Merged: ADSB
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, after reading page upon page of garbage, the issue jet109 (for you), is actually funding. Why have you written inumerable posts on your perceived lack of any benefit of ADS-B? Ok, maybe there is little/no benefit to YOU, or other small pockets of the overall aviation that occurs across the country, but if thats the case- why not focus your effort on ensuring that you receive the subsidy? For the life of me, I cannot understand why you (and others here) keep trying to denigrate ADS-B.
If it's about the subsidy, make sure you get the subsidy.
If you believe that ADS-B will not deliver the benefits as described, then good luck. The benefits, as described, to the entire aviation community, that is. Go ahead, make a case that there will be no benefit to FIFO ops in the west etc etc. As the airlines recognise that they will be the major benefittees, they have agreed to be the benefactors by way of airways charges that would have been spent on radars, being used to subsidise those (like you) who wont receive the same benefit. If you are worried about a bueracratic hijack of those funds- then do something about that rather than try and derail something that will be good for the country.
If it's about the subsidy, make sure you get the subsidy.
If you believe that ADS-B will not deliver the benefits as described, then good luck. The benefits, as described, to the entire aviation community, that is. Go ahead, make a case that there will be no benefit to FIFO ops in the west etc etc. As the airlines recognise that they will be the major benefittees, they have agreed to be the benefactors by way of airways charges that would have been spent on radars, being used to subsidise those (like you) who wont receive the same benefit. If you are worried about a bueracratic hijack of those funds- then do something about that rather than try and derail something that will be good for the country.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pages and pages of garbage ... 
Here is some more garbage related to TSO 146 Nav (JCP) opportunities
But lets not bother!!! 
.. well you tell us Bung .. oh yeh you already have, TAS is a dangerous distraction 
IYHO
Here is some more garbage related to TSO 146 Nav (JCP) opportunities
The FAA recently commissioned its 1,333rd WAAS approach (technically known as Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance or LPV) and that means there are now more of them than ILS approaches. The agency calls it a milestone in the transition to universal space-based navigation. The system is in use at 833 airports and the agency says it's planning to add 500 approaches a year until every qualifying runway in the U.S. has one. "This is clearly a turning point for aviation and the way pilots navigate," the agency said in a news release.
Something the agency doesn't mention but which is undoubtedly a factor in the rapid deployment of LPVs is they cost of a fraction of the millions of dollars that ILS systems cost. WAAS, or Wide Area Augmentation System, was commissioned in 2003.
Something the agency doesn't mention but which is undoubtedly a factor in the rapid deployment of LPVs is they cost of a fraction of the millions of dollars that ILS systems cost. WAAS, or Wide Area Augmentation System, was commissioned in 2003.
Tell me Scurvy.D.Dog - at present, should I use my transponder when doing circuits at a GAAP ?.............
IYHO
Tell me Scurvy.D.Dog - at present, should I use my transponder when doing circuits at a GAAP ?............. .. well you tell us Bung
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have and I did 
.. are you illiterate as well as compromised? 
.
comon, tell us what you know .. you know, what you and your political master are responsible for
.. are you illiterate as well as compromised? .
comon, tell us what you know .. you know, what you and your political master are responsible for
Bung, there used to be time that acft doing circs within a GAAP left transponder on STBY. This is no longer the case. According to ERSA its on and thats it!
Unless, of course, you know otherwise
Unless, of course, you know otherwise
Hmmm...we now have some outlines to work with 
...interesting just where the majority of mid-airs happen.
Scurvy.D.Dog, from my experience, and watching pilot pax focus on it in the GAAP circuit - yes.
I would be interested to see what studys have been done on ADS-B 'IN' in the GAAP (or simular) VFR environment - will it kill pilots ? Obviously not relavent if theres only 'out' for VFR - but then is the history of VFR mid-airs relavent to the discusion ?
...and I'm not foregetting this is all a side show to me - when terrorists start putting $1,000 GPS guided flying bombs into a WAAS assisted 1.5 metre diameter target - we'll see how long a GPS based ADS-B system lasts ...of course OZBUSDRIVER doesnt think it is possible, a sparrow would'nt get thru, eh
...interesting just where the majority of mid-airs happen.
