Merged: ADSB
FAA further problems with ADS-B
In a recent article in Aviation International News (see here) it is reported that there are further problems in the USA. To quote – in relation to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on ADS-B:
That is about 12:1 against the proposal – quite a resounding negative.
The article goes on to state:
It will be interesting to see how this issue in the USA is resolved. I would say we have quite a long way to go before they finalise exactly what they are doing.
Of the 1,372 responses to the document’s 85 separate issues, there were 101 positive comments, versus 1,271 negative–or “non-positive,” in FAA terminology–comments.
The article goes on to state:
What did this tell the FAA? Essentially, it said that however wonderful new technology solutions may appear to their advocates, intended users are concerned primarily with the ratio of cost to benefits, and most of the users believe the agency’s ADS-B out equipage mandate will not produce a positive cost-benefit equation for general aviation or anyone else who flies below jet altitudes.
Okay Bob,
So from your response, can I summarise as follows:
The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't want to be "seen" by the system or other pilots. If this conclusion is correct ... what is the reason?
If my conclusion is wrong, please tell me why you don't want a FREE piece of equipment ... remember cost isn't the issue, it's free in my scenario.
So from your response, can I summarise as follows:
- You've been given a free piece of kit ( as per my scenario above)
- You still don't want the kit
The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't want to be "seen" by the system or other pilots. If this conclusion is correct ... what is the reason?
If my conclusion is wrong, please tell me why you don't want a FREE piece of equipment ... remember cost isn't the issue, it's free in my scenario.
NEWSFLASH ..... NEWSFLASH ..... NEWSFLASH
" ...A new poll of Americans has found that 90% of them don't like their Medical & Hospital insurance system ..."
In response, Kevin Rudd has decided to immediately abolish the Australian Medicare system untill the American situation can be resolved ....
" ...A new poll of Americans has found that 90% of them don't like their Medical & Hospital insurance system ..."
In response, Kevin Rudd has decided to immediately abolish the Australian Medicare system untill the American situation can be resolved ....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For once I'm right behind Dick.
The USA does not propose a cross industry funding (i.e. subsidy). Therefore their cost-benefit equation would be somewhat (i.e. massively) negatively skewed against.
It's no secret the deal in Oz was to save $ on the radars and save $ for the airlines and that's where the XIF originates.
Then along came ADS-B IN as a bonus for safety that was quoted in the JCP but not provided in the subsidy. Then along came at least one local manufacturer with integrated ADS-B IN in the price and the cost-benefit equation tipped very positive for Australia.
Peuce, I'm right behind you also. The two proposals are absolutely unrelated and there is no valid comparison.
The window of opportunity for Australia is at the death knock. Can Dick shut it in time
The USA does not propose a cross industry funding (i.e. subsidy). Therefore their cost-benefit equation would be somewhat (i.e. massively) negatively skewed against.
It's no secret the deal in Oz was to save $ on the radars and save $ for the airlines and that's where the XIF originates.
Then along came ADS-B IN as a bonus for safety that was quoted in the JCP but not provided in the subsidy. Then along came at least one local manufacturer with integrated ADS-B IN in the price and the cost-benefit equation tipped very positive for Australia.
Peuce, I'm right behind you also. The two proposals are absolutely unrelated and there is no valid comparison.
The window of opportunity for Australia is at the death knock. Can Dick shut it in time
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dick, this may be provocative or naive, but how 'bout this:
Approach the manufacturers of the integrated ADS-B in/out unit, provide them with the funding to bring the unit to market (you'd no doubt profit handsomely in the long run), at the same time approaching AsA with the plans to bring the kit to market ASAP if they put the JCP into action?! Make the two things dependent on each other contractually and your risk is negligible
Is this really too simplistic? What are the problems I'm not seeing?
Approach the manufacturers of the integrated ADS-B in/out unit, provide them with the funding to bring the unit to market (you'd no doubt profit handsomely in the long run), at the same time approaching AsA with the plans to bring the kit to market ASAP if they put the JCP into action?! Make the two things dependent on each other contractually and your risk is negligible
Is this really too simplistic? What are the problems I'm not seeing?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in the bush
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the reason vested interests here are fighting so hard for a mandate. The great unwashed mustn't be allowed to have any say in the matter.
If that happens before any subsidy, you can watch any free handouts go up in a cloud of smoke and mirrors.
In my research, I am today advised that there has been no formal proposal submitted to Airservices in relation to a subsidy. That would explain why we can't get anything in writing from anyone who signs the cheques.
If that happens before any subsidy, you can watch any free handouts go up in a cloud of smoke and mirrors.
