PIREP - A DISCUSSION & NEWS FORUM FOR PILOTS.

[Bob Murphie]

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/back-to-drawing-board-on-ads-b-proposal/

[Tunes]

Why am I not surprised


SEARCH:


Sponsored by: AirBP







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SUBSCRIBE NOW...

SPECIAL REPORTS

Bizav Web Directory
Visit our directory of manufacturers, suppliers and service providers

Issue Archives
Search through years of
AIN past issues

CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Search through the latest
events and conferences

REPRINTS

RSS Feed




Back to drawing board on ADS-B proposal
By John Sheridan

May 1, 2008
People, Business Aviation


The FAA’s ADS-B Program Office has received a stern directive from top management to consult with industry representatives to produce a more acceptable version of its notice of proposed rule-making (NPRM), which in March received an almost unanimous thumbs-down from operators. “I guess the top brass took the program office to the woodshed on that one,” offered one long-time agency observer. “But when you’ve got strong opposition from everybody from the AOPA to the Air Transport Association, you just know something’s wrong.”

And AOPA Australia continues with its support of the flawed ADSB proposals.

[brianh]

Tunes

Quote:

And AOPA Australia continues with its support of the flawed ADSB proposals.

Why are you and fact always at odds when it comes to your comments about AOPA. Better you had left your mouth closed and not proved to all readers of this forum that you have no credibility.

TRY THESE FACTS

Extracts word for word from the AOPA response to the JCP.

AOPA accepts the proposal, and timing, of satellite technology for navigation.

AOPA is unable to agree to the current proposals for surveillance via ADS-B avionics.

and

Response to Key Change Proposals

“Proposed timing of transition to satellite technology for navigation and surveillance.”
Not acceptable but could be acceptable if changes were made.

“Requirements for carriage and use of ADS-B avionics from mid-2012.”
Not acceptable but could be acceptable if changes were made.

“Requirements for carriage and use of ADS-B avionics from mid-2014.”
Not acceptable under any circumstance.

“Use of funds that would otherwise be spent on navaids and enroute radars to provide cross-industry funding for fitment of ADS-B and GNSS avionics in aircraft with MTOW ≤ 5,700 kg.”
Not acceptable but would be acceptable if changes were made.

and

Response to Regulatory Change Proposals

AOPA rejects proposed regulatory changes at Appendix C to the JCP. In a matter as far-reaching as this, AOPA expects that regulatory changes will be drafted and separately reviewed only after the policy substance of the proposal is negotiated.

(my highlight for emphasis).

What do you not understand about the meaning of "NOT ACCEPTABLE" and "REJECTS"

Tunes, I know no-one in aviation talks to you and you need to be on here to satisfy the basic human need to lurk at the fringes. I'll be in CB on the 28th talking to the ADS-B people about the future and re-stating our position (which as we well know does not represent you so you keep telling us - so when's your meeting with them ).

But since you are neither an AOPA member nor director, please leave AOPA to speak for itself - OR TRY TROTTING OUT FACTS NOT MISCHEVIOUS UNTRUTHS.

Credibility zero out of ten for you Tunes.

[Airborne]

An AOPA director makes a statement on this forum that his fare to and from CB from ML is being paid. Who paid this fare? He and his policy makers appear to be quislings. I doubt the members were properly canvassed on this ADSB policy. AOPA speaks for itself. Pigs ass.

[brianh]

Well hello, it's the smurf aeroguard trying to smokescreen Tunes indescretion.

Do you really think anyone is not aware of your genesis, aerostart?

If it helps, CASA is also paying for the odd AOPA director travel. As they do for other participants.

ADS-B. Fact is Tunes told big fibby and your smokescreen ain't covering it no matter how hard he 'bobs' down behind it.

Too funny boys. I would not think to speak for Tunes business - perhaps time you two stopped speaking with forked tongues for AOPA.

Not members, not directors, just tired old men clogging up an otherwise good forum.

Time alias 'airborne' went to god, boys. Can join Madang Chook there

[Tunes]

It worked Hannan is back with drivel, Ah so predictable, and it only took one post to bait him, makes me feel good, enjoy the stream of invective from him, it is priceless.

[Airborne]

Brianheretic.
Quisling! What happened to pay our own way and have our say? Different crew different agenda different policy. ADSB is sorta supported by AOPA until they can figure how to retreat with the string pullers reputations intact. Withdraw with some dignity before your members become aware of your deceits.

