hamble701

I have followed the ADSB debate with interest and not commented on the technical aspects. However, in a previous thread, Max1 has raised some interesting business issues which should be considered.

I suggest there are some givens

·Most seem to agree that ADSB is the way of the future
·There are concerns re transition, the “subsidy” and removal of en-route SSRs and some navaids.

I don’t propose to address the above.

Airservices is a corporate entity which operates under its own Act but remains subject to other legislation covering such government owned enterprises.

Some may remember in the 1990s, Airservices was taken to court and lost a case addressing its “network pricing model”. The decision was specific on what Airservices could and could not charge for. It was found (if I remember correctly) that it could only charge for specific services provided and could not de facto cross subsidise operations.

As a business it is legitimate for Airservices to make provision in its accounts for the depreciation of its assets.

Given the above I suggest that before it commits itself to the ADSB proposal, the general aviation community should write to Airservices, the Department of Infrastructure and CASA asking the following questions

·Does Airservices have the authority under its Act to make subsidy payments to general aviation for the fitment of the necessary ADSB equipment ? Has this been confirmed ? If so, by whom ?
·Does Airservices need Department of Finance approval to make such subsidy payments ? If so, have these approvals been sought and given ?
·Is Treasury approval required ? If so, has it been sought and given ?
·Has an opinion been sought from the ATO on the tax treatment of such a payment ? If so, what was their advice ?
·Has there been a formal sign off by Qantas, Virgin Blue and other major air navigation charges contributors on the subsidy issue ? Has this issue been approved by such entities at the corporate level ?
oIt may be that while the proposal has enthusiastic support from operational areas, senior executives may support the cost savings from ADSB but consider that these savings should be directly aligned to those who have made the payments. They might see the fitment of ADSB equipment to the general aviation fleet as a legitimate participation cost that should be borne directly by aircraft owners.

The above were not fully addressed in the Consultation Paper. Only when these facts are established can the general aviation community make an informed decision of whether to support the ADSB proposal. The worst possible case would be for CASA to mandate fitment (as they are now requested to do) only to find that the subsidy payment is not possible and that general aviation operators are locked into paying for the equipment themselves.

It is reasonable to assume that Airservices is already aware of these issues. Perhaps they can share their knowledge with us ?

T28D

hamble701, great input, I am with you, in previous threads we saw the unbridled enthusiasm for the Technology overshadow the simple logic that business sense dictates.

Hopefully the rag hat brigade wont try to ambush this thread until we see some sense in the answers to the questions you put to Airservices ( they do read pprune daily)

Logic might prevail yet !!!! We live in hope.

I just crossed Australia Bankstown to Jandakot in a T28D 40 year old warbird VFR no need for ADSB, trusty GPS, squark 1200 all the way watch the transponder respond to TCAS interrogations from overhead traffic, helps to know someone is out there on 121.5 when crossing the Remote Areas.

ADSB would not have helped one bit.

Bob Murphie

The standard reply re the subsidy is that Airservices are NOT paying it.

The Major Airlines are supposed to be paying it from savings from Air Nav charges which is supposed to be a flow on from Airservices savings.

I don't know how viable the arguement is for Airservices to NOT collect Air Nav Charges.

The major Airlines are struggling to pay for their fuel these days.

There is a real concern that a CASA mandated ADSB fitment will impact greatly and negatively upon the GA industry if the subsidy is not paid for by the Airlines.

ferris

I don't know, I may be a little slow, but reading the other thread....

1. The airlines ARE going to pay the nav charges, whether they be the current rate, a future rate with the possibility of a reduction due to cost reductions by the ANSP, or whatever the hell the ANSP tells them they are going to pay (being a defacto tax, after all- oops, wasn't anyone supposed to say that?)
2. If the govt can organise rebates for farmers, lpg conversions for cars, solar panels etc etc, I'm pretty sure the legal instruments exists for them to rebate avionics fitouts. But what would I know? The bush lawyers here seem to pretend they have a handle on what can or cannot be done. It seems the paying out of monies via Bills is an alien concept, despite the daily doing of such things.
3. The day AsA is a BUSINESS, we will see Dick competing for it. And a LOT of redundant "managers".
4. T28 etc. Im glad to see that the "I'm alright Jack" gene is alive and preserved in people such as yourself. Regardless of whatever benefit ADS-B might convey to the aviation community, you are "alright Jack".

Bob Murphie

My post was aimed at dot point 5 of the hamble701 post;

·Has there been a formal sign off by Qantas, Virgin Blue and other major air navigation charges contributors on the subsidy issue ? Has this issue been approved by such entities at the corporate level ?

The issue of benefit has been done to death. Nothing will change the minds of those with different views.

ferris

Ahh, Bob, read the JCP.
1. The airlines don't get a say in what happens to the air airnav charges once they become general revenue anyway, and
2. they actually agree with how the money is going to be spent, realising they reap a beneift via ongoing reductions in air nav charges BECAUSE OF THE FITOUT and attendant en-route radar maintenance/replacement costs.