In my research, I am today advised that there has been no formal proposal submitted to Airservices in relation to a subsidy. That would explain why we can't get anything in writing from anyone who signs the cheques.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetski
Research needs a basis and a statement needs an anchor of reality.
What on earth is that meant to mean and what relevance? The JCP is a paper issued by FOUR Government heads PROPOSING a subsidy.
Why does anyone need to submit a proposal to Airservices and exactly who should submit same?
I don't follow your logic. Where four departments are involved, would it not be a matter for Treasury?
Planky
My understanding is that Dick has known about the Oz ADS-B unit since the BLA investigation as there was commonality of those involved in the avionics investigation. Yet he has not said boo about it on here nor seemingly done as suggested and backed an Australian organisation with a winning package. Strange support for GA in Oz.
Find me one thing Dick has written supporting ADS-B in Australia. This thread is another attempt to denigrate the Oz proposal - using the absolutely unrelated USA experience and I don't need to point out the disparities again.
It is my belief that if the 2008 window of opportunity shuts, Dick can take some of the credit for NOT supporting the JCP.
Research needs a basis and a statement needs an anchor of reality.
I am today advised that there has been no formal proposal submitted to Airservices in relation to a subsidy
Why does anyone need to submit a proposal to Airservices and exactly who should submit same?
I don't follow your logic. Where four departments are involved, would it not be a matter for Treasury?
Planky
My understanding is that Dick has known about the Oz ADS-B unit since the BLA investigation as there was commonality of those involved in the avionics investigation. Yet he has not said boo about it on here nor seemingly done as suggested and backed an Australian organisation with a winning package. Strange support for GA in Oz.
Find me one thing Dick has written supporting ADS-B in Australia. This thread is another attempt to denigrate the Oz proposal - using the absolutely unrelated USA experience and I don't need to point out the disparities again.
It is my belief that if the 2008 window of opportunity shuts, Dick can take some of the credit for NOT supporting the JCP.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in the bush
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does anyone need to submit a proposal to Airservices
Why would it be a matter for Treasury when the subsidy is allegedly coming from across the industry. And why doesn't this industry
back an Australian organisation with a winning package
Strange support for GA in Oz.
using the absolutely unrelated USA experience
Your anchor is dragging.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetski
Send us all some of whatever you are smoking
No one has to submit a proposal to ASA - they submitted one to the APG - thus the JCP.
I did not ask why did not this INDUSTRY back a winning Oz org, I repeated another's question on here why DICK has not. Used to be one of his claims to fame - no?
Now, sit down in a quiet spot and get ready to think this one through.
The USA ADS-B is NOT, repeat NOT, the Oz ADS-B. It is two interlinked systems, not one. It has translators, a transition layer, no XIF, and so on.
Therefore, the issues quoted re the USA in ADS-B are different. Although, even acknowledging the different systems and fundings, the ARC Report still SUPPORTS ADS-B.
Now, here's the test of logic for you ( and thank you for calling me a buzzard scrotum on a thread in case anyone feels I'm being harsh on you).
Thread drift I know but you asked the question - my question in return to you - are the aircraft we fly here and in the USA made differently or are they the same. Perhaps if you think that through you will understand why one comparison is OK, the other not.
By the way, my research indicates CASA are deleting unique Oz ADs hand over fist thus saving owners many many $$$ by moving to manufacturer and FAA guidelines (on the basis that they may kknow a tad more than CASA about it). Good on CASA for doing so, and good on CASA and a certain association for ensuring that a few AD that have been negotiated and proven FAVOURABLE to owners are not thrown out with the bath water.
Your anchor has gone down with the ship. Perhaps you are 'free on' a russian submarine at present?
Send us all some of whatever you are smoking
No one has to submit a proposal to ASA - they submitted one to the APG - thus the JCP.
I did not ask why did not this INDUSTRY back a winning Oz org, I repeated another's question on here why DICK has not. Used to be one of his claims to fame - no?
Now, sit down in a quiet spot and get ready to think this one through.
The USA ADS-B is NOT, repeat NOT, the Oz ADS-B. It is two interlinked systems, not one. It has translators, a transition layer, no XIF, and so on.
Therefore, the issues quoted re the USA in ADS-B are different. Although, even acknowledging the different systems and fundings, the ARC Report still SUPPORTS ADS-B.
Now, here's the test of logic for you ( and thank you for calling me a buzzard scrotum on a thread in case anyone feels I'm being harsh on you).
Thread drift I know but you asked the question - my question in return to you - are the aircraft we fly here and in the USA made differently or are they the same. Perhaps if you think that through you will understand why one comparison is OK, the other not.
