FAA ADS-B Propaganda Video

[Larry Dighera]

View it here: http://videoontheweb.faa.gov/aviation_industry/ADS-B.asx

Initially, airlines will be exempt from ADS-B mandate (there is no
plan to implement ADS-B for military aircraft, so they will remain
largely invisible); General Aviation will be required to pay for ADS-B
first. There are 219,780 general aviation aircraft (66 percent of
them piston-engine singles). There are 19,382 air carrier aircraft, or
about 11% of the GA fleet. So, although the FAA wants to employ ADS-B
to track airline movements in the air (especially in areas lacking
radar coverage), and more importantly, on the ground, they are
proposing to demand that GA aircraft owners spend thousands of dollars
for ADS-B equipment and installation. Is that reasonable? Why?

So, if the current ADS-B OUT NPRM is enacted, GA will have to install
219,780 ADS-B units, and receive none of the ADS-B IN benefits such as
traffic depiction and weather information. The sole advantage will be
ATC's positional information of GA aircraft in areas lacking radar
coverage, and on the ground. If a private corporation were to attempt
to market a product with such an unfavorable price/performance ratio,
it would fail miserably, but the heavy hand of the Bush administration
knows no bounds.

Additional persuasive FAA NextGen ATC propaganda here:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/reauthorization/


Disclaimer: These are my opinions based on my understanding at this
time. Factual and informative rebuttal is welcome.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

>So, if the current ADS-B OUT NPRM is enacted, GA will have to install
>219,780 ADS-B units, and receive none of the ADS-B IN benefits such as
>traffic depiction and weather information. The sole advantage will be
>ATC's positional information of GA aircraft in areas lacking radar
>coverage, and on the ground.

Actually Larry I discussed coverage with the ADS office and the plan
is to only provide ADS-B coverage where current radar coverage exists.
Thus there may be ZERO improvement in radar/ADS-B coverage.

ADS-B Out is a flawed NPRM, offers zero benefit to me and I an
fighting it. I wonder why AOPA has not come out against this NPRM
like they did the border crossing rule and user fees. This NPRM is
worse than both of those.

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:19:40 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>So, if the current ADS-B OUT NPRM is enacted, GA will have to install
>>219,780 ADS-B units, and receive none of the ADS-B IN benefits such as
>>traffic depiction and weather information. The sole advantage will be
>>ATC's positional information of GA aircraft in areas lacking radar
>>coverage, and on the ground.
>
>Actually Larry I discussed coverage with the ADS office and the plan
>is to only provide ADS-B coverage where current radar coverage exists.

The FAA video mentions the Gulf of Mexico as lacking radar coverage
and slated to benefit from ADS-B. So it looks like the FAA is
contradicting themselves.

>Thus there may be ZERO improvement in radar/ADS-B coverage.
>
>ADS-B Out is a flawed NPRM, offers zero benefit to me and I an
>fighting it.

As envisioned in the NPRM, ADS-B appears to be a "nose under the tent"
for NextGen implementation. There is no question in my mind, that the
NPRM is a result of Boeing (satellite ATC provider) and Airline (quash
the growing GA alternative to air carrier cattle cars) lobbying, as
air carriers are not affected by it, and a large segment of GA will be
priced out of the sky. That said, GA ADS-B may be of some benefit to
ATC ground controllers, but the real issue with runway incursions
concerns air carrier traffic, IMO.

>I wonder why AOPA has not come out against this NPRM
>like they did the border crossing rule and user fees. This NPRM is
>worse than both of those.
>

I suppose AOPA is choosing their battles. There is a great deal of
public outcry about the degradation of air travel these days. If AOPA
were seen as resisting improvement by the public and Congress, their
stature would be diminished. Surely AOPA is fighting the cost imposed
by the NPRM behind the scenes.

If we can manage to stall these sort of NPRMs until Bush and the RNC
are out of office, perhaps reason will prevail once again. If not,
the future is going to be a continuation of RNC Nixon ethos.

Readers can comment on this boondoggle NPRM here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-22544.pdf
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA–
2007–29305 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.

• Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590.

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at 202–493–2251.