OZBUSDRIVER

Hamble701, just to help us poor raghat plebs out here in the smoke. Can you please give a ref to the court case. I seem to remember that was about subsidising RFF across the network. Am I correct?

hamble701

OZBUSDRIVER

Can't remember the details but think it was about 1995. The issue was network pricing, could have been RFF but think it was air nav charges. From memory, the decision was to the effect that ASA could only charge for specific service to a customer, otherwise it became a defacto tax which it could not levy.

OZBUSDRIVER

thank-you for the reply, Hamble701. Will try and track it down.

Flying Binghi

...Yes, and just who stands to "benefit" ferris ?

Bob Murphie

ferris;

I have read it. I would suggest some more recent digging to answer the dot point 5 question. Has this issue been approved by such entities at the corporate level ?

T28D

Ah Ferris since you want to personalise the thread, yes I am alright and I crossed Australia VFR alright and I didn't need ADSB to tell me where to go.

Your attempt at a snipe (4. T28 etc. Im glad to see that the "I'm alright Jack" gene is alive and preserved in people such as yourself. Regardless of whatever benefit ADS-B might convey to the aviation community, you are "alright Jack".) was uncalled for and frankly makes you look a prat.

ferris

Really? I thought I got EXACTLY to the thrust of your post- which was that YOU didnt need think you needed ADS-B, so why have it? Or did I miss something?

Now if it stings a little to realise that running an argument against ADS-B because you dont PERSONALLY think there is any benefit to YOU smacks of an "I'm alright Jack" mentality, then so be it. Think about it, then see who looks like a prat.

Howabout

That's a bit personal Ferris. If T28D can fly across the continent without any aid, other than the ocasional terrestrial based one and his own navigational ability, then I think he should be wrapped in cotton-wool and preserved. Once-upon-a-time that ability was valued and there will, inevitably, be times where navigational ability, as opposed to dumb reliance on technology, is priceless.

Biggles_in_Oz

HowaboutYou missed the statement in T28Ds' post of his cross-continent trip.

And T28D's statement only works because of the 'big-sky' phenomenon.
Seriously., just how many GA craft are doing cross-continent trips ?
Traffic is concentrated around ADs and along direct routes.
Then T28Ds' indicates a lack of understanding of what ADSB is supposed to be used for.

OZBUSDRIVER

Ok, I think i have found the caseAir Services vs Canadian Airlines International

This was part of the bunfight between Airservices and owners of aircraft leased to the failed Compass. Aircraft were held in lien until fees were paid. Clever dicking on meanings of words changed the way AirServices was able to charge per Landing (note- judge was upset that take-offs were free??? and outgoing flights weren't charged??You'd think airservices would have been able to explain that one!) in one aerodrome would incur charges for the other 31 sched 1 airports(Once again airservices sucked the big on on that too) The way things were set up it was tax, instead of a reasonable fee incured for the specific aerodrome. Suffice to say, Because of wording The entire network of aerodromes atc and rffs was able to be broken up into the separate entities we see today. Instead of saying any flight into Australia or within Australia incurs a charge of $x per tonne per nm traveled in enroute fees whilst within Australian Airspace. A landing at any one of 31 Sched 1 aerodromes incurs a cost of $y per tonne to cover terminal nav charges and rff as per requirments as based in the Chicago convention of 194whatever. A landing includes a takeoff, no extra terminal charges are incured for the takeoff phase, these are included in the term landing.

Anyway, quite a clever way of trying to get back money payed to get your toy out of hock. All claimants agreed to en-route charges but worked a way of beating the network charge. So much so that GA had to receive a SUBSIDY up until OCT05 to insulate them from charges that should have been incured by flying into some of the regional aerodromes that AirServices was required to give a service. Cross subsidisation was a big no no to the economical rationalists of the Hawke Keating ERA.

This case only relates to charges across a network. Cross subsidising less used aerodromes by fees from busier aerodromes was on the nose according to the high court in this case.

OK, I cannot vouch for how an Irishman or a British record king will bounce when the dollar finally drops. They are recipients of a service and must pay a REASONABLE FEE to cover costs as set out by AirServices from time to time.

Am I making sense so far?

AirServices must supply a radar service, enroute and terminal traffic services as well as navaids. For which a service fee must be charged. There is nothing to stop AirServices facilitating fitment as part of the equipment purchases for a new radar system. All that is required will be a fully costed plan submitted to the directors and signed off by the Minister to allow a subsidy to continue. This, as yet, hasn't happened! the argument shall remain academic.

Like the owners of the aircraft in hoc, the airlines may well challenge these "subsidies" in the high court but like the owners it will be after the fact. Do they really have a say in how much AirServices charges? AirServices was caught once on wording, I do not think they will get caught again!

Howabout

Touche, Biggles! I, at least, will admit error - but I'd like to imagine that, for T28D, it was a 'nice to have.'

Flying Binghi

As the thread seems to have drifted a little.......

Are you telling Oz pilots just how and where they fly Biggles_in_Oz ?


Now a question - How many posters here have a TAS/TCAS or simular in their own personal aircraft ? ... or am I the only one with some form of Traffic Advisory System ?

I would imagine that the ADS-B proponents would have at least a TAS ...



....................

OZBUSDRIVER

Binghi....Earth to Binghi......earth to Binghi...that thread is closed!

Flying Binghi

Yeh... what happened to that thread ? ... sounds like Dick kicked somebodys butt, so that 'somebody' removed the thread.......