No agreement in the USA for ADS-B
Thread Starter
No agreement in the USA for ADS-B
In an article in Aviation International News issue September 2008 page 107 (see here), it makes it clear that the FAA is in total disarray in relation to ADS-B. After receiving several hundred comments from organisations such as AOPA and the NBAA the common theme in relation to ADS-B is “no thanks”. It will be interesting to see what is resolved in the USA.
Wasn’t Australia supposed to make a decision last month regarding the low level ADS-B program? Does anyone know what has happened?
Wasn’t Australia supposed to make a decision last month regarding the low level ADS-B program? Does anyone know what has happened?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Sep 2008 at 06:38.
I reckon I know what the yanks are upset about and I reckon I know what will happen here....But, I am no longer going to say anything about it
You've got researchers, Mr Smith! Get to it!
By the way, I commend you on finally linking to the actual source Mr Smith. Well done
You've got researchers, Mr Smith! Get to it!
By the way, I commend you on finally linking to the actual source Mr Smith. Well done
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADSB is a dead duck, no in the U.S. means no developed reasonably priced General Aviation kit.
Ergo no matter what the dumbo's here decide it is a futile exercise if the decision is any form of yes.
Ergo no matter what the dumbo's here decide it is a futile exercise if the decision is any form of yes.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter if it goes ahead or not. ASA have bigger problems to worry about, such as not having enough controllers to monitor / separate aeroplanes.
Make sure your transponder and TCAS are working. Good luck.
Make sure your transponder and TCAS are working. Good luck.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
The ONLY thing the AIN article makes clear is:
Very few user/interest groups had similar views. Go figure.
Oh and
does not in the US a summer make.
The FAA had to go to a different method of consultation, an ARC.
Pretty much says it all, sound familiar?
What the article did NOT say was that ADSB was a bad thing, what it did say was.
There is absolutely no question at all that it use by the airlines and transport industry is a stand out economic success. The FACT that there is no agreement between all the parties is no more relevant than your attempt to introduce your idea of a NAS. See above.
UPS, who have developed its use to a very high degree, have stated that were their system able to be developed globally in the US to facilitate flight idle descents to landing, ALL airlines would go instantly into profit on fuel savings alone.
The ONLY thing the AIN article makes clear is:
When the FAA called in March for public comment on its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ADS-B equipage, it was with the understanding that there was wide user community acceptance of the system as the vital stepping stone to modernizing the National Airspace System. Everyone appeared to agree that ADS-B would be an essential element in the agency’s NextGen project.
Ninety days later, at the close of the comment period, the agency had received several hundred comments from across the user spectrum. The common theme was “No, thanks.” And the responses didn’t coalesce around one or two critical issues that the agency could negotiate with the users. Rather, the objections were as diverse as the particular interests of the group making them, from private pilots to airframe manufacturers to major airlines.
Ninety days later, at the close of the comment period, the agency had received several hundred comments from across the user spectrum. The common theme was “No, thanks.” And the responses didn’t coalesce around one or two critical issues that the agency could negotiate with the users. Rather, the objections were as diverse as the particular interests of the group making them, from private pilots to airframe manufacturers to major airlines.
Oh and
several hundred comments across the user spectrum
The FAA had to go to a different method of consultation, an ARC.
“We have these teeter-totter exchanges, where satisfying one group’s objections only increases the objections of the other groups.”
What the article did NOT say was that ADSB was a bad thing, what it did say was.
A more probable outcome is to extend the ARC’s term, although one observer has described some of the differences between certain groups and the FAA, and among the groups themselves, as “irreconcilable.”
UPS, who have developed its use to a very high degree, have stated that were their system able to be developed globally in the US to facilitate flight idle descents to landing, ALL airlines would go instantly into profit on fuel savings alone.
Last edited by skycatcher; 25th Sep 2008 at 13:31.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Wouldn't part of the mixed feeling response in the USA be at least partly due to less 'need' for it in the sense that they have a much more extensive radar network? I hear that operators in Australia who are trialling ADSB seem particularly pleased with its use in areas of Australia that are remote but yet busy with traffic at times (eg. NW WA).
Not trying to stir the pot here, just looking for reasons behind the differing oppinions.
Not trying to stir the pot here, just looking for reasons behind the differing oppinions.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CN
Well said. It's an apples and oranges comparison - but not for radar coverage so much.
The Australian plan is premised on a subsidy - the US is not and that means they must get personal value for their dollar.
The Australian is one system - the US is two, with the second based on my first point.
The US airspace is different but ADS-B out here enables us to move closer to Dick's NAS by providing more E airspace.
And so on.
Making comparisons with what is happening in the US is interesting - a bit like looking at financial meltdowns
Well said. It's an apples and oranges comparison - but not for radar coverage so much.
The Australian plan is premised on a subsidy - the US is not and that means they must get personal value for their dollar.
The Australian is one system - the US is two, with the second based on my first point.
The US airspace is different but ADS-B out here enables us to move closer to Dick's NAS by providing more E airspace.
And so on.
Making comparisons with what is happening in the US is interesting - a bit like looking at financial meltdowns
Captain Nomad,
You are correct; and it only goes to emphasize what many people here keep saying ... comparing the US aviation environment with Australia's is not comparing apples with apples ....
Thank God we don't copy their financial system ...
Having said that, Dick is right about one thing ... if the US doesn't go down the ADSB road, the black boxes are going to become very expensive for us.
You are correct; and it only goes to emphasize what many people here keep saying ... comparing the US aviation environment with Australia's is not comparing apples with apples ....
Thank God we don't copy their financial system ...
Having said that, Dick is right about one thing ... if the US doesn't go down the ADSB road, the black boxes are going to become very expensive for us.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Correct me if I am wrong but my last understanding was that you posted you were going to stop the lower level ADS-B project in Australia because it offered no safety benefit.
Am I recollecting right? If so, why do you need to ask on here - he who has the power to stop the train usually doesn't need to ask the passengers
Wasn’t Australia supposed to make a decision last month regarding the low level ADS-B program? Does anyone know what has happened?
Am I recollecting right? If so, why do you need to ask on here - he who has the power to stop the train usually doesn't need to ask the passengers
Thread Starter
It's about half right- do your research and put in a link to my full post if you really want to be properly informed.
And remember- you are taken no notice of because you don't put your real name on your posts - thats why I do.
And remember- you are taken no notice of because you don't put your real name on your posts - thats why I do.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know on other Internet Forum Boards there are options that allow you to set an ignore for a particular user. This renders all their posts invisible. You can read everyone elses posts excluding the ignored users as they are invisible!
And remember- you are taken no notice of because you don't put your real name on your posts - thats why I do.
Most of your posts would have MORE notice taken of them if your name WASN'T on them!!
