ADSB costs.
 

From AVWEB;

FAA'S ADS-B RULE WILL COST YOU
The FAA Thursday released a final rule dictating requirements for aircraft owners to operate in NextGen's ADS-B-required environment by 2020, and it's going to cost you. The rule addresses ADS-B Out. The FAA has previously (in the NPRM) estimated that the total cost to equip GA aircraft from 2012 to 2035 could range anywhere from $1.2 to $4.5 billion. It now estimates the quantified benefit to the GA fleet at $200 million. Those figures appear under a section titled, "General Aviation: High Equipage Costs With Little Benefit." According to the agency, "The FAA fully acknowledges that the general aviation community will incur significant costs from this rule." However, the FAA says this must be balanced against the system's overall benefits, which are expected to include hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel saved and the realization of other operational efficiencies. The FAA says it considered three options to resolve GA's cost benefit concerns.
First, to lower costs for individual operators (general aviation pilots), the FAA has modified the systems' performance requirements and determined changes that eliminate the need for ADS-B antenna diversity. The FAA believes this will help make the rule cheaper to implement. Second, moving forward, the FAA "intends to explore the costs and benefits" for service expansions that may include: more low altitude coverage; radar-like terminal ATC services at airports not currently served; automated closure of IFR flight plans; enhanced search and rescue; and providing FSS with ADS-B positional display information to allow for more tailored flight service functions. The third option considered was to limit ADS-B requirements to Class A and B airspace. This was dismissed because the FAA believes failure to equip all aircraft would greatly reduce the system's benefits.

From AOPA online.
 

Challenges abound with FAA's ADSB 'OUT' mandate.

The FAA on May 27 published its final rule mandating what owners will be required to have on board their aircraft in order to operate in the new satellite-based air traffic control system known as NextGen. By 2020, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out (ADS-B Out) will be required equipment in all airspace that currently requires a transponder. According to AOPA, the ADS-B Out equipment that the rule requires will cost the individual general aviation aircraft owner thousands of dollars but only duplicates what already exists with today’s radio transponder. The association is conducting a detailed analysis of the rule to further understand its impact on GA.
“Since the 1990s, AOPA has worked with the FAA on the development of space-based navigation,” said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA senior vice president of government affairs. “The industry has always maintained that the migration to the new system must be benefits-driven. But the only real beneficiary of this new ADS-B Out mandate is the FAA.”

The new system will let ATC see each aircraft’s GPS-derived position on controllers’ screens, a function currently fulfilled by radio transponders. So ADS-B Out should be a replacement for transponders, but instead the FAA is requiring ADS-B Out and transponders, meaning pilots will have to pay for and maintain two systems in order to help ATC perform its primary function: safe separation of aircraft. The final rule does indicate that the FAA may, at some future date, consider whether transponders could eventually be removed.
Over the past two decades, GA aircraft owners have embraced satellite-based navigation and have collectively spent millions of dollars upgrading their systems. Eighty percent of the GA fleet is equipped with GPS units. Twenty percent has GPS Wide Area Augmentation System-enabled equipment, allowing them to take advantage of extremely precise satellite-based instrument approach procedures during inclement weather. And aircraft owners have upgraded without mandate because they recognized the inherent advantages satellite navigation has over traditional radio navigation.“We are encouraged that the FAA has rejected the unrealistic five-year implementation plan that some have called for in favor of a 10-year timeframe,” said Rudinger. “That gives the FAA and industry a decade to work together to find low-cost solutions, such as permitting portable options to display available traffic and weather data information.”
AOPA remains committed to the transition to satellite-based navigation, but maintains that the transition must be benefits-driven—resulting in improvements in safety, efficiency, and increased access.
For more information about ADS-B, see the FAA fact sheet.

Yes, the FAA is the "direct" beneficiary... but the Industry is the "indirect" beneficiary.

Do you think that the FAA is rubbing it's hands together because it will now be able to sit, with a beer in its hand, watching lots of dots on the screen?

The fact that those dots are there will mean that they will be able (required) to provide a safer and more efficient service... which means that pilots are more likely to get home safer, that MACS are less likely, that punters will see the skies as safer, that more punters will fly. That is the BENEFIT.

The benefits are clearly there.....we just missed the boat again.

Dick would argue why should we lead the world :ugh:

You still be around then, Frank?

Bloggs;

If those determined to rid the skies of GA get their way, no I probably won't, and you 'Regional's' will have the lower airspace all to yourselves.

Future ATCO's will probably work from Call Centres in Mumbai directing traffic at Oodnaddatta in 2020, and Regional pilots will come direct from internet game arcades in Villawood Detention Centre.

John McCormick is even quoted as saying recently there is a paid lobby group working to an agenda to get rid of General Aviation. One wonders who they might be and who is paying them?

Why?

