Merged: ADSB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no way I am going to waste my time in giving the information to those who hide behind anonymity. For all I know, anonymous people on this post could be hand in hand with the Airservices management, whose remuneration is geared to the profits of Airservices – not to the interests of Australian aviation and air safety.
I don't work for ASA, or in any aviation related industry, but as a GA aircraft owner I have to plan for, budget for, and schedule, any unplanned-for upgrades or refurbishments.
I doubt that my budget is as large as yours Mr Smith, meaning that I need reasonable advance notice of events which will significantly affect me., hence my questions as to what the bleep is bleeping happening with ADSB for GA.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIO
Spot on. Dick has a secret - let's us all let him keep it. I'm anon and intend to remain that way. The next ABIT meeting is 9 December, let's get Dick to report back to us on what eventuates there.
Spot on. Dick has a secret - let's us all let him keep it. I'm anon and intend to remain that way. The next ABIT meeting is 9 December, let's get Dick to report back to us on what eventuates there.
As a strong and supportive member of AOPA, I find it fascinating that AOPA committee members do not post under their own names on this site.
For example, one of the strongest supporters of the Airservices ADS-B subsidy is Mr Brian Hannan. There could be no better place for Brian Hannan to communicate his views – both to AOPA members and to pilots in general – than on this site.
I put it to you Brian Hannan – why not post here under your own name and communicate just what you believe the advantages of the Airservices subsidy are? Please don’t hide behind anonymity. The reason you were elected as an AOPA committee member was so that you could show leadership and communicate members’ interests – not only to the membership but to the aviation industry in general.
For example, one of the strongest supporters of the Airservices ADS-B subsidy is Mr Brian Hannan. There could be no better place for Brian Hannan to communicate his views – both to AOPA members and to pilots in general – than on this site.
I put it to you Brian Hannan – why not post here under your own name and communicate just what you believe the advantages of the Airservices subsidy are? Please don’t hide behind anonymity. The reason you were elected as an AOPA committee member was so that you could show leadership and communicate members’ interests – not only to the membership but to the aviation industry in general.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not post here under your own name and communicate just what you believe the advantages of the Airservices subsidy are?
so that you could show leadership and communicate members’ interests – not only to the membership but to the aviation industry in general.
K-941 Give me a phone call- I don't have the time to put all the relevant info here.
You can phone me from a public phone and use a fake name if you are to scared to have yourself identified!!
This applies to Biggles as well.
You can phone me from a public phone and use a fake name if you are to scared to have yourself identified!!
This applies to Biggles as well.
Dick, I am sure the moderators will explain the issue of AOPA on this site to you far better than I can.
Boyer is no longer the big cheese. He stood down a couple of months ago so he can now say what he likes because it no longer carries the weight of his former position. Much like yourself, Mr Smith
I have been offline for three weeks so I need to get up to speed. FAA has pulled TIS? That IS an interesting turn of events. A major plank of UAT is the ability to depict ALL transponder equipped aircraft positions from transmitted data. Take out TIS and all that is left is realtime METAR and NOTAM info. Expensive kit for that purpose. What are the bets UAT is going to be killed off some time soon?
Reading the the US JCP I got the distinct impression that some would like the FAA to keep UAT as the sole system for purely parocial reasons. Hopefully, that some is a very small sample.
Boyer is no longer the big cheese. He stood down a couple of months ago so he can now say what he likes because it no longer carries the weight of his former position. Much like yourself, Mr Smith
I have been offline for three weeks so I need to get up to speed. FAA has pulled TIS? That IS an interesting turn of events. A major plank of UAT is the ability to depict ALL transponder equipped aircraft positions from transmitted data. Take out TIS and all that is left is realtime METAR and NOTAM info. Expensive kit for that purpose. What are the bets UAT is going to be killed off some time soon?
Reading the the US JCP I got the distinct impression that some would like the FAA to keep UAT as the sole system for purely parocial reasons. Hopefully, that some is a very small sample.
I did not just speak to Phil Boyer- my primary briefings were from those in charge of the AOPA position on ADSB.
I also spoke to FAA experts. The issue is complex and a disaster because of bureaucrats all around the world who appear to have no commonsense and rarely ask advice.
It is just like AsA - the people making the decision don't stand to lose if an error is made.
I also spoke to FAA experts. The issue is complex and a disaster because of bureaucrats all around the world who appear to have no commonsense and rarely ask advice.
It is just like AsA - the people making the decision don't stand to lose if an error is made.
Dick, I am not an expert in politics. I really do wonder what AOPA USA is discovering about championing a GA only system in an environment that could change to "User Pays".
EDIT- to add. The FAA would be annoyed that the rest of the world didn't choose their system like they did with DME.
