Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all anyone knows you and your supporters could be con-men with criminal histories who have hidden agendas.
Do you deny that dishonest people could post on this site with the sole intention to mislead?
Play the ball and not the man Dick.
I know you find that difficult but the rest of us are trying to turn your malicious and deceptively titled thread into a legitimate academic discussion of the facts, ideas and motives behind the implementation of ADS-B.
Bob, Binghi and bushy... you are Aviation in our eyes. Aviation is everyone from the Student Pilot in the Grob to the crew of the A380 and everyone else in between.
We are merely a facilitator in the industry, a protector who sits back and quietly (sometimes
) watches over everyone. We have dedicated our whole working lives to ensuring that you have as much freedom as we can logically provide, but an outcome that ensures that you all go home to your families at the end of the day. It's not emotive, it's human.I've lost count of the number of times I've pulled two VFR's, or a VFR and an IFR, or two IFR's apart who, by their radio transmissions or actions, had "got it wrong" and were about to end up in a nasty situation. Most of those occasions, the VFR aircraft was totally oblivious to the fact that an IFR had failed to get visual with the VFR and had been turned hard at the last minute. But the crew of the IFR and myself had separately either gone for a long walk on the beach after work that day, hugged their partner just a little bit longer when they got home, or headed straight to the nearest bar and ordered a "double"... or several.
...because each one of those events was a "collision"... not a Close Proximity... not a "Near-Miss"... but a "collision" that could have happened if I hadn't seen it or hadn't intervened... because all but one hole in the Swiss Cheese lined up... too many holes.
ADS-B closes a very big hole in the Swiss Cheese... and... gives VFR a lot more freedom.
What price is that worth?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
james michael;
I am at a loss to comprehend your last post.
You appear deprived of nourishment of some sort that cannot recollect your previous post to me. Perhaps a hemlock red may do the trick.
My sentiments remain.
I am at a loss to comprehend your last post.
You appear deprived of nourishment of some sort that cannot recollect your previous post to me. Perhaps a hemlock red may do the trick.
My sentiments remain.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quokka
Well put, perhaps Dick can now specify the facts that support his arguments.
I believe his summary of objection is a good starting point:
1. anyone really in the know
2. no real safety issue being addressed
3. cost/benefit study is flawed
4. most likely the subsidy will not go ahead
Dick has already admitted he does not have the full information, so we can delete 1.
Re 2, even the removal of much DTI to actual TAAATS plots is a giant leap ahead. Add coverage where no current radar exists. Add ADS-B IN.
No real safety issue?
Re 3, Dick is correct and many who responded to the JCP made that very point. That's a case of reworking the CB study to get new numbers.
Dick - to whom did you supply your advice of the flaws and corrections in the CBS, and when?
Re 4 - everyone except Dick seems to have come to terms with the reality that no subsidy equals no JCP result.
The question I have remaining is the subsidy amount versus the reality of fitment. I am reminded of what happened to autogas kit prices when John announced the subsidy. It would be good to see a small sample of GA aircraft fitted 'publicly' with the costs and any hiccups put on display.
Bob Murphie
Quokka's sentence in bold is preferable to suggesting another poster imbibes hemlock.
Well put, perhaps Dick can now specify the facts that support his arguments.
I believe his summary of objection is a good starting point:
I believe the answer is obvious- anyone really in the know accepts that there is no real safety issue being addressed,that the cost/benefit study is flawed and as it is most likely the subsidy will not go ahead they don't want to be personally identified with the failure.
2. no real safety issue being addressed
3. cost/benefit study is flawed
4. most likely the subsidy will not go ahead
Dick has already admitted he does not have the full information, so we can delete 1.
Re 2, even the removal of much DTI to actual TAAATS plots is a giant leap ahead. Add coverage where no current radar exists. Add ADS-B IN.
No real safety issue?
Re 3, Dick is correct and many who responded to the JCP made that very point. That's a case of reworking the CB study to get new numbers.