• Hand Delivery: Bring comments to
Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

To submit your comments on-line, go here:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/quicksearch/fdmsQuickSearch.jsp
and enter '29305' in the Docket ID box. Click the docket link, and
you will see all the comments. In the right hand Add Comments column
you will see yellow balloons. To add your comment, click the top
balloon. It's in the second row titled FAA-2007-29305-0002.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 22, 10:22*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> >I wonder why AOPA has not come out against this NPRM
> >like they did the border crossing rule and user fees. *This NPRM is
> >worse than both of those.
>
> I suppose AOPA is choosing their battles. *

I think the fact that AOPA is not fighting this is your first clue.
ADS is going to be a tremendous benefit for everyone.
F Baum

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:


> The FAA video mentions the Gulf of Mexico as lacking radar coverage
> and slated to benefit from ADS-B. So it looks like the FAA is
> contradicting themselves.

surprise!

> If we can manage to stall these sort of NPRMs until Bush and the RNC
> are out of office, perhaps reason will prevail once again. If not,
> the future is going to be a continuation of RNC Nixon ethos.

Were you asleep during the 90's? User fees were pushed by the Clinton
regime. Was there any push for making the FAA a PBO before '96?

If you are pinning your hopes on the DNC saving the day wrt to aviation,
you are even more delusional than the troll-the-shall-not-be-named.

bottomline: almost no one inside the beltway at the federal level has
the slightest clue about GA. This is definitely a non-partisan issue in
that neither party has a clue.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"F. Baum" > wrote:

> I think the fact that AOPA is not fighting this is your first clue.
> ADS is going to be a tremendous benefit for everyone.
> F Baum

Only those with the price of admission will benefit and only if the
inherenet flaws are fixed (think verification/validation of the
ADS-B link).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:32:33 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
wrote in
>:

>I think the fact that AOPA is not fighting this is your first clue.
>ADS is going to be a tremendous benefit for everyone.
>F Baum

Are you able to list ANY benefits to GA operators that will occur as a
result of implementation of the current FAA ADS-B OUT NPRM?

Where's the "tremendous Benefit" for GA operators? There won't be any
ADS-B cockpit display of traffic or weather in the GA cockpit under
the NPRM.

The air carriers benefit. The FAA contractors (Boeing, LockMart,
ITT,...) benefit. There might be some benefit for ATC. But as
proposed in the NPRM, it is GA that has to spend a _LOT_ of cash to
make it happen, and I am unable to find any significant benefit for
GA.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 22, 11:10*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> The air carriers benefit. *The FAA contractors (Boeing, LockMart,
> ITT,...) benefit. *There might be some benefit for ATC. *But as
> proposed in the NPRM, it is GA that has to spend a _LOT_ of cash to
> make it happen, and I am unable to find any significant benefit for
> GA.
Lar, your first post said that air carriers are going to be exempt and
now you say they will benefit ? Actually, I would hope the air
carriers benefit because if they benefit, we all benefit. *
FB

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:34:44 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> If we can manage to stall these sort of NPRMs until Bush and the RNC
>> are out of office, perhaps reason will prevail once again. If not,
>> the future is going to be a continuation of RNC Nixon ethos.
>
>Were you asleep during the 90's? User fees were pushed by the Clinton
>regime.

True; Clinton/Gore did envision the FAA as a PBO:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.ifr/msg/ff2832949f09dbc4?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.ifr/msg/5f10e9e69a520d1d?dmode=source

Brilliant Bill ordered ATC to become a PBO:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_regist...
President Bill Clinton:
Executive Order 13180 of December 7, 2000
Air Traffic Performance-Based Organization
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further
improve the provision of air traffic services, an inherently
governmental function, in ways that increase efficiency, take
better advantage of new technologies, accelerate modernization
efforts, and respond more effectively to the needs of the
traveling public, while enhancing the safety, security, and
efficiency of the Nation’s air transportation system, it is hereby
ordered as follows: ...


Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
fees.