TAS is a dangerous distraction
I would be interested to see what studys have been done on ADS-B 'IN' in the GAAP (or simular) VFR environment - will it kill pilots ? Obviously not relavent if theres only 'out' for VFR - but then is the history of VFR mid-airs relavent to the discusion ?
...and I'm not foregetting this is all a side show to me - when terrorists start putting $1,000 GPS guided flying bombs into a WAAS assisted 1.5 metre diameter target - we'll see how long a GPS based ADS-B system lasts
...of course OZBUSDRIVER doesnt think it is possible, a sparrow would'nt get thru, eh
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. focusing only on the part blind dog barking that you own ... yep really relevant in the context explained above.... but you don't want to differentiate do you NO!!
... hmmm, and the difference between your blunt instrument TAS and ADS-B is obvious .... what do you not grasp?
.
I have one word for you Bing Galileo!!!!
… and whilst we are at it spell checker!!
.
Keep trotting out garbage and ignoring the information provided to you and the readers, that’s fine. They are wise enough to see through the deliberate ignorance
NO!!
I would be interested to see what studys have been done on ADS-B 'IN' in the GAAP (or simular) VFR environment - will it kill pilots ? Obviously not relavent if theres only 'out' for VFR - but then is the history of VFR mid-airs relavent to the discusion ?
.
I have one word for you Bing Galileo!!!!
… and whilst we are at it spell checker!!.
Keep trotting out garbage and ignoring the information provided to you and the readers, that’s fine. They are wise enough to see through the deliberate ignorance
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
it looks like Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower has realised just what a waste of money any 'Traffic' system (ADS-B) will be for VFR aircraft safety in Oz - infact, IMHO, it will probably kill pilots
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower - do you often photograph the back end of animals, sounds like you have an interesting fetish there....
Tell me more Scurvy.D.Dog - sounds religious....is it your saviour ?
...anyway, nuff for now. Tommorow, Scurvy.D.Dog can tell us how ADS-B will stop all those GAAP mid-airs
Galileo
...anyway, nuff for now. Tommorow, Scurvy.D.Dog can tell us how ADS-B will stop all those GAAP mid-airs
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomorrow .. oh Bing ... run out of interference puff have ya 
.
It is all here, re read it when you and the fishing float are sober! ... you might learn something!
.
What was it that ‘Bond’ said … tomorrow never dies!!
.
Nite D1ckhead!!!
.. oh Bing ... run out of interference puff have ya .
It is all here, re read it when you and the fishing float are sober! ... you might learn something!
.
What was it that ‘Bond’ said … tomorrow never dies!!
.
Nite D1ckhead!!!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to get involved in the tete a tete gentlemen but I'm a bit confused. As someone who uses ADSB In every day I'm wondering what exactly the problem is. Someone has evolved a new technology that uses the best of several older systems, makes it smaller, hopefully affordable, hopefully subsidised and increases coverage over a much wider area over our large brown land. Where is the problem?
Is it because it will increase the visibility of all aircraft with the units fitted?
Is it because it will reduce the capital costs of dated infrastructure?
Is it because more aerodromes will be safer in the circuit due to the visibility of aircraft from both ATC and other aircraft?
Is it because aircraft will be able to get more data on what other aircraft are doing with audible and visible alarms.
Is it because search and rescue will be significantly enhanced with the increased visibility from both aircraft and ATC?
Is it because VFR aircraft can be fitted with a funky new display that does many more things than just show your track at a reduced price because the industry feels it would be safer for all if you can be seen a new way electronically?
Is it because you use the politics of fear of guided missile accuracy of 0.5m, which I can do pretty easily now without the need for an encrypted ADSB unit, using off the shelf items that I won't tell you how but believe me can be done?
Is it because we'll be able to possibly send and receive more than just position/alt/speed/trend/ID/destination, maybe things like wx and safety alerts as well?
Is it because it will cost about 2 100hrlys on a standard twin for the install?