Dick - to whom did you supply your advice of the flaws and corrections in the CBS, and when?
Re 4 - everyone except Dick seems to have come to terms with the reality that no subsidy equals no JCP result.
The question I have remaining is the subsidy amount versus the reality of fitment. I am reminded of what happened to autogas kit prices when John announced the subsidy. It would be good to see a small sample of GA aircraft fitted 'publicly' with the costs and any hiccups put on display.
Bob Murphie
Quokka's sentence in bold is preferable to suggesting another poster imbibes hemlock.
Thread Starter
Quokka, look at the warning on every page,which says in effect "contributions may be the opposite to what may be apparent - or the unscrupulous may use it to elicit certain reactions"
Why would Danny put that warning there unless he wanted us to be very careful about what we accept?
Where is the evidence that this warning does not apply to James Michael? Or even yourself?
And because you are not game to put your own name to the post it cannot be slander.
If there is anyone in Airservices or CASA management who really sees the effective safety advantage of bringing 7000 small aircraft, primarily in very low traffic density airspace, on to ATC screens then let them say so publically under their own name!
James, it's good to see that you recognise that the ADSB cost benefit study is flawed. Remember it provides the only objective evidence that the $100m subsidy is cost effective and not just an emotive sop to those who desperately want to get VFR aircraft "back in the ATC system" as they were before Feb. 1991
It is a waste of time trying to correct this intentionally misleading document- as I am sure you know- the ethics at Airservices and the other organisations involved is similar to that uncovered at the Wheat Board.
Why would Danny put that warning there unless he wanted us to be very careful about what we accept?
Where is the evidence that this warning does not apply to James Michael? Or even yourself?
And because you are not game to put your own name to the post it cannot be slander.
If there is anyone in Airservices or CASA management who really sees the effective safety advantage of bringing 7000 small aircraft, primarily in very low traffic density airspace, on to ATC screens then let them say so publically under their own name!
James, it's good to see that you recognise that the ADSB cost benefit study is flawed. Remember it provides the only objective evidence that the $100m subsidy is cost effective and not just an emotive sop to those who desperately want to get VFR aircraft "back in the ATC system" as they were before Feb. 1991
It is a waste of time trying to correct this intentionally misleading document- as I am sure you know- the ethics at Airservices and the other organisations involved is similar to that uncovered at the Wheat Board.
Thread Starter
And Quokka you say "Play the ball not the man"
For that to work I have to know who "the man" is!
Thats just one of the reasons you and your colleagues will fail even if you are right.
If you are genuine and are not set to gain financially from this huge $100m bribe come out in your own name and say so!
Prune anonyminity was clearly never intended for the purpose it is now being put to!
For that to work I have to know who "the man" is!
Thats just one of the reasons you and your colleagues will fail even if you are right.
If you are genuine and are not set to gain financially from this huge $100m bribe come out in your own name and say so!
Prune anonyminity was clearly never intended for the purpose it is now being put to!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
If you are trying to needle Quokka or me, forget it as far as I'm concerned. It just further lowers my opinion of your ethos.
We are here to debate ADS-B and judge and be judged by facts and substance presented, not rhetoric.
As far as your needling goes, it's more than needling - it's deliberate antagonism to divert attention from the lack of substance in your argument.
You adroitely avoided answering my question. As a reminder it was
I think I read into you ducking and weaving that
Put more precisely, you could not bother putting effort into submitting - bit like another who could not bother submitting to the Senate Enquiry. Easier to talk than assemble and analyse information - no?
Let's have a few FACTS to promote the debate, Dick.
Approximately 250 submissions were received to the JCP - gee, Dick, 250 geese wasted their time?
22 submissions were received from general aviation pilots and aircraft owners.
11 supported the proposal, particularly the cross-industry funding
11 rejected the proposal
If you are trying to needle Quokka or me, forget it as far as I'm concerned. It just further lowers my opinion of your ethos.
We are here to debate ADS-B and judge and be judged by facts and substance presented, not rhetoric.
