PIREP - A DISCUSSION & NEWS FORUM FOR PILOTS.

[brianh]

Tunes

If you want absolution, don't come to me. Either head for the confessional or make your peace with your fellow AWAL directors.

You and Furphie happily slagged a dead man - like BJ a dead man does not bite. But AWAL may be a different matter.

The only thing I'm full of is - I'm full up with your crews nasty arrogant back biting slagging distasteful off topic comments. For a while you actually contributed to some rational debate on Pirep but, like BJ, the animal instinct resurfaced and recent months have just seen you crew destroy thread after thread.

Make your peace with AWAL, it has a hard enough task in self administration without internal nastiness and bad PR created by you.

[Airborne]

The following was posted by one AOPA Vice President on this forum Tue March 20 2007 at 8.09 pm under a thread started by him titled SOME ADVICE.

"Dear Tunes and Bob

Over the years, on various fora, you pair and your semi silent mate, have offered advice on why various persons, usually me, were not eligible to be on the Board of AOPA.

So, since you are obviously self styled experts, how about you (and the Walrus) give me a tiny bit of advice.

Is a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence a fit and proper person to be on the Board???

A simple yes or no will suffice."

Is this a nasty arrogant back biting slagging distasteful off topic comment thinly directed at someone he simply hated as a fellow board member? I may add this was posted while the presumption of innocence was expected of the accused's peers.

The answer to his vexatious question is 'NO' but in the interim common decency would dictate he stand aside until the matter is resolved.

Some with a modicum of ethic behaviour would simply resign. But then again you mob reckon ethics is a place in England.

[brianh]

Airozone

You keep giving yourself away.

Yet, I think it was you who mentioned earlier today criminal matters and a stand down - pointed at a particular AWAL person.

The query you note - not mine I add - merely asked for an opinion on exactly what you trolled earlier - viz. "Is a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence a fit and proper person to be on the Board???"

If that is of interest to you, answer the query.

You seem to know a lot about the AOPA Board and history as you bob up.

But what we have today is a determined slag by Tunes of a fellow AWAL director to whom you have pointed the finger.

You are going to a lot of effort to try and get Tunes off the hook on which he impaled himself.

Would be a lot easier for you crew to drop your cowardly aliases, cut the slagging, and post constructively.

By the way, was it not you earlier today who stated the need to get back onto ADS-B?

[Tunes]

Tunes "Impaled" I don't think so mate, wait and see, all will be revealed in the fullness of time.

I'm not the one who broke the law, the person who did is the one who should be concerned.

Hiding the truth is like farting in the bath, you can only hide for so long, ultimtely the truth will come out.

[Airborne]

brianh. The only criminal matter that should be examined is your mental capacity to hold office on the board of a public company. You will be held accountable for your miserable performances.

To get this thread back on track, tell me how RAAF support of ADSB will interface with IFF and SAM's. How many aircraft are in the RAAF fleet and how will their purchase of such devices render the manufacturer likely to lower the price that is affordable for PVT GA, who I believe you are prone to represent.

[brianh]

Tunes

Yes, the truth will out.

Let's examine one truth on this thread - not that I think the AWAL readers will have missed it

1. Snarek pings you for your slagging of AWAL,
2. You run silent then bob up nice and neat again,
3. Airborne instead takes over the slagging.

What strange coincidence - but I don't feel it has been missed by readers nor that anyone would suggest you are not equally responsible as a part of the crew of which Airborne is a cowardly liar and alias.

The truth will out, Tunes - you have brought disrespect to the organisation of which you are a director.

Airhead

Your last post confirms the grog had kicked in as usual. Best not post after beer o'clock?

I was happy to dag you along yesterday; today I have some productive matters to pursue.

Good call the new thread - another nail in Tunes coffin - guilt by association with the dog he keeps

[markjones]

OK, I'll just consult the JCP for you, Airbourne.

Quote:

The four Australian Government aviation bodies are considering the transition of Australia’s aviation industry to satellite navigation and surveillance in order to overcome the limitations of the aging technology currently in use. This goal is consistent with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept.