To pave the way toward ATC privatization, Bush overturned Clinton's
edict:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/200...
"Bush's executive order amended an executive order signed by
President Bill Clinton on Dec. 7, 2000, in which he
redesigned the air traffic control system to make it
performance-based and otherwise infuse it with efficiencies. Bush
deleted Clinton's four-word description of the controllers' work:
"an inherently governmental function." "

>If you are pinning your hopes on the DNC saving the day wrt to aviation,
>you are even more delusional than the troll-the-shall-not-be-named.
>

Agreed. But at least the DNC, unlike the RNC, lacks the hubris to
burglarize the opposition's election headquarters, or worse:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/charles.html

Charles Colson
Known within the Nixon administration as the "evil genius,"
special counsel Charles W. Colson served seven months in prison in
1974 after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice in the
Watergate-related Daniel Ellsberg case. Colson's more notorious
ideas, according to some reports, included spreading false
information about Ellsberg and firebombing the Brookings
Institution. He was also indicted for his role in the Watergate
cover-up.

In 2000, Florida Governor Jeb Bush restored Colson's civil rights
25 years after his release from prison.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Colson
Charles Colson was the chief counsel for President Richard Nixon
from 1969 to 1973 and was one of the Watergate Seven, jailed for
Watergate-related charges.

Colson was known as President Nixon's hatchet man. Slate magazine
writer David Plotz described Colson as "Richard Nixon's hard man,
the 'evil genius' of an evil administration."[4] Colson has
written that he was "valuable to the President ... because I was
willing ... to be ruthless in getting things done".[5] This is
perhaps complimentary when read in comparison to the descriptions
of Colson which pepper the work of Rolling Stone National Affairs'
Political Correspondent, Hunter S. Thompson during the period.
Colson authored the 1971 memo listing Nixon's major political
opponents, later known as Nixon's Enemies List. A quip that
"Colson would walk over his own grandmother if necessary" mutated
into claims in news stories that Colson had boasted that he would
run over his own grandmother to re-elect Nixon. Plotz reports
that Colson sought to hire Teamsters thugs to beat up anti-war
--> demonstrators.[4] John Dean maintains that Colson proposed
firebombing the Brookings Institution and stealing politically
damaging documents while firefighters put the fire out.

Colson also became involved in the Committee to Re-elect the
President (CRP or CREEP). At a CRP meeting on March 21, 1971, it
was agreed to spend US$250,000 on "intelligence gathering" on the
Democratic Party. Colson and John Ehrlichman appointed E. Howard
Hunt to the White House Special Operations Unit (the so-called
"Plumbers") which had been organized to stop leaks in the Nixon
administration. Hunt headed up the Plumbers' burglary of Pentagon
Papers-leaker Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in September
1971. The Pentagon Papers were military documents about the
Vietnam War which helped increase opposition to the war. Colson
hoped that revelations about Ellsberg could be used to discredit
the anti-Vietnam War left. Colson admitted to leaking information
from Ellsberg's confidential FBI file to the press, but denied
organizing Hunt's burglary of Ellsberg's office.[5] He expressed
regret for attempting to cover up this incident in his 2005 book,
The Good Life.

On March 10, 1973, Colson resigned from the White House to return
to the private practice of law, as Senior Partner at the law firm
of Colson and Shapiro, Washington, D.C.

On March 1, 1974, Colson was indicted for conspiring to cover up
the Watergate burglary.

In 1974, Colson pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the
Ellsberg case. On June 21, 1974, he was given a one-to-three year
sentence, fined $5,000, and disbarred.[3] He served seven months
in Maxwell Correctional Facility in Alabama,[11] and was released
early, on January 31, 1975, by the sentencing judge because of
family problems.

>bottomline: almost no one inside the beltway at the federal level has
>the slightest clue about GA. This is definitely a non-partisan issue in
>that neither party has a clue.

I'll have to agree with you about legislators not having a clue about
GA or the NAS or ATC or ....

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:36:43 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> "F. Baum" > wrote:
>
>> I think the fact that AOPA is not fighting this is your first clue.
>> ADS is going to be a tremendous benefit for everyone.
>> F Baum
>
>Only those with the price of admission will benefit and only if the
>inherenet flaws are fixed (think verification/validation of the
>ADS-B link).

As I understand it, the ADS-B radio data link is satellite based, and
subject to cosmic disruption, as well as spoofing, unlike radar. To
base the ATC system on such vulnerable technology is not reasonable.