By the way, my research indicates CASA are deleting unique Oz ADs hand over fist thus saving owners many many $$$ by moving to manufacturer and FAA guidelines (on the basis that they may kknow a tad more than CASA about it). Good on CASA for doing so, and good on CASA and a certain association for ensuring that a few AD that have been negotiated and proven FAVOURABLE to owners are not thrown out with the bath water.
Your anchor has gone down with the ship. Perhaps you are 'free on' a russian submarine at present?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they need not go out and spend those $millions on Radar head replacement and save me, the taxpayer/ shareholder, from wasting any more money.
the ENROUTE RADAR's NEED REPLACEMENT by 2016 (it is not optional - unless another technology option of a lesser overall cost is incepted instead)
do you not understand
Bob,
I'm really trying to break down your objections ... into parts, so that I can try and understand your point of view.
I'll try and be more succinct ..
Say, you owned a C210.
Say, an ADS-B IN/OUT box was offerred to you FREE, installation included, would you object to using it ?
I'm really trying to break down your objections ... into parts, so that I can try and understand your point of view.
I'll try and be more succinct ..
Say, you owned a C210.
Say, an ADS-B IN/OUT box was offerred to you FREE, installation included, would you object to using it ?
IF the subsidy becomes a reality and IF the new In/Out kit prices within the subsidy ... would all your concerns be allayed ?
....of course, if this ADS-B thingy dont need GPS - then we got no worries.........................................One thing about a non GPS based ATC, is it is very robust agin a terrorist attack.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB, you have converted me. There is a very real, prescient risk that the entire ATC system would have to revert to procedural control in the event of a terrorist attack using GPS guided weapons. This reversion represents an unacceptable risk, certainly. Procedural control, as used across oz and every ocean in the world, is just the sort of blatant terror-cherry-ready-to-be-picked-type thing Al Quaida search the world hoping to have invoked.
I suspect that when you make statements about the robust ATC system being terrorist proof, you have never actually visited a centre. A man with a pistol could take one out for days, and if carrying explosives, weeks/months. Imagine if the terrorists got their hands on TWO pistols, and TWO explosive vests? My god....
Then I've just realised- what if they woke up to the vulnerability of the power grid....imagine what a couple of truck bombs could do....no power in a major city for weeks/months..... no traffic lights, no refridgeration.....this could happen without warning at any time!! I know you will join with me in lobbying the govt to ban road use and refridgerated food. Lets set up outside Coles tomorrow- the people must be warned of their folly! I'll let you choose which Coles; I'll bring the foil hats.
I forgot about the dams.......but then again, it's far more likely that terrorists will build marine-launched flying GPS guided buzz bombs capable of delivering a payload from off-shore that will be big enough to be effective, yet small enough to evade detection, enabling repeated attacks requiring the shut-down of the GPS constellation......sort of an invisble, floating, GPS-guided V2 rocket launch vessel. That's MUCH more likely than anyone with a pistol, explosive jacket, or truck bomb.....right? Right?
I suspect that when you make statements about the robust ATC system being terrorist proof, you have never actually visited a centre. A man with a pistol could take one out for days, and if carrying explosives, weeks/months. Imagine if the terrorists got their hands on TWO pistols, and TWO explosive vests? My god....
Then I've just realised- what if they woke up to the vulnerability of the power grid....imagine what a couple of truck bombs could do....no power in a major city for weeks/months..... no traffic lights, no refridgeration.....this could happen without warning at any time!! I know you will join with me in lobbying the govt to ban road use and refridgerated food. Lets set up outside Coles tomorrow- the people must be warned of their folly! I'll let you choose which Coles; I'll bring the foil hats.
I forgot about the dams.......but then again, it's far more likely that terrorists will build marine-launched flying GPS guided buzz bombs capable of delivering a payload from off-shore that will be big enough to be effective, yet small enough to evade detection, enabling repeated attacks requiring the shut-down of the GPS constellation......sort of an invisble, floating, GPS-guided V2 rocket launch vessel. That's MUCH more likely than anyone with a pistol, explosive jacket, or truck bomb.....right? Right?
I have now been informed of the decision that has been made in relation to ADS-B. For some incredible reason I have been sworn to secrecy.
However I will say that Brian Hannan, the Vice President of AOPA, who has long supported the subsidy, will be extremely disappointed.
I’m glad that rational heads have prevailed.
However I will say that Brian Hannan, the Vice President of AOPA, who has long supported the subsidy, will be extremely disappointed.
I’m glad that rational heads have prevailed.