The reason why-

Quote:

It is proposed that the major elements of transition would be completed in the 2012/14 timeframe, enabling the industry to benefit from the savings that will result from not having to replace a considerable percentage of existing surveillance and navigation facilities that by then will have reached their end of life. This includes the 11 enroute radars and a large number of the Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) and VHF Omni-directional Radio Range (VOR) navaids. To succeed, the proposal needs to be implemented before these legacy systems reach a point beyond which they can no longer be reliably maintained.

What Defence thinks about it-

Quote:

The widespread deployment of ADS-B in Australia will provide a tangible benefit to Australia’s security and border protection operations. This will be achieved by assisting Defence and other authorities to rapidly identify and differentiate cooperative aircraft conducting legitimate operations from non-cooperative aircraft detected via traditional microwave radar and other means. Australian authorities including Defence will then be able to optimise efforts to detect and track suspect aircraft as a precursor to preventing illegal and/or terrorist activities.

The carrot-

Quote:

The 2012/14 timing will enable infrastructure replacement savings to be used to assist the transition of light aircraft to use of these technologies via a cross-industry fundingarrangement for the supply and fitment of ADS-B avionics. Should the proposal not be adopted or be delayed, it will be necessary to begin replacing existing groundbased systems at their end of life. It is likely that this would reduce the funding available to assist light aircraft to transition, and erode the operational and commercial benefits offered by transition to satellite technology.

Defence Aircraft-

Quote:

While some Defence aircraft are already ADS-B equipped, the current Defence Capability Plan project allocations and ten year investment cycle effectively ensure that the majority of the aircraft in the Defence fleet that will require ADS-B fitment to ensure interoperability with the civilian fleet will not be equipped until 2018. For Defence, avionics equipment of new, yet to be delivered, platforms are not easily varied until in service. Defence also has an extensive capability and fleet changeover planned during 2010 to 2018, and seeks to avoid carrying out nugatory implementation work during this period. Future aircraft acquisitions are expected to incorporate ADS-B capabilities. In support of this timeframe, Airservices proposes to maintain the Macedon and Swampy Ridge enroute radars to assist Defence transition, as described in Section 9.2. Defence aircraft will be managed using the extensive radar coverage provided by the Terminal Area Radars, as well as military ATC radars. In the very rare cases where Defence aircraft will operate in airspace without radar coverage (after 2014, where there had previously been enroute radar coverage), procedural ATC techniques will be used. Defence fleet operations represent approximately 2.1% of total annual operations managed by Airservices. The relatively low occurrence and national interests of these operations mean that there are advantages to the Defence fleet transitioning to ADS-B carriage on a slightly longer timeframe that best suits their planning cycles, without significant disruption to civil or military aircraft aviation operations. It is expected that access to airspace for legacy aircraft (including Defence aircraft) will be little changed from what it is today, and the services provided by ATC will be similar to those presently available. This is not to say that these aircraft will be able to avail themselves of the benefits available to ADS-B aircraft. For example, ADS-B aircraft over outback Western Australia will be able to be separated by as little as 5 NM, while non ADS-B legacy aircraft will be constrained to services based on today’s procedural separation standards of up to 10 minutes (80 NM) depending on aircraft equipage. Even so, in many situations unequipped aircraft are likely to obtain ‘trickle-down’ benefits – if the bulk of the traffic is ADS-B equipped and able to be managed with reduced separations, the effect can be to increase the airspace and flexibility available to legacy aircraft, compared to today’s situation where all aircraft in that airspace are managed procedurally. When it is determined that the benefits of ADS-B equipage for Defence are sufficient to justify equipping their older aircraft, the business case for equipage will need to be managed on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis.

Sorry for the long paste job. It is all there warts and all!

Now, Airbourne, please explain how you can draw a bow from ADS-B to IFF and SAM. Last time I looked friendly SAM have IFF features already in place that prevent friendly fire.(..sorry about the Tornado incident, guys.) IFF is a fire control system.