[brianh]

Aerostart

I suspect the biggest decision in your day is what to have for breakfast.

Or perhaps under what name you will post on Pirep.

You leave AOPA to AOPA and its members. Quisling is a perfect description of you.

Tunes

You are a treasure. More front than Myers.

Caught out in a great big lie about AOPA but come back giggling and full of snipe like a politician.

Gone are the days when you post on Pirep with any credibility. Priceless.

[Tunes]

ust a beautiful reply from Hannan, full of vitriol, Keep it up you are only destroying your self.

[brianh]

Tunes

Continually repeating a lie does not make it a truth.

You err in feeling superior to readers of Pirep. They are not stupid, and they do not need me to point out that:
1. The market on vitriol was cornered in its entirety by you, Furphie, and the aliases.
2. Every post of your group since I pointed out your outright lie about AOPA and ADS-B has been deliberate misdirection to try and move away from that fact that you falsely maligned a hard working organisation.

Come back when you have some value to add to the thread - which is about ADS-B. Only, do try some honest fact.

[Airborne]

TRY THESE FACTS

Extracts from the AOPA (Australia) response to the JCP.


AOPAA ACCEPTS THE PROPOSAL, AND TIMING, OF SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY FOR NAVIGATION.


Response to Key Change Proposals

“Proposed timing of transition to satellite technology for navigation and surveillance.”
could be acceptable if changes were made.

“Requirements for carriage and use of ADS-B avionics from mid-2012.”
could be acceptable if changes were made.

“Use of funds that would otherwise be spent on navaids and enroute radars to provide cross-industry funding for fitment of ADS-B and GNSS avionics in aircraft with MTOW ≤ 5,700 kg.” would be acceptable if changes were made.

[brianh]

Airhead

Sheer genius you picking that up

"... if changes were made ..." means exactly that.

ADS-B is coming. It's called technology push. It's called inevitable. It's called ICAO push - just like the English Language Testing to which we objected but got bulldozed in by Chaps Against Small Aviation.

But back to your genius. "... if changes were made ..." means it is not acceptable as it was presented.

That's why Tunes told a big fibby when he stated

Quote:

And AOPA Australia continues with its support of the flawed ADSB proposals.

But keep trying to smokescreen his big whoopsy. You might even fool yourself, but sure as Furphie loves an alias you ain't fudging any of the Pirep readers

[Airborne]

Tunes said. 'And AOPA Australia continues with its support of the flawed ADSB proposals'.

AOPA said, 'AOPA accepts the proposal, and timing, of satellite technology for navigation.'

AOPA said, 'ADS-B is coming. It's called technology push. It's called inevitable.'

This is technology push by real airheads supporting the only beneficiary, which is Airservices.

[brianh]

Air Wick

How many times by how many different names do you need to prove stupidity?

Can you point me to how

Quote:

satellite technology for navigation

has anything to do with the ADS-B proposal. It is about GPS.

Surveillance is about ADS-B.

Tunes thus remains a proven fibber about the AOPA position.

However, since you are obviously so expert it would be silly not to avail of your skills.

For the benefit of readers, let us add some environment:
There is an office in CASA called OAR, that seems to not require safety cases to move in the direction pointed by Qantas.
That office wants to remove CTAF R and replace with CTAF - that require mandatory radio and transponder.
ADS-B will come in.
GA in Oz will be DIRECTED to do what the airlines want, particularly for 'safety' in G.
Therefore there is evey chance in G that radio AND ADS-B will become mandated.

So, Airwick - you tell us.
What's your decision?
Tell them to jam all negotiations now and risk everyone paying full price for mandatory ADS-B downstream?
Refuse the current offer and negotiate for something better?
Another option known only to your wise scone?

Don't hold back - we need all the wisdom we can get - this is your chance to demonstrate wise solutions to we lesser mortals.

[Airborne]

You are the expert, do your own demonstrations of wise and mortal solutions. You have failed miserably to date. Does Airservices pay for any of your airfares or accommodation?

'AOPA accepts the proposal, and timing, of satellite technology for navigation.'

'ADS-B is coming. It's called technology push. It's called inevitable.'

Then meld how and what has CTAF (R) nee MBZ or no (R), have to do with ADSB?

You are a spindoctoring prostitute and a slut and a Quisling.