As far as your needling goes, it's more than needling - it's deliberate antagonism to divert attention from the lack of substance in your argument.
You adroitely avoided answering my question. As a reminder it was
Dick - to whom did you supply your advice of the flaws and corrections in the CBS, and when?
It is a waste of time trying to correct this intentionally misleading document
Let's have a few FACTS to promote the debate, Dick.
Approximately 250 submissions were received to the JCP - gee, Dick, 250 geese wasted their time?
Airline stakeholder viewpoints expressed were by the following organisations:
regional, domestic and international airlines; local and international airline representative bodies; and professional pilots’ associations.
regional, domestic and international airlines; local and international airline representative bodies; and professional pilots’ associations.
Without exception, these respondents supported the proposal, including the proposed timing and cross-industry funding, as well as acknowledging the safety and operational benefits that will be provided by satellite-based navigation and surveillance.
Well, Dick, thank deity you came along to single handedly refute their thinking ...... you have refuted it have you not ........
Responses were received from individual airports and a representative body. The airport respondents supported the proposal and recognise safety and operational benefits resulting from ADS-B and GNSS implementation.
22 submissions were received from general aviation pilots and aircraft owners.
11 supported the proposal, particularly the cross-industry funding
11 rejected the proposal
Only one respondent in this group stated that the proposal would be unacceptable under any circumstances.
If there is anyone in Airservices or CASA management who really sees the effective safety advantage of bringing 7000 small aircraft, primarily in very low traffic density airspace, on to ATC screens then let them say so publically under their own name!
Responses were received from a number of current Australian air traffic controllers and an air traffic controllers’ association. All ATC respondents supported the proposal, including the timing.
Dick, I think they had to put their names on the responses to have them accepted. That they did not share their knowledge and name with you - might be a message you should consider for the future.
I could go on Dick but I know this information is wasted on a closed mind - i.e. yours. It is put up here as some information from those genuinely interested in proceeding this debate.
And, no, you don't 'have to know who the man is' - you just need to consider the wise old saying - "treat others as you would be treated yourself" and stop trying to play 'Dick tracy' over fellow posters rights to their privacy 
Thread Starter
James, its pretty clear that these people believed the information that was provided in the JCP document. Why wouldn't they- after all most Australians believe that government Authorities are basically ethical in their dealings.
And don't under- estimate greed. Generally when people hear they are going to be given $100m for no work or effort they accept the offer- just look at what happens at election time!
I bet if the JCP cost /benefit study was corrected that the vote would be very different. Why havn't you been able to get them to correct this intentionally misleading study?
I have failed in getting the study looked at because those involved know that the whole subsidy proposal will fall over if the study is corrected.
James, its so sad that you you have such an in depth knowledge and so many facts at your fingertips but you cannot mention your real name. Surely this must show readers ot this thread that there are serious problems in our industry.
And don't under- estimate greed. Generally when people hear they are going to be given $100m for no work or effort they accept the offer- just look at what happens at election time!
I bet if the JCP cost /benefit study was corrected that the vote would be very different. Why havn't you been able to get them to correct this intentionally misleading study?
I have failed in getting the study looked at because those involved know that the whole subsidy proposal will fall over if the study is corrected.
James, its so sad that you you have such an in depth knowledge and so many facts at your fingertips but you cannot mention your real name. Surely this must show readers ot this thread that there are serious problems in our industry.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Why do you keep demeaning yourself with your specious arguments.
You "failed in getting the study looked at" - was that not because you did NOT submit? CORRECT?
Unbelievable arrogance Dick. 250 submitters talking of $100M - and none of them have your astuteness? When was the last time you ran a successful airline?
Here is one extract of one of the "gullible responses"
to the JCP:
In examining the JCP/CBA we found areas of concern that will be canvassed hereunder. Two of particular note were the mixing of the benefits of the GNSS navigators with those of ADS-B, and also the benefit claims of ADS-B IN - which the JCP does not fund.