EDIT- to add. The FAA would be annoyed that the rest of the world didn't choose their system like they did with DME.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bankstown
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
Your earlier post has been drawn to my attention.
To answer your question there are several reasons why I do not intend to post AOPA business on Pprune.
The first is that this is not the place to conduct AOPA business. That has been the cause of unnecessary angst in past times on Pprune plus work for the moderators. If you wish to conduct business with AOPA as a member, you know the way.
The second is my opinion of unsolicited past comments you have made by email and on Pprune concerning me and the AOPA Board. You have previously been advised of my sentiments by email.
The third, and most important to me, is that my AOPA priorities are not focussed on your fishing expeditions on this website. My spare AOPA energy is directed to re-establishing AOPA credibility with industry, our membership, and our finances following the near bankruptcy and member walkout as a consequence of events before my time involving some (un-named) who allowed egos and excesses free rein.
Finally, had you bothered to gather facts before making your post, you would have found it is AOPA Board policy not to post AOPA business on this forum. That agreement is mutually agreed with the moderators in the common interest, although I retain this user name in the (rare) event of a major issue needing an announcement.
The agreement is also a concession to other users of Pprune who do not wish organisational politics to disturb their 'quiet enjoyment' hereon. (Hint). Should they need my thoughts on ADS-B, my email and phone are available via the AOPA magazine.
I will be at the next ABIT meeting with other industry players. No doubt I will see you there.
Your earlier post has been drawn to my attention.
To answer your question there are several reasons why I do not intend to post AOPA business on Pprune.
The first is that this is not the place to conduct AOPA business. That has been the cause of unnecessary angst in past times on Pprune plus work for the moderators. If you wish to conduct business with AOPA as a member, you know the way.
The second is my opinion of unsolicited past comments you have made by email and on Pprune concerning me and the AOPA Board. You have previously been advised of my sentiments by email.
The third, and most important to me, is that my AOPA priorities are not focussed on your fishing expeditions on this website. My spare AOPA energy is directed to re-establishing AOPA credibility with industry, our membership, and our finances following the near bankruptcy and member walkout as a consequence of events before my time involving some (un-named) who allowed egos and excesses free rein.
Finally, had you bothered to gather facts before making your post, you would have found it is AOPA Board policy not to post AOPA business on this forum. That agreement is mutually agreed with the moderators in the common interest, although I retain this user name in the (rare) event of a major issue needing an announcement.
The agreement is also a concession to other users of Pprune who do not wish organisational politics to disturb their 'quiet enjoyment' hereon. (Hint). Should they need my thoughts on ADS-B, my email and phone are available via the AOPA magazine.
I will be at the next ABIT meeting with other industry players. No doubt I will see you there.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Am I confused?
You state
So, I check the AOPA USA site and find they have written supporting ADS-B in line with the recommendations of the FAA ARC Report.
Then I note you mention the forthcoming Oz ABIT meeting - a get together of industry people to debate and provide constructive advice - to the bureaucrats who rarely ask
it no less.
YOU are making the issue more complex. The ADS-B proposal in the USA has no comparison or relevance to the Australian proposal except they both use the term ADS-B.
Should the cross industry funding vanish, the mandate be withdrawn, a dual system with a transition level be mooted, Oz suddenly experience the 1090 congestion affecting several areas of the USA, and our airspace and constitution change - then perhaps at that time there would be something to consider from the USA experience.
You owe me an apology for the damage I did to myself falling over laughing
Best make sure you get the names of everyone you address at the AEA Conference if that's the case. Might be an anon Murphie in the audience, powered by JetA1.
But, at least we got the interesting information you wanted to give us after your USA trip - you are guest speaker at a conference. Congratulations.
Am I confused?
You state
The issue is complex and a disaster because of bureaucrats all around the world who appear to have no commonsense and rarely ask advice.
Then I note you mention the forthcoming Oz ABIT meeting - a get together of industry people to debate and provide constructive advice - to the bureaucrats who rarely ask
it no less.YOU are making the issue more complex. The ADS-B proposal in the USA has no comparison or relevance to the Australian proposal except they both use the term ADS-B.
Should the cross industry funding vanish, the mandate be withdrawn, a dual system with a transition level be mooted, Oz suddenly experience the 1090 congestion affecting several areas of the USA, and our airspace and constitution change - then perhaps at that time there would be something to consider from the USA experience.
You owe me an apology for the damage I did to myself falling over laughing
There is no way I am going to waste my time in giving the information to those who hide behind anonymity.
But, at least we got the interesting information you wanted to give us after your USA trip - you are guest speaker at a conference. Congratulations.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cross industry funding was never a goer because Qantas has never agreed.
And we all know who runs aviation in Australia.
I believe the funding proposal was an astute way of getting the GA industry to say they supported ADSB.