Are you aware that the FAA's intent is to decommission most of their
radar once ADS-B is operational? ADS-B relies upon aircraft equipped
GPS receivers; radar relies on the physical reflection of radio waves
bouncing off of tangible objects. Which would you prefer to bet your
life on?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
wrote in
>:

>On Dec 22, 11:10*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> The air carriers benefit. *The FAA contractors (Boeing, LockMart,
>> ITT,...) benefit. *There might be some benefit for ATC. *But as
>> proposed in the NPRM, it is GA that has to spend a _LOT_ of cash to
>> make it happen, and I am unable to find any significant benefit for
>> GA.
>Lar, your first post said that air carriers are going to be exempt and
>now you say they will benefit ?

The airliners are already equipped with Mode S transponders and
certified GPS receivers. The cost of installation of an ADS-B box is
a VERY SMALL percentage of the value of the aircraft, unlike light GA
where the ADS-B installation might comprise 50% of the value of the
aircraft.

>Actually, I would hope the air carriers benefit because if they benefit,
>we all benefit. *

I'm still waiting for you to list the benefits to GA aircraft owners
that the FAA's ADS-B NPRM will provide. If you are unable to list
them, I'll have to conclude that you agree that there are none.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote:

>On Dec 22, 10:22=A0am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> >I wonder why AOPA has not come out against this NPRM
>> >like they did the border crossing rule and user fees. =A0This NPRM is
>> >worse than both of those.
>>
>> I suppose AOPA is choosing their battles. =A0
>
>I think the fact that AOPA is not fighting this is your first clue.
>ADS is going to be a tremendous benefit for everyone.
>F Baum

Have you read the NPRM? I have and see ZERO benefit to me.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote:

>On Dec 22, 10:22=A0am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> >I wonder why AOPA has not come out against this NPRM
>> >like they did the border crossing rule and user fees. =A0This NPRM is
>> >worse than both of those.
>>
>> I suppose AOPA is choosing their battles. =A0
>
>I think the fact that AOPA is not fighting this is your first clue.
>ADS is going to be a tremendous benefit for everyone.
>F Baum

Are you a pilot?

Do you own a GA aircraft?

Have you read the NPRM?

Can you provide reasonable proof where I benefit (GA Pilot and
aircraft owner)?

If you read my treatise on this NPRM I refute the notion that it is a
safety benefit, that the increased accuracy is of any real world value
or that it offers me ANY benefit for the potential huge cost (TBD but
in the $9000 - $17000 range).

http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/ReplytoFAAADS-BOutNPRM.doc

Even the notion that it will benefit airlines is questionable.

Ron Lee

[F. Baum]

On Dec 22, 12:12*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> I'm still waiting for you to list the benefits to GA aircraft owners
> that the FAA's ADS-B NPRM will provide. *If you are unable to list
> them, I'll have to conclude that you agree that there are none.

Yea, you are right. Lets not modernize our airspace. If you take a
look at the NPRM and the FAA material on Next Gen you will see that it
benefits GA much more than the airlines. I dont know who you fly for,
but the airlines already have many of the Next Gen procedures are in
place. I dont mean to be sarcastic Larry, but when you fly an RNAV or
RNP procedure do you long for the good old days of vectors and
holding patterns ? ;)
FB

[F. Baum]

On Dec 22, 2:49*pm, (Ron Lee) wrote:
>>
> Are you a pilot?

Ive slipped them surly bonds a time or two.
>
> Do you own a GA aircraft?

Ive biult three and I currently own two.
>
> Have you read the NPRM?

The parts that didnt make my head hurt.
>
> Can you provide reasonable proof where I benefit (GA Pilot and
> aircraft owner)?

You'll get to keep flying, thats a benefit.
>
> If you read my treatise on this NPRM I refute the notion that it is a
> safety benefit, that the increased accuracy is of any real world value
> or that it offers me ANY benefit for the potential huge cost (TBD but
> in the $9000 - $17000 range).
>
Couldnt pull it up.

>
> Even the notion that it will benefit airlines is questionable.

???????? who do you fly for.
>
> Ron Lee

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote:

>On Dec 22, 12:12=A0pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to list the benefits to GA aircraft owners
>> that the FAA's ADS-B NPRM will provide. =A0If you are unable to list
>> them, I'll have to conclude that you agree that there are none.
>
>Yea, you are right. Lets not modernize our airspace. If you take a
>look at the NPRM and the FAA material on Next Gen you will see that it
>benefits GA much more than the airlines. I dont know who you fly for,
>but the airlines already have many of the Next Gen procedures are in
>place. I dont mean to be sarcastic Larry, but when you fly an RNAV or
>RNP procedure do you long for the good old days of vectors and
>holding patterns ? ;)
>FB

FB, you have not shown the benefit to me...a GA pilot. Have you read
the NPRM?