Or is it because it's new and we should always be scared of new things?
Can someone please show me what I'm missing?
Is it because it will increase the visibility of all aircraft with the units fitted?
Is it because it will reduce the capital costs of dated infrastructure?
Is it because more aerodromes will be safer in the circuit due to the visibility of aircraft from both ATC and other aircraft?
Is it because aircraft will be able to get more data on what other aircraft are doing with audible and visible alarms.
Is it because search and rescue will be significantly enhanced with the increased visibility from both aircraft and ATC?
Is it because VFR aircraft can be fitted with a funky new display that does many more things than just show your track at a reduced price because the industry feels it would be safer for all if you can be seen a new way electronically?
Is it because you use the politics of fear of guided missile accuracy of 0.5m, which I can do pretty easily now without the need for an encrypted ADSB unit, using off the shelf items that I won't tell you how but believe me can be done?
Is it because we'll be able to possibly send and receive more than just position/alt/speed/trend/ID/destination, maybe things like wx and safety alerts as well?
Is it because it will cost about 2 100hrlys on a standard twin for the install?
Or is it because it's new and we should always be scared of new things?
Can someone please show me what I'm missing?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W.O.G.
A superb summation.
If we take the proposition by Jetski et al that there is no risk of a collision, at least it gives us the opportunity to read the Herald Sun or Australian en route.
Bung
So an aural traffic alert in a GAAP won't stop midairs? I'll let the towers know, they too can read the newspaper.
To continue the W.O.G. proposition, I fail to see how adding an EXTRA layer of safety, that reports directly to the PIC without third party need, is a negative.
In aviation safety the chance of a midair is - as Jetski pointed out - miniscule, although increasing nearer the CTAF. It's the consequences of the midair that make mitigation worthwhile.
A superb summation.
If we take the proposition by Jetski et al that there is no risk of a collision, at least it gives us the opportunity to read the Herald Sun or Australian en route.
Bung
So an aural traffic alert in a GAAP won't stop midairs? I'll let the towers know, they too can read the newspaper.
To continue the W.O.G. proposition, I fail to see how adding an EXTRA layer of safety, that reports directly to the PIC without third party need, is a negative.
In aviation safety the chance of a midair is - as Jetski pointed out - miniscule, although increasing nearer the CTAF. It's the consequences of the midair that make mitigation worthwhile.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: in the bush
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is always the possibility of a collision. What I have been asking all along is what is the probability? Is this probability quantifiable and does the risk justify the expenditure.
The answer is so small a probability as to be unmeasureable in statistical form and the claimed enhanced safety does not justify the expense.
The only mob who can gain measureable benefits are Airservices.
Now I don't care if somebody gives me a free gadget. What I want is proof of this actually happening. The absence of which makes me very suspicious of scaremongering snake oil salesmen that live in Airservices pocket.
If there is a chance that I will have to pay for it I want a better reason than anectdotes of near misses.
Honestly, some of you should stay in bed if you think you need ATC to help you fly into Burketown. The only other aircraft looking out for you will have ADSB IN which is not part of any proposed subsidy. Thems that will probably have it, are thems who already have TCAS anyway.
Horses arses is very apt when you consider what's in front of it. Campaigning for a mandate before a subsidy is like;
The answer is so small a probability as to be unmeasureable in statistical form and the claimed enhanced safety does not justify the expense.
The only mob who can gain measureable benefits are Airservices.
Now I don't care if somebody gives me a free gadget. What I want is proof of this actually happening. The absence of which makes me very suspicious of scaremongering snake oil salesmen that live in Airservices pocket.
If there is a chance that I will have to pay for it I want a better reason than anectdotes of near misses.
Honestly, some of you should stay in bed if you think you need ATC to help you fly into Burketown. The only other aircraft looking out for you will have ADSB IN which is not part of any proposed subsidy. Thems that will probably have it, are thems who already have TCAS anyway.
Horses arses is very apt when you consider what's in front of it. Campaigning for a mandate before a subsidy is like;
Last edited by jeta108; 10th Nov 2008 at 21:19.
