PIREP - A DISCUSSION & NEWS FORUM FOR PILOTS.

[brianh]

You silly drut; gave yourself away completely.

If you don't know what the CTAF R, nee MTAF actually, has to do with ADS-B then you know diddley squat.

Your tone and use of language is as distasteful as I found the post of your parent Furphie about his Anzac day antics.

You have nothing to offer this debate; go back to your gardening.

[markjones]

airbourne, get a life mate!

What disguise were you masquerading as when this argument was raging a couple of years ago. Acceptable with changes means UNACCEPTABLE WITH NO CHANGES!

At any time the CASA can madate and you or the owner of the aircraft you fly will have to pay a motza to comply. It matters not to me. My purchase will have all the basics required short of the correct transponder suitable for a GA aircraft. I could always put the Garmin in but I would like to see if MicroAir can make good on their prototype. I care not if owners of old PA22s are even allowed within cooee of an aerodrome. I'm right jack! you can suit yourselves.....However, if there is a concerted effort to unify and make a hard stand to include fitment for ALL GA by a reasonable subsidy, then join the team!

I care not for arguments of resisting at any cost, it will happen! The FAA has been told to negotiate with its stake holders, nothing more. Their idea of UAT would be horrendously expensive if the FAA has to pay for the entire rollout over the entire 48. Glad we aren't getting that here.

QANTAS and its baby are very good at getting their own way regardless of safety issues. Look at the tower argument for AV and ops into aerodromes AFTER the tower has closed. If it wasn't for Brian, QANTAS would have had a lot more airspace tied up to the north of ML. What that would have meant to GA is flying low very, very close to the ranges for a lot more miles than currently neccessary.

Do not hear you saying thanks mate for that,do we?
_________________
Aviate Navigate Communicate Participate

[markjones]

Have you actually read the entire article, Tony?

Quote:

The NPRM, for which public comment closed on March 3, drew more than 300 comments from a wide spectrum of interests, from general aviation to the airlines, and from outside organizations such as Eurocontrol and the International Air Transport Association. Essentially, the planned implementation would require ADS-B installations in all aircraft operating in U.S. airspace. However, the mandated equipment would provide only the ADS-B out service, where onboard avionics would transmit signals used primarily by ATC but would not provide pilots with information about other traffic around them. That would remain the function of ADS-B in equipment, a much higher-priced addition that was not mandated.

GA just got walloped over who will pay for UAT.

Quote:

In addition to the absence of user operational benefits, the NPRM also introduced a number of technical requirements that many respondents felt were unnecessary and costly. For example, operators were required to have WAAS capability to achieve a high level of positional accuracy. It turned out that the level of accuracy required was needed primarily for low-visibility airport surface operations, an activity in which relatively few operators engage. For virtually all other operations, WAAS would not be necessary.

This equates with the Burnett trials in Australia using TSO129 gear.

Quote:

What’s more, had the FAA first asked Boeing or Airbus–whose aircraft dominate the airline industry–it would have quickly learned that neither has installed, or intends to install, WAAS in its airplanes, and neither does the DOD, with all three opting for coupled GPS/IRS systems. In this regard, the NPRM’s mandate is contrary to the FAA’s much vaunted “performance-based” philosophy, which proposes that an operator invest in the capabilities it believes are necessary to meet its airspace access needs, and no more.

If you do not understand this then I suggest you talk to Leadsled! RPT already have a solution using ES that is already working on upper airspace ADS-B right now!

Quote:

Private pilots were equally aggrieved. “The NPRM is simply unacceptable to our members,” AOPA chief of staff for government affairs Randy Kenagy told AIN. “Not only are its benefits extremely difficult to find, but the compliance costs could be very high. It is certainly not consistent with our vision for ADS-B, which we have held since 1990.”

All alomg they thought they were getting this through UAT.

