ADSB Article in RAA Mag

[albert]

HI J430

 

Firstly. I and nor do I think that the majority of Raa members are sheep I believe that they are of high intelligent, cause for one they moved away from a system

 

That was chocking them with cost amongst other things (GA).

 

Flying is a privilege not a right. Well then perhaps we should remove the word freedom of flight from our vocabulary.

 

Why should we share a cost for something that is not need anyway I could continue but I think the group gets my drift.

 

My biggest concern is why has air services not included the RAA as part of the Jcp (joint communication process ) considering the RAA is representing about 8000 pilots perhaps they have a hidden agenda.

 

Just My thoughts

 

Albert .

 

 

[jetboy]

Damn right Albert and we have probably got more sheep over here than anybody else

 

perhaps thats why when the transponder system was mandated in NZ there was a similar sort of free con going on so that GA operators could be encouraged to participate in this new airliner friendly gadget. The cost was around $3,000 per install and you could have the privilege of paying $300 per year for ten years if you afforded yourself of those very generous terms. Once the initial offer was closed you have to buy and maintain their piece of gear for them yourself. Not to mention they put the knife in a bit further by upgrading the radars last year so that existing TSO'd transponders did not work and had to be refurbished, then delivered the final twist by forcing everyone without one down to 1500' around provincial non ATC airports that dont have SSR radar coverage.

 

I hope you can keep ADSB out of required equipment certainly below 5,000' & class G because there will be no free lunch - and the users wont pay.

 

Ralph

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

I wonder if Lee has received his scolding yet.

 

Perhaps part of Lee's defence will be to ask why it was that the AUF/RAAus ever came into existance.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

From the Gen Aviation Forum. CASA Briefing -

 

US ends ability to degrade GPS

 

The US government has announced it will not include the capability to degrade the accuracy of Global Positioning System signals in the next generation of GPS satellites. In a White House statement the US said this would remove a source of uncertainty about GPS performance that had been a concern to users across the world. The US President accepted a recommendation from the Department of Defense to end procurement of GPS satellites that have the capability to intentionally degrade the accuracy of civil signals. The statement said: "This decision reflects the United States strong commitment to users of GPS that this free global utility can be counted on to support peaceful civil activities around the world. This degradation capability, known as selective availability, will no longer be present in GPS III satellites. Although the United States stopped the intentional degradation of GPS satellite signals in May 2000, this new action will result in the removal of SA capabilities."

 

Convienient timing for a press release. I see that "FREE" word again. Looks like CASA have taken the bait.

 

I guess one problem the providers of GPS had, was just how do you bill the 10's of thousands of individual users. Perhaps bill like the mobile phone companys do by charging for air time. How do you identifie the users and the air time - Impossible. Impossible untill the arrival of ADSB sourced Airservices accounts.

 

Once Airservices have compleatly committed Australia to a "FREE" GPS based system, I wonder how long it will take before the pressure is exerted for this one GPS user to pay for it's GPS usage.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I keep seeing this "it is a privilege not a right" statement cropping up a lot latey.

 

since this is now a 'user pays' system. , i belive that once the readies are laid on the table it becomes users rights. 'bout time a few were made aware of this.

 

 

[facthunter]

Users rights.

 

THE ONE WHO PAYS, SAYS. Translated means If they are going to spend your money, you have a say in how they do it. Sounds fair doesn't it? N....

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Your proposition is quite fair in the context and angle that you have put it Nev. But there are other angles.

 

If you buy an ice cream then the vendor will spend the money you pay for the product, but you have no say in that or even what the product is. Your only choice is to buy or not to buy. The only pressure you can bring to bear is not buying and in a commercial environment the vendor (given enough refusals) will withdraw the product or make it more acceptable.

 

That does not seem to be the situation in this case in terms of applying that pressure.

 

The authorities seem to have a stance that they operate in the best interests of the public therefore what they deem to be essential to safety is mandated, but they also operate on a user pays principle.

 

So we do have a choice as we are not obliged to fit the new gear - but if we do not then we will not be allowed to fly! That would seem to suit the authorities who have clearly stated that their only real interests is in the fare paying passenger so the less up there the better!

 

As I have said before - I do not see the core of this issue as being about impractically expensive equipment and systems. It is primarily about airspace and freedoms of the average Australian!

 

Tony

 

 

[Methusala]

For those of us who have learned to view announcements from govt. and their flunkies with severe scepticism, some thought should be applied to the proposed definition of CTAF® airports. Apparently this includes ALL airports that expect 1 or more 10pax a/c per MONTH! Should cover just about every sealed strip in Oz. And who do we trust to keep this register? Regards to all (most), Don.

 

 

[facthunter]

airspace use.

 

Methusala, it's the same as not letting you go out of your front drive because a school bus goes along it once a week.

 

Tony, I know there are flaws in my logic on this one , but it still has some validity,in a principle of fairness. Your stance is a good fall-back position and is workable, provided we maintain a network of aerodromes that are available to us and not RPT. It's a visability issue, but we pay to be visible to them. They are not visible to us ,in any practical way. Regards Nev...

 

 

[Yenn]

There is an election coming. Talk to the aspiring politicians. I have done it in the past and got a lot of promises, but the pollies have no control over CASA. They have rolled Mark Vaile by just saying it is a safety matter. We can try but don't hold out much hope. better to gang up on them with a few friends to swell tye numbers.