There is NO interface between the CIVILIAN ADS-B and the MILITARY fire control system.
_________________
Aviate Navigate Communicate Participate

[markjones]

This is a complete re-hash of the arguments prior to the submission date of the JCP in October07. Some people have forgotten their positions and history of the argument so resembles my puppy chasing its tail.

Some people will try and get the high ground to throw mud. But what will it all mean. NOTHING! There will be a technology change starting in 2012. Information on the use of that technology is currently being gathered from the UAP. In the 7 year time frame there will be little unknown about how the system works using 1090ES. Unique identifiers, Availability of affordable avionics, whether or not there really IS a spoofing capability (Still waiting on that demonstration, Dick MAKE ME A BELIEVER!), Big Brother is watching and standing by the till, have I missed any pet arguments against? All these are just petty diversionary arguments. The REAL game is the roll-out and what owners are going to get slugged to equip their aircraft to remain within airspace that they already use.

Using the argument of what is happening in the US is a joke. The FAA bean-counters want "User Pays" I reckon they wanted user pays in BEFORE ADS-B is rolled out. They have commited themselves to roll out a subscription free, GA only, system and an unimagionable cost. GEE they really are nice people in the FAA to do that for people who pay very little now (Their argument, fuel levies kick in quite a bit of lolly to support the system..now there is a good idea.. fuel levies to pay for infrastructure. Why don't we have that here. OH silly me , we did but some bright spark helped the government get rid of it. AND WHERE HAS THE INDUSTRY SERVICE LEVEL GONE SINCE THEN!.) UAT will be the millstone around the head of GA in the US. Prime candidate for privatisation and subscription charges. Time will tell.

Anyway, I have far more important things to do today. PowerPoint for AAFCcadets, The joys of being a dad of cadets. You get to "Volunteer" to do lots of things like instruct in the intricacies of Survival and Fieldcraft. I absolutely love it!

Over to you, Airbourne. Be warned your arguments are just a re-hash. I want to hear something new. I want to be challenged!
_________________
Aviate Navigate Communicate Participate

[brianh]

Mark

I'm about to run; some productive issues to pursue also.

I think there is some relevance between us and the US because of the possible non-commonality of equipment. That comes back to the rather unique Oz subsidy proposals, as the balancing act to be decided.

I hope to know more about the 'post JCP' position after the CB visit on 28 May.

But I doubt you will hear anything new on here as you hope. Changing the posters alias does not change the posters knowledge or attitude.

[Airborne]

markjones. Thanks for getting this back on thread. I am getting weary of the topic as it has, as you say been rehashed time and time again. I am prepared to wait for what will be.

Feel free to correct me but my opinion was that IFF (identify friend or foe) was a transponder type device which during hostilities is always turned ON. If the txp does not interrogate a friend return it then acts as part of the fire control system for air to air contact. Similarly with ground to air the IFF is linked to the fire control system like the HMS Sheffield and the Exocet only something went wrong there. If there is the ability to turn off ADSB any incoming hostile would simply paint on primary radar and the IFF would deal with it.

In terms of non hostile situations RAAF ADSB would simply be a surveillence tool for people going about their normal business. This and the rest of the 'benefits' have been done to death and I suggest that the size of our air force would not make any appreciable impact upon bring the costs down to make it affordable for GA.

I believe cost is the primary factor in this concept and as you mention also done to death is the 'cost benefit analysis'.

[markjones]

Hey Brian, Murphy thinks you're someone else on that thread on that other site.

Have you gone back to work for the Guvmint?
_________________
Aviate Navigate Communicate Participate

[brianh]

G'day Mark

We have seen in the past the depth and logic of Bob's thinking - no Gumint work for this retiree, unlike Bob I'm hard at work for GA.

[markjones]

while we are discussing, anything juicey out of the June ABIT meeting?
_________________
Aviate Navigate Communicate Participate

[brianh]

Mark

Check PMs.