Are you a GA pilot?

Do you own a GA aircraft?

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote:

>On Dec 22, 12:12=A0pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to list the benefits to GA aircraft owners
>> that the FAA's ADS-B NPRM will provide. =A0If you are unable to list
>> them, I'll have to conclude that you agree that there are none.
>
>Yea, you are right. Lets not modernize our airspace. If you take a
>look at the NPRM and the FAA material on Next Gen you will see that it
>benefits GA much more than the airlines. I dont know who you fly for,
>but the airlines already have many of the Next Gen procedures are in
>place. I dont mean to be sarcastic Larry, but when you fly an RNAV or
>RNP procedure do you long for the good old days of vectors and
>holding patterns ? ;)
>FB

More questions FB.

Do you work for the FAA as a government employee, consultant or
supporting contractor?

Do you work for any company that will benefit from producing equipment
or otherwise providing ADS-B and/or Next Gen services?

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote:
>>
>> Can you provide reasonable proof where I benefit (GA Pilot and
>> aircraft owner)?
>
>You'll get to keep flying, thats a benefit.

Great. We can only keep flying in the greatest aviation country in
the world if we roll over and meekly accept this idiotic NPRM.
Please do not ever get into a policy making position that would impact
me.
>>
>> If you read my treatise on this NPRM I refute the notion that it is a
>> safety benefit, that the increased accuracy is of any real world value
>> or that it offers me ANY benefit for the potential huge cost (TBD but
>> in the $9000 - $17000 range).
>>
>Couldnt pull it up.

Page 56967 of the NPRM: " On the low end, the dollar value may
represent a software upgrade or OEM option change. On the high end,
the dollar value may represent a new installation of upgraded
transponder systems necessary to assure accuracy, reliability and
safety."

I interpreted this to mean that their range of costs of $4,328 to
$17,283 as shown on page 56963. I got the ballpark $9000 from a cost
of a Garmin ADS-B unit


>> Even the notion that it will benefit airlines is questionable.
>
>???????? who do you fly for.

I read the NPRM and their supposed cost benefit documentation. I
don't fly for an airline but I can look at cost-benefit info and make
reasonable interpretations of their validity (in some cases).

Read my submittal on this NPRM and the entire NPRM.

Ron Lee

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Are you aware that the FAA's intent is to decommission most of their
> radar once ADS-B is operational? ADS-B relies upon aircraft equipped
> GPS receivers; radar relies on the physical reflection of radio waves
> bouncing off of tangible objects. Which would you prefer to bet your
> life on?

I'm not passing judgement on the ADS-B question, but relying on radar around
the DC area can get you in trouble (if not killed). Radar plots can be as
much as a mile off actual location, so I'm not convinced it's a superior
alternative to satellite tech (like GPS) despite the occasional solar
interference.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Agreed. But at least the DNC, unlike the RNC, lacks the hubris to
> burglarize the opposition's election headquarters, or worse:

Not a fact in evidence. It just means they haven't been caught. Further, the
only evidence of RNC misbehavior you showed was 30+ years old. Hardly
earth-shaking.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:10:51 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> Are you able to list ANY benefits to GA operators that will occur as a
> result of implementation of the current FAA ADS-B OUT NPRM?

Any aircraft [owners] that choose to install ADS-B-in will benefit from
all the other aircraft having installed ADS-B-out.

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:18:42 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

> the only evidence of RNC misbehavior you showed was 30+ years old. Hardly
>earth-shaking.

That was just to provide an example of the type of ruthless, arrogant
disregard for the rule of law members of the RNC have publicly
displayed in the past.

It's happening right under our noses now. Do you think there is the
slightest possibility, that the "Decider" used the dirty trick of
taking our nation into an unwinnable war in Iraq under false pretences
just so he might be reelected? Why do you think Carl Rove left
office? Gonzales, De Lay, Rumsfeld, Libby, ...; these people
perpetrate the same old RNC dirty Nixon tricks today. Or haven't you
noticed.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:10:51 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > Are you able to list ANY benefits to GA operators that will occur as a
> > result of implementation of the current FAA ADS-B OUT NPRM?
>
> Any aircraft [owners] that choose to install ADS-B-in will benefit from
> all the other aircraft having installed ADS-B-out.

