The yanks require augmentation for their instrument approach part of ADS-B. If you go and have a read of Capstone it will be clearer, Howabout. hope thats a bit clearer. WAAS is not a required item here. As I said many many posts ago there are probabley more IFR people here who would wish for WAAS than ADS-B. CU:ok:

Howabout

Sorry mate seems I posted at the same time as you.....apologies for the confusion.

Hope its clearer now.

J:ok:

Thanks for the tempered responses guys. I do appreciete that this can get a bit heated. I will go away and read some more. However, I still have that WAAS thing. Regardless, I think that this thread has probably educated me more than any of the others.

Good night, sleep tight and I will have a red shortly.

A Red now:eek:

you needed one a few hours back!

J:ok:

Howabout

A late answer to your question - because, had you read my post to TW it said I was going off to have a beer and would catch up tomorrow and you would not have expected me to answer while my green light was off.

I've just had my morning walk and found no shops open. Last night you posted your enquiry at 19:48 and by 20:16 - less than half an hour later - you had decided Dick must be correct because you did not get a technical answer from anyone else. Haste in aviation can be fatal. I'll patiently await the shops to open - while contemplating your comments.

To answer your question in more detail - and it has already been well detailed - WAAS requires satellites, Oz does not have them or the critical mass to make WAAS cost effective, and Airservices are pushing their own ICAO compliant alternative solution GBAS/GRAS.

WAAS is NOT required for ADS-B accuracy (I think I already said that).

Of 156 MILLION samples over 3 months in Oz, the NUC >4 figure (i.e. data considered safe to display on TAAATS for ATC use) was 99.997% for SA Aware data. Do the numbers yourself - I think it means about 5 rejections.

TW

I entirely take your point that the debate may continue without personalities. In examining this thread from my arrival on it, your message will hopefully be well received by quite a number of posters including a favoured one who cast doubt on my veracity and right to anonymity :)

Sorry JM, but I didn't say that Dick was correct. Without going back over the thread, I think that I said that I was 'leaning' in his direction, which is a little different. However, thanks for the stats regarding accuracy.

Howabout

Point taken - and conceded. I was biased in my thinking by your later comment about him making more sense than other posters.

The OZBUS post of 21:53 yesterday well sums up your query. To expand, when your life depends on it with ADS-B you need FDE and SA. Summed up by these extracts:





99.997% availability is equivalent to a 6 minute outage for each aircraft every

approx 138 days. (Good enuf for me anyway)

FDE on the other hand is best summarised as to identify and exclude the malfunctioning satellite in order to continue navigating using the remaining satellites.

When discussing SA lets not forget, as OZBUSDRIVER pionted out, the US has NORAD to take care of terrorist miss-use off GPS ... Australia has what ??? :hmm:

Bing

Based on many others replies to you about this repetitive low probability terrorist UAV scenario, and my need not to be biased, repetitive, or antagonistic - can I suggest as I prepare to rip my first ring pull of the day:

The USA has NORAD, Australia is best served by GONAD - in other words, we'd be nuts to worry about a scenario with odds less than winning Tattslotto :D:D

james michael, please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ? :hmm:

OZBUSDRIVER made the assessment that a sparrow would'nt get through NORAD. I wonder what the Oz equivalent is - a couple of airborne plateforms perhaps ? ............:hmm:

Binghi, you really are bottom shelf at Dimmey's mate!

Has it ever occured to you that your scenario can exist with or without ADS-B roll out. SO, your scenario has no bearing on any argument for or against ADS-B. Your assertion has no validity. It has been pointed out ad infinitatum
If ANY loss of integrity is detected there is still the back up of selected Navaids and Primary Radar around our major airports.....except Hobart..to ensure safety of airbourne aircraft. Why the mods let you continue with this totally ludicrous line of argument is beyond me.

Your use of GPS is in the same catagory as the use of mobile phones as detonators of IEDs and the internet to forment terrorism. Terrorists are common criminals who work outside state sanction. How do you defend against a bank robber FB? Effective local policing!

EDIT- I've even left you a flaw in my argument, FB. That is if you are really up to speed on how a terrorist thinks?

FLying Binghi Have you done a study of the odds ?.
What do you reckon is the probability of your scenario.
Come on., tell us all your figure.
You seem to think that it's a high probability event.

OZBUSDRIVER, are you suggesting that GPS has no relavence to ADS-B ? :hmm:

Don't engage the guy, and he'll go away ..........

Hmmm... KittyKatKaper, I think I'll wait to hear from the posters that, by saying the scenario has a low probability, are admiting it to be a valid probability :hmm:




................:) :) :)




.