GNSS TSO C145/146 and ADS-B are not interdependent both ways: ADS-B proponents claim TSO C145/146 is needed (FDE) but the reverse is not true - yet this is clouded in the JCP/CBA where the individual benefits are mixed to make the case.
The needs of IFR versus VFR are not well canvassed in the JCP.
And here's the absolute rollicking clincher Dick.
It was recently suggested that had the CBA been a company or share prospectus, ASIC would be sharpening its pencils as the CBA does not apply the rigorous testing and substantiation expected in a companies document. We refer the reader to the ASIC site and “Guide to Reading a Prospectus” as a benchmark for examining a financial inducement as is the JCP/CBA.
What was that you said again, Dick - "these people believed the information that was provided in the JCP document".
Dick you are spouting meaningless rhetoric without substantiation in the belief that you have some deity given right to be the only one right and astute enough to comprehend what the rest of the industry cannot. A dangerous mindset Dick.
But, the above as just one example proves that industry is not as stupid as you think.
I think there's a religion somewhere waiting for a new deity figure - jump in the Citation (without me) and head there - safer than digging the hole any deeper here
Why do you keep demeaning yourself with your specious arguments.
You "failed in getting the study looked at" - was that not because you did NOT submit? CORRECT?
its pretty clear that these people believed the information that was provided in the JCP document
Here is one extract of one of the "gullible responses"
to the JCP:In examining the JCP/CBA we found areas of concern that will be canvassed hereunder. Two of particular note were the mixing of the benefits of the GNSS navigators with those of ADS-B, and also the benefit claims of ADS-B IN - which the JCP does not fund.
GNSS TSO C145/146 and ADS-B are not interdependent both ways: ADS-B proponents claim TSO C145/146 is needed (FDE) but the reverse is not true - yet this is clouded in the JCP/CBA where the individual benefits are mixed to make the case.
The needs of IFR versus VFR are not well canvassed in the JCP.
And here's the absolute rollicking clincher Dick.
It was recently suggested that had the CBA been a company or share prospectus, ASIC would be sharpening its pencils as the CBA does not apply the rigorous testing and substantiation expected in a companies document. We refer the reader to the ASIC site and “Guide to Reading a Prospectus” as a benchmark for examining a financial inducement as is the JCP/CBA.
What was that you said again, Dick - "these people believed the information that was provided in the JCP document".
Dick you are spouting meaningless rhetoric without substantiation in the belief that you have some deity given right to be the only one right and astute enough to comprehend what the rest of the industry cannot. A dangerous mindset Dick.
But, the above as just one example proves that industry is not as stupid as you think.
I think there's a religion somewhere waiting for a new deity figure - jump in the Citation (without me) and head there - safer than digging the hole any deeper here
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
james michael;
I suspect I know who you are so I am not concerned with your being exposed or not. If you are indeed who I suspect, the moderators will ban you as they did your real identity if you step out of line. There is more value in, as you say, in having the debate. This I note you to be as an avid supporter of the concept (and the subsidy whether it comes to being or not).
If indeed you are whom I suspect, you are a private VFR pilot with limited flying experience and your knowledge of the subject was not gleaned from April here on Pprune, when you arrived here, but quiet some time prior as an active participant in an implementation team as an industry representative.
If indeed you are whom I suspect, you hold a position of trust in a GA organization who’s members look toward you to save them money and act in their best interests.
If indeed you are whom I suspect, I am certain there is no pecuniary gain in this debate for you, however your motives, if you are whom I suspect, would certainly fit your previously demonstrated ability to ingratiate yourself into positions of importance.
If indeed you are whom I suspect, I am about to get a kicking from OZBUSDRIVER and the other pro ADSB / anti Dick Smith brigade to take the heat off you, and as per your habit, if you are the person whom I suspect you are, you must always have the last say.
In concluasion, something that has bothered me for some time now, and Dick has mentioned it in passing, that nobody from Airservices has come forth to identify themselves and sell the concept. It almost seems that they know the whole show could fall over and they could be held responsible in some way.
