or fly down from Canberra to visit you as well?
No hits on google? Wow, that's definitive. Ever heard of a non-directory listing?
I know you are out of puff when you have to attack the player instead of the theme.
You state
Actually, I think I’m on to you. Has anyone else worked out what I have?
In your letter to the Minister you state
I fully support ADS-B, but believe it should initially be installed in conjunction with our existing radar system, and a reasonable length of time allowed for the two systems to operate in parallel so any problems can be ironed out. I would imagine this period would be a minimum of 5 years, and more likely 10 years. Of course, running the two systems in parallel will completely remove the $100 million claimed cost saving that was the basis of the JCP proposal.
And, even if the whole ADS-B 1090ES project turns out to be overtaken by new technology in 5 or 10 years - it's no skin off the nose of GA because WE are not out of pocket.
What can you tell us of ICAO Annex 6, 6.13, and its likely consequences without ADS-B, Dick?
Getting back to what's posted - have a read of the information to those who post on Pprune, Dick. If you are on here, live with what you see is what you get.
My confusion? - I'm a fast learner Dick. And my research has gained a lot from the commonsense posts placed upon here by many people.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 34 South
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word of caution for James Michael
Wonderful post James 
A word of caution however. You may be painting Dick into a corner with logic. He may just trot out the usual threat of defamation very shortly.
He is quick.... Tolstoy and education. Wow.
A word of caution however. You may be painting Dick into a corner with logic. He may just trot out the usual threat of defamation very shortly.
He is quick.... Tolstoy and education. Wow.
Thread Starter
James Michael, the problem is that I don’t believe the actual subsidy will go ahead. In my experience with the general aviation industry in the last decade, it is screwed in every way with a one-way ratchet – supporting the airlines and degrading general aviation.
I believe that at the last moment, the Government or someone will say that it is not possible to actually subsidise, and that GA must pay for the equipment itself. I believe that legislation will be in place, so GA pilots will have to pay for the ADS-B ‘out’ and once again everyone in the GA industry will be outraged but impotent.
Can anyone give me evidence that the scenario could be different to what I describe?
I believe that at the last moment, the Government or someone will say that it is not possible to actually subsidise, and that GA must pay for the equipment itself. I believe that legislation will be in place, so GA pilots will have to pay for the ADS-B ‘out’ and once again everyone in the GA industry will be outraged but impotent.
Can anyone give me evidence that the scenario could be different to what I describe?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is not quick mate, he is bipolar...why be in a forum when you can't take the heat when it is directed at you?
Nice post James, thanks for bringing some straight light into the subject, rather than turning the subject into self serving agendas.
Cheers.
Nice post James, thanks for bringing some straight light into the subject, rather than turning the subject into self serving agendas.
Cheers.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
You could be correct, however, on the balance of probability I do not believe any government would take on the total industry as you describe.
Your concept is 'conspiracy theory' - seems to spread even to you needing to track down my identity. Pay attention to what is said, not he who speaks.
The evidence is that the subsidy is on the table. In the courtroom of pprune, I suggest the onus is on YOU to
In researching your site, I find parallel of deep concern. Reading the Avalon section I find GA had unlimited access to Avalon - until you acted - now it is to be Class C a lot if not all of the time. On behalf of GA, thank you for shutting the gate on me if I ever fly through there.
Back to ICAO Annex 6 - your comments are .........
Will and Kap
Thank you. I will keep my comments to Dick Smith carefully worded and not end up under attack like my new friend peuce so recently.
You could be correct, however, on the balance of probability I do not believe any government would take on the total industry as you describe.
Your concept is 'conspiracy theory' - seems to spread even to you needing to track down my identity. Pay attention to what is said, not he who speaks.
The evidence is that the subsidy is on the table. In the courtroom of pprune, I suggest the onus is on YOU to
give me evidence that the scenario could be different to what I describe
Back to ICAO Annex 6 - your comments are .........
Will and Kap
Thank you. I will keep my comments to Dick Smith carefully worded and not end up under attack like my new friend peuce so recently.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ferris;
Your post makes sense, but the JCP proposes a cross induistry subsidy which in effect means the airline /passengers are paying it, not the Government or any Quango Corporation.
Your post makes sense, but the JCP proposes a cross induistry subsidy which in effect means the airline /passengers are paying it, not the Government or any Quango Corporation.