That was a previous post from you CaptainMidnight. I guess we know who you support. Do you stand to gain financialy from ADS-B ?

22 April 2004

There is a high probability there will one day be a terrorist attack in Australia, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.

According to a Newspoll published in the Daily Telegraph today, 68 per cent of adult Australians believe terrorists would "strike before too long".

But it found 91 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds would not change their daily routine despite recent terrorist attacks in western countries.

Mr Ruddock said it was likely there would be a terrorist attack in Australia.
"I think it's a high probability (there could be a terrorist attack), a high probability," he told reporters.

"But in my judgment you still have to do everything you can to deal with it and I would hope that inevitability that many believe, won't be realised."

Mr Ruddock said Australians were concerned about the threat of terrorism but would not allow it to change the way they lived their lives.

Bing

Come out of the bomb shelter and your diet of dickmite - it's four years later, Ruddock has not been razed by resurgents, and Oz has moved on.

The question remaining is why you - allegedly the owner and pilot of an aircraft well equipped - persist in this repetitious thread drift and improbable scenario and innuendo about fellow posters.

Smokescreen anyone? Constant attempt to pervert the ADS-B thread to closure perhaps :E

Via james michael -

........................................:hmm:



I'll repeat myself - james michael, please advise me how you decided what the odds are of a GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bomb' attack ? ...has Airservices done a study of the probability perhaps ?





.

I dont actually think you have put much thought into your buzz bomb scenario, FB. Your attempts to garner support for opposition to ADS-B are tiresome because they are so tenuous. You really will have to think up better reasons than this, and your repetitive recital is doing you no favours. It makes you look like a bit of a nutter- so it's gotten to the point where you are now working against the other nay-sayers.

- terror can be had by much simpler means, and in much greater quantities, using other methods (as has been descibed to you).
- even if your scenario were to eventuate, turning off the GPS signal is highly unlikely. The authorities would weigh up whether the attacks would stop (and they wouldnt, as "buzz bombs" wouldn't NEED a GPS signal, and could still be utilised blind and perpetuate any 'terror' achieved) Vs the benefit of GPS.
- continually claiming that, because something cannot be absolutely ruled out gives it credence, is poor argument, and has been treated as such. Your continued attempts at breathing life back into your argument have seriously diminished your premise.

By all means, continue to press your lame-duck argument.

ferris, I dont think you have understood the scenario I have presented, so I'll take it piont by piont -


..."it's gotten to the point where you are now working against the other nay-sayers"

I have written on several occasions that my views/concerns are entirly my own. It may be you who wants to tie me to other posters ?



..."terror can be had by much simpler means, and in much greater quantities, using other methods"

I think you have missed my piont about Oz based (i.e. 'inhouse') potential terrorists having a high probability of being 'found' by our security people before any 'event' happens - exibit A, the Footy bombers. The problem with the GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bombs' scenario, is they are launched outside of the majority of Oz securitys 'influence'



"buzz bombs wouldn't NEED a GPS signal"

ferris, You'll have to explain that further.



..."continually claiming that, because something cannot be absolutely ruled out gives it credence, is poor argument, and has been treated as such. Your continued attempts at breathing life back into your argument have seriously diminished your premise"

I'm yet to see any serious rebutal to the dangers that the GPS guided terrorist 'Buzz Bombs' present to an increasingly GPS reliant Oz ATC system. As I wrote previously, ...by saying the scenario has a low probability ...admiting it to be a valid probability

You are now definately in the tin-foil hat brigade. I'm sure the nay-sayers will be impressed. Whether you (or, more importantly, they) like it or not, there is guilt by association.

It has been explained to you that because something is merely possible, does not make it likely/plausable/VALID or any other word giving weight or credence to your scenario. In fact, your statement is utterly incorrect, as several posts on this very thread point out why your opposition to GPS reliance isn't valid. Get that; OPPOSITION TO GPS RELIANCE. That is the key- not whether it is possible for terrorists to build weapons that utilise GPS. You have been rebutted most conclusively, and your seeming inability to grasp that is what is relegating you to the lunatic fringe.

If you are so sold on your conviction, I put it to you that it is up to you to take apart each and every rebuttle post on this thread, and sway the wider audience. Because just sitting back and declaring that no-one has rebutted YOU, and that your scenario is possible, and therefore a show-stopper, just isnt flying.

While your posts may be a fine example of circular argument, persuasive they are not.

Ohh yeah:ugh:

This thread went terminal weeks ago. Between the AOPA bitch slapping and Binhgi's tin hat I think we've had about enough.

'click'