And the kicker-

Quote:

Some blame the agency’s changing horses in midstream, referring to the fact that in 2005 the ADS-B program was moved out of the FAA’s Safe Flight 21 Office, which had run the program since 1999, and placed with the agency’s Surveillance and Broadcast Services group, whose personnel were more familiar with radar traffic control and appeared to many to view the project from a controller’s–rather than a pilot’s–perspective.

Quote:

Long-time FAA staffers believe that the transfer of responsibility effectively jettisoned the past experience resident in the SF21 group, and the industry partnerships it had developed, forcing the surveillance personnel into a steep learning curve. (The FAA in April singled out SF21 leader Paul Fontaine for special mention from the large group of companies and individuals of the ADS-B Team who were jointly awarded the 2007 Collier Trophy.)

Changes the tone of the post , doesn't it.

FAA tried to change the goalposts mid term and got caught out. This comes down to the argument I have being making for nearly a decade. If AirServices wants ADS-B OUT then as the prime beneficiary of the system, they should pay for it. Someone has to pay for the US FAAs UAT and I think the US AOPA now have a battle on their hands to prove the safety case for ADS-B IN.
_________________
Aviate Navigate Communicate Participate

[Tunes]

Msark, Yup read it all, I love cut and paste men, they remind me of Hannan, mindless prosthlesising cr*pologists.

The fact remains in its current form ADSB is a dead duck and this is as I called it 12 months ago, all the rhetoric in the world wont change that!!

Hannan is now captive to those who pay his airfares, what ho probity, Geez now AOPA is captive to CASA and Airservices.

Lobbying body, spare me, Cheer squad more likely.

[Airborne]

markjones, your point is?

Airspace North of Melbourne doesn't worry me any because I don't use it. Why should I thank Brian for that? I fly gliders also, how should I add him to my Christmas list of achievers?

The original puppy sold was ADSB in the flight levels and terminal areas. It was AOPA genius that self evaluated and promoted the concept below 10,000' It was Airservices spin that planted the seed of subsidised fitment then it went corporatised pear shaped.

Acceptable with change means a compromise that won't benefit anyone but Airservices.

Both you and Hannabal the Cannibal know this yet you still persist with the same mantra of 'get used to it, it's happening' like ASIC and the rest of the idiot money making practices shoved down our necks with your consorting.

Another 'pansy' resting on it's laurels.

[markjones]

Wrong there my Boy, I suggest you contact a Mr Dunstone and ask him about ADS-B in all its formats. Everything that has ever come out from ASTRA has two versions of ADS-B the upper airspace model which is being run out as we speak and the lower level run out which IS a requirment before en-route SSR units can be decommissioned. There was a number of models presented. Haven't got the NPRM in front of me but I think there was four separate characteristics. None of them originated from AOPA.

Cut and paste was only to show the other bits more pertinant. I normally prefer to paste the whole article so everyone can read it if it so important. You guys chose not to so you got some of yours back.

It comes down to one question. If available, would you fit it to your aircraft? (Now what I do not want AirServices to know is.)..IN A HEARTBEAT! As soon as the standard is set I WILL be putting the unit in my purchase. Even if you cannot see the benefits, I can!

It is I who fails to see the comparison with what is happening within the US and what is happening here.
_________________
Aviate Navigate Communicate Participate

[markjones]

As for ASIC, my name is in the book arguing against it!
_________________
Aviate Navigate Communicate Participate

[brianh]

Mark

Thanks for the kind words; information traded with the alias Stillborn is exactly that.

Tunes

Took you less than a day to prove yourself the problem

Quote:

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

Yes you are, Tunes. I'm certain the other Warbirds directors would agree.

[brianh]

Mark

Back on topic; you may find this of interest.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1698/Main%20Consultation%20Document.pdf

Look at
- the increase in CTA in the UK. About 75% in less than 10 years.
- the 'need for RPT safety outside CTA' philosophy.
- the likely need for GA to fit Mode S to access Class A-E.
- the corridors / safety boxes likely for Class G.

