max1

h701,
I don't have a financial interest in any of this, but work as a 'Coalface' ATC for ASA. I don't have a lot of love for my employer, but am passionate about Aviation.
To me, understanding that ASA is run as a Government owned corporation means that the government of the day is once removed from the business decisions.
ASA is responsible for their part of aviation infrastructure within government guidelines.

ASA gets the great majority of its funding from the RPT airlines and is at the point where some very expensive components of its infrastructure are up for renewal, or its charter require new components due traffic levels.
As a business it needs to pass on these costs, both inital and ONGOING. Who will wear these costs? The groups who pay most of this money, the airlines.
ADS-B is a more efficient and safer way of delivering this surveillance technology.
However in going down this path, it is no good having the technology if the people you want included in it, and want to 'see', don't want to fork out the upfront costs for something they feel will not benefit them ( Fair enough T28D).
The airlines want improved safety by being able to see T28D as he puts down or takes off from Karratha,Gove,Katherine etc etc. They also don't want to be stuck down at lower levels waiting for a procedural standard (10 Minutes etc etc) to exist before they can get climb.
That is the safety, or saving, benefit.

The REAL BIG saving for the airlines is in ongoing costs, rather than a large, expensive moving parts SSR exposed to the elements is a much smaller,cheaper, no moving parts to maintain, ADS-B ground unit which will deliver the same results at a fraction of the price.

If you were in business, and your supplier said I am about to implement something that will cost you no more in the short-term than you were previously paying, but I will have to subsidise others in the system, AND long term I will reduce my prices, AGAINST, I will continue to charge at this rate ad-infinutim plus increases. As the big payer, which way would you go?

Re- a couple of items you may not be aware of.

If you check ASAs annual reports you will find they actually were paid
regional subsidies by the government to continue to provide ATC functions in regional areas that were loss making.
ASA actually manage some outstation towers in the USA.
ASA manages airspace for the Solomon Islands and Nauru under a commercial arrangement.

It is time we moved away from thinking that ASA are the old Department of Aviation, Department of Transport,CAA etc. They have moved on, for better or for worse. They can, commercially, do this.

Flying Binghi

max1, ASA management carnt even work out how many ATCers they need to run Oz airspace ... they carnt even pay our ATCers properly - You expect anyone to listen to them about ADSB ?

KittyKatKaper

Just because ASA upper management is seemingly braindead and short-sighted as regards their employees, it doesn't automatically mean that that the entire organisation has no good ideas or talented personnel.

hamble701

Thanks Max1,

I'm aware of most of that and also see OZBUSDRIVER's analysis. All I am asking for is an assurance that there has been a sign off by the appropriate people and for a transparent process which allows industry to make an informed decision. For example, I suspect a minister would be reluctant to sign off on a proposal that has not been reviewed and supported by at least the Department of Infrastructure and Department of Finance. But then, I have been wrong in the past .....

Flying Binghi

You made that assessment in the thread starter post hamble701.

What reference/whatever, do you have to back up that claim ?

hamble701

Hi,

Just reading previous posts, issues seemed to be timing, process etc. I did say most and respect you right to disagree if you so choose.

Flying Binghi

Fair enuf hamble701. IMHO, one needs to be carefull drawing conclusions about ADSB from these threads.

My assessment from reading the posts here would be that we have many potential ADSB profiteers posting anonymously.



...and as the PPrune warning at the bottom of the page reminds me - I'm thinking we may even have a 'strawman' poster as well




.

Bob Murphie

max1 and hamble 701;

Without labouring the "for and against" aspects, I am sure, that in time, ADSB will be an evolutionary benefit to all who require it. My interest is in the subsidy, whether it comes to fruition or not will determine in my mind how, or if, it benefits me and the GA community at large.

To this end I have not seen any recent or positive indication that the corporate end of the Airlines are going to play ball.

Surely it can't be difficult for the pro ADSB enthusiasts to come up with such a document or irrevocable indication on the Airlines part.

hamble701

Bob,

It's hard to believe that in putting together a business proposal, ASA would not at least have sought and received in-principle approval/agreement from the parties we are discussing. I was hoping that they could quickly provide such a statement to the industry when asked. I continue to hope .....

T28D

I understand perfectly what ADSB does, and my stance is as it has been for 5 years on this post Capstone, Australia doesn't need ADSB, I don't need ADSB.

The real thing that gets to me is the real folk who have to pony up funds are the Aircraft Owners, and this forum like the last is full of renters or employee pilots who DON'T have to put theur hand in their pocket.

Maybe what should happen is rental on ADSB equipped aircraft should be 200% normal cost and we will see how natural market forces determine how the debate plays out.

Bob Murphie

The only concrete evidence I can see of an "in principle" agreement is from the ABIT Airline representatives, but I'm sure thay haven't got blank cheques in their pockets.

max1

Heard from a source at VB, who talks to upper echelons at ASA, that maybe ADS-B is not going to happen. Just the navaid replacement plan @ $83 million.

Not to mention the SSRs that they will have to stump up for and maintain.
The window is closing for subsidies. No sooking in the years to come, when ADS-B is mandated and you will either have to keep clear, or have the equipment. He who pays the piper will call the tune.

I don't think there will be much sympathy for the GA flyer, when put against the safety of 100+ paying passengers, when the opportunity to get a subsidy was put to them and they knocked it back.

T28D

Max 1 there will never be a subsidy "Put" to G.A. there is no money bucket for it to come from.

Bob Murphie

I heard third hand, Qantas echo similar vibes to VB.

Jabawocky

That is TOTAL BULL

The bucket is there.

And why would airlines want the nav subsidy, no benefit to them. ADSB is going to benefit them.

Build a bridge and get over it.

J

Flying Binghi

Hmmm... the 'cargo culture' mentality - found on many pacific islands ...even the biggest island



Via wikipedia -

Cargo cults thus focus on efforts to overcome what they perceive as the undue influence of the others attracting the goods, by conducting rituals imitating behavior they have observed among the holders of the desired wealth and presuming that their deities and ancestors will, at last, recognize their own people and send the cargo to them instead. Thus, a characteristic feature of cargo cults is the belief that spiritual agents will, at some future time, give much valuable cargo and desirable manufactured products to the cult members

Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

peuce

And back to the thread ....

For all those ... "..they'll never pay the subsidy ... I want to see a signoff ... etc etc" zealots ... you're giving yourself ulcers for nothing. Only two possible events can happen:

1. A subsidy is paid to GA ... GA will install ADS equipment ...low level ADS-B will go ahead
2. A subsidy is not paid to GA ... GA won't install ADS equipment ... low level ADS-B won't go ahead .. you win

Sit back, relax and wait.

T28D

Thank you Peuce, 100% correct, and I don't have ulcers !!

OZBUSDRIVER

Business case.....MONEY......Who pays for what?.....What has this got to do with a terrorist threat?. What has a terrorist threat as small as it is got to do with a BUSINESS CASE FOR SUBSIDY?

You really are a lightweight! FB!

I am interested to see what happens in September. A little bird tells me the Minister must make up his mind. Whatever the outcome, we all must live with it.

Biggles_in_Oz

probably because the vast majority of readers have discarded your scaremongering 'live in fear' philosophy.
Ahhhh, I finally see what you're on about.
You need to have the last word on any topic and you need someone to validate your opinion.
It actually doesn't matter whether your opinion in the viewpoint of others is correct, incorrect, bizzare, or whatever., the important thing for you is to be told that you are 'correct'.

For the n'th time please go and actually read the JCP and then quote from it to support your scenario.