A “patsy” would be a very handy thing to have on side to sell ADSB and still have clean hands if things went sour. If indeed you are whom I think you are, I hope your peers will accept your actions.
I suspect I know who you are so I am not concerned with your being exposed or not. If you are indeed who I suspect, the moderators will ban you as they did your real identity if you step out of line. There is more value in, as you say, in having the debate. This I note you to be as an avid supporter of the concept (and the subsidy whether it comes to being or not).
If indeed you are whom I suspect, you are a private VFR pilot with limited flying experience and your knowledge of the subject was not gleaned from April here on Pprune, when you arrived here, but quiet some time prior as an active participant in an implementation team as an industry representative.
If indeed you are whom I suspect, you hold a position of trust in a GA organization who’s members look toward you to save them money and act in their best interests.
If indeed you are whom I suspect, I am certain there is no pecuniary gain in this debate for you, however your motives, if you are whom I suspect, would certainly fit your previously demonstrated ability to ingratiate yourself into positions of importance.
If indeed you are whom I suspect, I am about to get a kicking from OZBUSDRIVER and the other pro ADSB / anti Dick Smith brigade to take the heat off you, and as per your habit, if you are the person whom I suspect you are, you must always have the last say.
In concluasion, something that has bothered me for some time now, and Dick has mentioned it in passing, that nobody from Airservices has come forth to identify themselves and sell the concept. It almost seems that they know the whole show could fall over and they could be held responsible in some way.
A “patsy” would be a very handy thing to have on side to sell ADSB and still have clean hands if things went sour. If indeed you are whom I think you are, I hope your peers will accept your actions.
Thread Starter
James, thanks for giving us some details from astute industry people who also saw major flaws with the JCP Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
Why were these people taken no notice off?
I am sure readers of this thread will be disturbed to find that industry people had similar concerns with the CBA as I had and they were also ignored as the project was buldozed ahead.
James,I am sure you will agree that the "areas of concern" that you quote have never been addressed by Airservices or any one else pushing the project. Does this worry you? I bet it worries lots of others reading this thread.
Thanks for making it clear to everyone who reads this thread that I am not the sole individual urging caution and wanting major CBA flaws to be corrected before a final decision is made on the $100m subsidy proposal.
Or do you think we should go ahead anyway because "it won't cost GA anything".
Why were these people taken no notice off?
I am sure readers of this thread will be disturbed to find that industry people had similar concerns with the CBA as I had and they were also ignored as the project was buldozed ahead.
James,I am sure you will agree that the "areas of concern" that you quote have never been addressed by Airservices or any one else pushing the project. Does this worry you? I bet it worries lots of others reading this thread.
Thanks for making it clear to everyone who reads this thread that I am not the sole individual urging caution and wanting major CBA flaws to be corrected before a final decision is made on the $100m subsidy proposal.
Or do you think we should go ahead anyway because "it won't cost GA anything".
Thread Starter
Bob, I reckon you are right! And whats the chance he will be offered some "important" position on an Airservices "consultative' panel or something similar as a "reward" fo his support?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie
You are entitled to your opinions be they right or wrong although I fail to find where your last post offers any comment on the FACTS re ADS-B.
Instead it perpetuates the Dick innuendo and man-play that is increasing on this thread since Dick's fanciful fairytales were exposed to the light of FACT.
Dick
You have lost me, Dick. What gutter was that penned from?
That statement from you who wrote on bended knees to the Minister on 3 July and stated
I hope it is becoming increasingly obvious to all who read this thread - hopefully many of influence - that your house of cards has crumbled under the weight of evidence, Dick, and your petulant response is to go the players - trying to mow the opposition down with a single dummy spit.
I came on this thread to canvass information and debate ADS-B issues with people of intelligence and some fact or reasonable knowledge. You have been a total disappointment to me.
Those same astute people, Dick, have recently agreed to NOT oppose the proposal moving forward.