Summed up in the Options
The following four options are proposed for consideration and feedback:
• Option 1: Mandate the carriage and operation of Mode S transponders on all aircraft operating within controlled airspace of classification A to E;
• Option 2: Implement a formal process to support applications for ‘Transponder Mandatory Zones’ (TMZs) outside of controlled airspace;
• Option 3: Include gliders in the SSR transponder carriage regulations;
• Option 4: Mandate the carriage and operation of Mode S transponders on all powered aircraft conducting international flights.

Mode S suits the UK because they don't have the large areas so can get radar coverage. In a country where by the time you accelerate to 100 mph you drive off the other end that's not hard.

For Australia, as we know, the emphasis is on ADS-B because of the size.

But, we may not have to worry. Furphie, by any alias, and Toneless are putting on their King Canute suits at this very moment and will hold back the tide of regulated surveillance

[Tunes]

Hannan, God your cute, we will see what Warbirds have to say at the next board meeting, AOPA members in deliberate low fly by's in a L39 in front of CASA at Narromine. Yes a really responsible lot the AOPA directors.

[brianh]

Tunes

News to me. I thought it was the REX flight that did the low pass.

But I guess AOPA does not pay members to fly, so that's a personal issue.

However, AOPA directors don't go around bagging other GA organisations like you do so they are still a long way above ankles.

Again you prove my point about you doing as you say, not as you do - remember

Quote:

full of vitriol, Keep it up you are only destroying your self

The topic is ADS-B, your red herring is not cute - just the usual slagging.

[markjones]

Deliberate Does that mean co-ordinated by announcing intentions on UNICOM? Arranging separation by radio? Gosh what a novel idea, I hope those CASA boffins took note of that. Imagine radio getting used for that...think of the safety benefits.

So, Tony, you want one of your own to drag mud and create a lot of bad blood just so you can chop your nose off to spite your face?

Tony, do you really want to alienate Warbirds from ANOTHER group?

OK, I am out of here! This thread has all the hallmarks of descending into a gutter fight. I will keep checking to see if there is an educated argument on how to use whats happening in the US and UK to the benefit of ALL GA in Australia...toodles
_________________
Aviate Navigate Communicate Participate

[Bob Murphie]

I remember an AOPA Director being the subject of a complaint that was not offered due process and rule of law in their constitution for swearing in public. The poor bugga was not given due notice to prepare a defence in writing before it was even tabled.

Bit of a sook from memory, he just copped it despite something about Article 58 or thereabouts and some damned code of conduct. Paragraph 8 from memory.

Don't know how this director will get on. Probably knees broken and cast off a cliff. Perhaps he will self imolate or fall on his sword. Or maybe Tammany Hall and CASA needs him and will absolve him of his sins.

You blokes are priceless.

Mark, you are on a hiding to nowhere with support of this action. If I announce I am going to rob a bank beforehand, does this make it legal?

[brianh]

Furphie

I hope someone can make sense of your post - I cannot.

Tell us how you and Tunes are going to hold back technology push mandated by CASA.

Tell us how YOU would campaign.

Pretend for a moment you are that poster Airwick and answer the couple of questions I asked him yesterday - we need all the wise guidance we can get.

It's not AOPA robbing the bank - it's the regulator. And they have the power to make it legal. ADS-B in our time Bob - subsidised or owners pay the lot? You tell us.

Oh, whoops, I just answered my question. Owners cannot take money from Airservices can they or it makes them beholden by your logic. For the purpose of this exercise, let's pretend that moral problem does not exist.

You have given us all the problems Bob, and shot everyone involved full of holes, now let's have some solutions (hint, read the UK paper first).

[Tunes]

Gosh I thought that Ar Services was going to subsidise the "mandated" fitment of the magic box to G/A aircraft.

So now I seem to be told that CASA are taking over the running and we are going to have technology rammed down our throat.

I don't think so.

And Mr Jones a beat up is illegal no matter who you talk to, exceeding 250 knots below 10,000 ft is illegal even if you talk to yourself.

I didn't do the beat up so I doubt that my actions will be questioned, the person who did it is aware of the possibe ramifications so I am told.