It would seem ADSB IN/OUT is not going to replace TCAS?

Some noisy proponents here have been drinking their bathwater. But then again some don't even own an aeroplane so they have no idea of costs.

J MAc allegedy said that in Brisbane......I wish I was able to attend but at the time was elsewhere.

Bugger...would have made for a lively discussion.

Mind you he was not suggesting he thought it was good thing and in fact I think the opposite. But what does he know?

Or is he saying that just to gain some leverage somewhere? :suspect:

Me thinks the latter.....

J:ok:

My concern about the whole thing is that if someone is flying with ADSB off or not present there will be no "paint" on radar thus someone could have a midair with IFR as nobody would know they are there.

Actually ADSB helps ATC with it's secondary function of expedition. It's not required to separate.


ATC always knows where IFR aircraft are either by surveillance or position report.

If ADS-B is not required to separate, why should it be mandated?

Ahhhh Francis...where do I start?

Nothing new there, my friend....In fact! I can say I told you so! UAT was going to cost the US GA drivers plenty for what they will get. The FAA may well be putting in the ground stations that work on the dual system...however, a TCAS will not see UAT only( Hence, the need to maintain fitment of a transponder). AND even blind Freddy would tell you that the FAA will never stump up to fit UAT(GA only) in GA aircraft. I feel it somewhat ironic, UAT was designed because "Airline Only" mode S was perceived to be too expensive to use in GA...and now? Mode S is becoming ubiquitous and affordable and UAT is fast looking like a dinosaur dead end US only technology..(..payback for choosing their own DME instead of ours:}:ok:)

Thank heavens our guys did not jump on the UAT bandwagon.

This scenario DOES NOT APPLY TO AUSTRALIA! A compliant Mode A,C,S 1090ES ADS-B Tx Transponder costs **** all compared to what the yanks will cost.

Panic not, my back door philosopher...there will be plenty of runes to scratch over after fitting out your little RAA bugsmasher so you can still fly in "Big Boy" airspace.

You are slightly confused Mr XXX

Only the majors have PRIMARY radar, and maybe the odd other one, so outside the terminal area you are invisible with your transponder off. :suspect:

OZBUSDRIVER;

You just don't get it do you?

"Big Boy airspace" costs me money were I to fly there. I don't want to fly there, so I see no reason to be burdened with the costs of an ATC tool for separation just because a couple of PPL know it all knob twiddlers who hire other people's capital investments to fly in "Big Boy airspace, think it would be jolly good if this gadgetry was mandated for everyone, everywhere and any time. UAT, valve wireless, or whatever.

And yes, I did geography at school.

Francis, has it ever occured to you that there is far more to the story and far less sinister twists than you care to omit from your posts.

I do love fly fishing...Gotcha!

Unlikely!

It's the primary ones that I'm most worried about!

Good grief. I haven't had one of them since I busted a night noise curfew at Bankstown in a 210. It was just after the new tower opened from memory because I was told to report to the Fire Station and ring for the good news. Memories.;)

XXX

- The Primaries [capital city airports] will have PPRIMARY radar [not TXPDR dependent, energy skin return] so ATC will see raw targets. They will also have Mode S and MLat-ADS-B [for PRM and Ground surveillance] for TXPDR returns.
- Outside of the Capitals it will be MSSR or ADS-B or WAMLat which are all dependent on a TXPDR [A/C and/or ES] output to be seen by ATC and ACAS, the later also where ATC surveillance does not exist.

Mr Arouet

ADS-B IN was never designed to be a replacement for ACAS, as it does not provide RA's. ACAS on the other hand is greatly enhanced when it can [change 7 and later] receive the additional information such ES data [position, azimuth, trajectory, etc]

Ironic isn't it that GA in the US will now pay twice for the folly of their unique ADS-B variant.

LeadSled [a.k.a Mr UAT] is very quiet :p

Jabawocky

Quote "Dick would argue why should we lead the world"

If Dick does argue this way, I totally agree, why should we? With an area similar to ours and 240,000+ registered aircraft the US is only now beginning to think it needs ADSB. In Oz we have 12,000 or so registered aircraft, one for every 20 of theirs. We should defer any decision till we have at least 200,000 registered aircraft, OR the price comes down to hand-held GPS levels.

Cheers, RA

As much as e would like to see 200,000 registered aeroplanes flying around Australia....the next hope is for the dropping in price point to continue. For me, I do not see the price point being any lower than a typical mode A/C transponder...the device ADS-B will eventually replace. In this case, there are already mode A/C/S/1090ES transponders available for the same price as a KT76

And how does this relate to UAT?

(BTW, what system do us Australians use in those FL's where ADSB is mandatory)?

And what is the price of a new KT76 transponder that would give a non aeroplane owner pilot any idea of what is expensive and what is cheap?

Just interested as an innocent bystander, non expert player.