Next pilot medical, Dick, tell the DAME how you are absolutely correct and the majority of intelligent focussed people in the industry are wrong. I'll be interested in the outcome
You are entitled to your opinions be they right or wrong although I fail to find where your last post offers any comment on the FACTS re ADS-B.
Instead it perpetuates the Dick innuendo and man-play that is increasing on this thread since Dick's fanciful fairytales were exposed to the light of FACT.
Dick
whats the chance he will be offered some "important" position on an Airservices "consultative' panel or something similar as a "reward" fo his support?
That statement from you who wrote on bended knees to the Minister on 3 July and stated
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 came on this thread to canvass information and debate ADS-B issues with people of intelligence and some fact or reasonable knowledge. You have been a total disappointment to me.
thanks for giving us some details from astute industry people who also saw major flaws with the JCP Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
Next pilot medical, Dick, tell the DAME how you are absolutely correct and the majority of intelligent focussed people in the industry are wrong. I'll be interested in the outcome
Thread Starter
James, what you are saying is that even though the industry saw flaws in the Cost/Benefit case- that was the whole basis for the deal- that they still decided that the $100m "subsidy" from the airlines was to good to be true and should be grabbed regardless.
I bet there was not one astute businessman at the meeting - no Geoff Dixon, no Brett Godfrey and no Alan Joyce. I certainly was not allowed near the place.
Once these people hear the true story the decision will be very different - wait and see!
I bet there was not one astute businessman at the meeting - no Geoff Dixon, no Brett Godfrey and no Alan Joyce. I certainly was not allowed near the place.
Once these people hear the true story the decision will be very different - wait and see!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smith
Proves there a lot more astute people in the industry than even I thought.
I'll correspond with you again when you reach what I consider an acceptable public level of common courtesy and ability to maintain a sensible debate based on fact. I won't hold my breath.
I certainly was not allowed near the place
I'll correspond with you again when you reach what I consider an acceptable public level of common courtesy and ability to maintain a sensible debate based on fact. I won't hold my breath.
... Hi folks, just popping my head in, on my way back from the Isle of Elba ...
... have I missed anything?
... Geez ... JM is still here ... how'd he manage that??
... Geez ... Dick is still whinging about anonomous posts ... have the PPRUNE rules only just changed? I though it was alway anonoymous! Why would you come here knowing that Dick ... if you are the real Dick ???
... Ah, I see ... Dick wants to know why Airservices won't come out and play??? Dick, do you really think that Airservices makes its decisions based on the debate of a bunch of old angry aviators in a public chat room ???
Any decision on this, or other Industry matters will be made within the confines of the appropriate Consultative Groups...
Stuff said here ... is just white noise ...
... have I missed anything?
... Geez ... JM is still here ... how'd he manage that??
... Geez ... Dick is still whinging about anonomous posts ... have the PPRUNE rules only just changed? I though it was alway anonoymous! Why would you come here knowing that Dick ... if you are the real Dick ???
... Ah, I see ... Dick wants to know why Airservices won't come out and play??? Dick, do you really think that Airservices makes its decisions based on the debate of a bunch of old angry aviators in a public chat room ???
Any decision on this, or other Industry matters will be made within the confines of the appropriate Consultative Groups...
Stuff said here ... is just white noise ...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peuce;
Pprune is a great advertising medium. This thread to date has had, as I write,7708 hits. Great way to sell a product. james michael could probably only garner a few thousand from preaching to his own flock.
Is it all white noise?
Pprune is a great advertising medium. This thread to date has had, as I write,7708 hits. Great way to sell a product. james michael could probably only garner a few thousand from preaching to his own flock.
Is it all white noise?
I cannot let this one go to the keeper-
Dick said-
Dick I have this problem with your claim to be able to "spoof" ADS-B signals. And, seeing as you are the president of your self styled society, how about putting your money where your mouth is!