Then ,of course it is found that the subsidy is not possible however because of previous announcements of support from GA the mandate goes ahead anyway.
The result? Less people fly and are employed in GA because of even higher costs and more people are forced to fly with Qantas and the other airlines.
And we all know who runs aviation in Australia.
I believe the funding proposal was an astute way of getting the GA industry to say they supported ADSB.
Then ,of course it is found that the subsidy is not possible however because of previous announcements of support from GA the mandate goes ahead anyway.
The result? Less people fly and are employed in GA because of even higher costs and more people are forced to fly with Qantas and the other airlines.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Nov 2008 at 22:56.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite sure I understand what the big deal is, this is a changing industry, was there a subsidy for installation of TSO GPSs into aircraft or for the removal of the old OZ DME system ?.
Sounds like crying poor to me, if an operator can not absorb the small cost of an ADSB unit how can they possibly afford an unplanned engine or SIDS ?.
Most private aircraft owners will grumble, but do not have closed minds and will see the benefit to such technology and will have ADSB installed next time their transponder makes smoke.
Harden the f*** up.
James, would we be using TERM ADSB at place like Tamworth ?.
Sounds like crying poor to me, if an operator can not absorb the small cost of an ADSB unit how can they possibly afford an unplanned engine or SIDS ?.
Most private aircraft owners will grumble, but do not have closed minds and will see the benefit to such technology and will have ADSB installed next time their transponder makes smoke.
Harden the f*** up.
James, would we be using TERM ADSB at place like Tamworth ?.
Yair Everyone, including the owners of piper cubs and microlights should be able to afford the $10k plus installation. They should also eat cake.
Of course we won't require Airlines of 10 to 30 pax to fit TCAS as required by ICAO and every other modern aviation country in the world as they clearly can't afford it !
Nor do we ask Qantas to pay the $350 per hour for the tower to be manned for their 1.5m pax per year at Avalon because they only made $1.4 billion last year
One law for the powerful, another law for the weak.
Of course we won't require Airlines of 10 to 30 pax to fit TCAS as required by ICAO and every other modern aviation country in the world as they clearly can't afford it !
Nor do we ask Qantas to pay the $350 per hour for the tower to be manned for their 1.5m pax per year at Avalon because they only made $1.4 billion last year
One law for the powerful, another law for the weak.
There is no copy because they have astutely never agreed to the subsidy.
What are the odds that within the next few weeks an announcement will be made that the low level subsidy will not be going ahead as proposed?
Of course Qantas will not be mentioned but many will know who vetoed the proposal.
What are the odds that within the next few weeks an announcement will be made that the low level subsidy will not be going ahead as proposed?
Of course Qantas will not be mentioned but many will know who vetoed the proposal.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Nov 2008 at 23:35.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I sincerly hope industry is able to secure the subsidy, aren't you an ADSB nay sayer ?.
If the subsidy does or does not occur, when ADSB happens it will considerably reduce the chances of accidents between IFR aircraft and anyone else.
Yair ?.
The cheaper ADSB unit ( the sleeper type unit in the back ), will be considerably cheaper than $10K, won't it Dick ?.
Like all technology it will get cheaper as it is more commonly used and more providers enter the market, why not go and talk to your mates at Uniden, a joint venture you could personally make some cash from ?.
I sincerly hope industry is able to secure the subsidy, aren't you an ADSB nay sayer ?.
If the subsidy does or does not occur, when ADSB happens it will considerably reduce the chances of accidents between IFR aircraft and anyone else.
Yair ?.
The cheaper ADSB unit ( the sleeper type unit in the back ), will be considerably cheaper than $10K, won't it Dick ?.
Like all technology it will get cheaper as it is more commonly used and more providers enter the market, why not go and talk to your mates at Uniden, a joint venture you could personally make some cash from ?.
I believe ADSB is fantastic but I do not know of the safety issue that is being addressed with the $100 million subsidy.
As far as I know there has never been an accident between an IFR and a VFR aircraft in our history and if that is a measurable risk it is well served by proven TCAS and a transponder together with radio and dare I say it, also looking out.
There is no ADSB "in" unit anywhere in the world that gives a Resolution Advisory - so why not at least use proven TCAS/Transponder equipment first.
That is unless it is imperative the VFR aircraft appears on the AsA screen so some form of "service" and charge can be given.
As far as I know there has never been an accident between an IFR and a VFR aircraft in our history and if that is a measurable risk it is well served by proven TCAS and a transponder together with radio and dare I say it, also looking out.
There is no ADSB "in" unit anywhere in the world that gives a Resolution Advisory - so why not at least use proven TCAS/Transponder equipment first.
That is unless it is imperative the VFR aircraft appears on the AsA screen so some form of "service" and charge can be given.