Bob, your arguments are the exact same ones that allowed the Hawke government to ignore their "Social Responsibilty" by tugging the forlock to the new Tsars of the treasury, The dry economic rationalists! This is a whole different argument, that I wish PPRUNE and the net were available back then, to try and fight the biggest injustice every hoisted on any community in Australia. Why should us country people have to pay for services in the cities...and then you promptly found out who was subsidising who....enjoy your dirt road! By the way, I am bush bred and I am terribly disappointed in my "Elders" for rolling over on something so essential.
Well, well, well. I am only one of 22 GA respondants to the JCP. I too voted for acceptance with modification. And today, I have been compared to a Spiv. Nice one, Dick
The device is a change mitigator. With introduction, the device will allow a scaleable, cost effective rollout of surveillance capability, unprecidented in this country since the invention of FLIGHT SERVICES!
Once again, this argument is fast approaching the end. not one shred of evidence has been presented that would uphold the argument against roll-out. The purile attempts to compare AirServices with the AWB fiasco in Iraq, by comparison, is suggesting that GA is the equivalent of the evil dictator's regime forcing a bribe on AirServices to get ADS-B over the line. If GA isn't the comparison, who is, and why? The comparison with the SeaSprite? I would say that TAAATS was a closer comparison with the helicopter purchase. Those in charge kept adding more and more capability until EUROCAT became EUROCAT(X). I say, in the end, the endevour was worthwhile because it would appear we have arrived at a better version than even ThomsonCSF or Hughes had originally tendered for. My history is not very clear on the intricasies of the tendering but a court case suggests that at least one of the parties was not happy with the process. ADS-B, by comparison, is the bare, no bones roll-out of the basic 1090ES system. As per the Europeans and US upper airspace and ICAO and IATA positions for the 2015 world deadline.
May I suggest to the tribunal that Mr Smith is sin binned for three weeks for harsh body contact on his opponents on numerous occasions. He has no eye for the ball and clearly targets his opposite number in the ruck.
Dick said-
I formed and am Patron of The Australian Skeptics - Thats why I critically examine every claim.
Bob, your arguments are the exact same ones that allowed the Hawke government to ignore their "Social Responsibilty" by tugging the forlock to the new Tsars of the treasury, The dry economic rationalists! This is a whole different argument, that I wish PPRUNE and the net were available back then, to try and fight the biggest injustice every hoisted on any community in Australia. Why should us country people have to pay for services in the cities...and then you promptly found out who was subsidising who....enjoy your dirt road! By the way, I am bush bred and I am terribly disappointed in my "Elders" for rolling over on something so essential.
Well, well, well. I am only one of 22 GA respondants to the JCP. I too voted for acceptance with modification. And today, I have been compared to a Spiv. Nice one, Dick
The device is a change mitigator. With introduction, the device will allow a scaleable, cost effective rollout of surveillance capability, unprecidented in this country since the invention of FLIGHT SERVICES!
Once again, this argument is fast approaching the end. not one shred of evidence has been presented that would uphold the argument against roll-out. The purile attempts to compare AirServices with the AWB fiasco in Iraq, by comparison, is suggesting that GA is the equivalent of the evil dictator's regime forcing a bribe on AirServices to get ADS-B over the line. If GA isn't the comparison, who is, and why? The comparison with the SeaSprite? I would say that TAAATS was a closer comparison with the helicopter purchase. Those in charge kept adding more and more capability until EUROCAT became EUROCAT(X). I say, in the end, the endevour was worthwhile because it would appear we have arrived at a better version than even ThomsonCSF or Hughes had originally tendered for. My history is not very clear on the intricasies of the tendering but a court case suggests that at least one of the parties was not happy with the process. ADS-B, by comparison, is the bare, no bones roll-out of the basic 1090ES system. As per the Europeans and US upper airspace and ICAO and IATA positions for the 2015 world deadline.
May I suggest to the tribunal that Mr Smith is sin binned for three weeks for harsh body contact on his opponents on numerous occasions. He has no eye for the ball and clearly targets his opposite number in the ruck.