Only in areas where air-to-air threats exist and see-and-avoid wouldn't
work.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:09:58 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> Are you aware that the FAA's intent is to decommission most of their
>> radar once ADS-B is operational? ADS-B relies upon aircraft equipped
>> GPS receivers; radar relies on the physical reflection of radio waves
>> bouncing off of tangible objects. Which would you prefer to bet your
>> life on?
>
>I'm not passing judgement on the ADS-B question, but relying on radar around
>the DC area can get you in trouble (if not killed). Radar plots can be as
>much as a mile off actual location, so I'm not convinced it's a superior
>alternative to satellite tech (like GPS) despite the occasional solar
>interference.

Upon what do you base that allegation? Radar has been good enough to
provide ATC positional information for decades. What has caused it to
suddenly become anathema?

When (not if) satellite communications go down, and the only means ATC
possesses to update aircraft positions on their scopes goes with it,
what will you say then?

Reliance upon less robust technology as the basis of "upgrading" ATC
only benefits those corporations that are in the business of fielding
that technology.

Try to look beyond the double-speak the Bush regime is vomiting, and
think for yourself. The American people will be left holding the bag,
something like draining our nation's treasure through the
non-competitive contracts gifted to Halliburton and Blackwater.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:55:56 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
wrote in
>:

>On Dec 22, 12:12*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to list the benefits to GA aircraft owners
>> that the FAA's ADS-B NPRM will provide. *If you are unable to list
>> them, I'll have to conclude that you agree that there are none.
>
>Yea, you are right.

Thank you for admitting that you are completely unable to provide
evidence of _ANY_ benefits to light GA operators who will be funding
the lion's share of this proposed ADS-B "airspace modernization"
boondoggle.

>Lets not modernize our airspace.

Regardless of how much rhetoric is spewed about how NextGen ATC
modernization will reduce airline delays, or provide better safety,
the fact remains, that there is a _finite_ amount of airspace, so the
system is inherently limited. No modernization scheme can change that
fact. NextGen may enable reducing aircraft separation to some extent,
but it is inevitable that a limit will be reached if airline traffic
continues to burgeon.

>If you take a
>look at the NPRM and the FAA material on Next Gen you will see that it
>benefits GA much more than the airlines.

I've looked at it, and I don't see what you are referring to. Perhaps
you'll be good enough to provide an example or two.

>I dont know who you fly for,
>but the airlines already have many of the Next Gen procedures are in
>place.

Can you be a little more specific? To what "procedures" are you
referring?

>I dont mean to be sarcastic Larry, but when you fly an RNAV or
>RNP procedure do you long for the good old days of vectors and
>holding patterns ? ;)
>FB

Do you believe that ADS-B and NextGen are necessary for those
procedures? I can recall using RNAV in the late '60s; it is not new.
RNP is a result of more accurate technology. It is funded by those
who use it, not those who don't. Incremental modernization like that
is welcome. But to scrap the world's best ATC system in favor of
large-corporation driven pie-in-the-sky marketing promises is foolish
in my opinion.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Bob Noel > wrote:

>> > Are you able to list ANY benefits to GA operators that will occur as a
>> > result of implementation of the current FAA ADS-B OUT NPRM?
>>
>> Any aircraft [owners] that choose to install ADS-B-in will benefit from
>> all the other aircraft having installed ADS-B-out.
>
>Only in areas where air-to-air threats exist and see-and-avoid wouldn't
>work.

Plus the cost to implement ADS-B In to include a suitable screen will
be very expensive IF the FAA projected cost of over $17,000 just for
ADS-B Out is even close to correct.

You will never have the case where all GA aircraft have ADS-B Out
installed.

I have yet to see a credible argment for mandating ADS-B Out for GA
aircraft. It is just emotional "we will all be safer" type comments
that are not justified.

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:20:43 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
> wrote in >:

>On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:10:51 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Are you able to list ANY benefits to GA operators that will occur as a
>> result of implementation of the current FAA ADS-B OUT NPRM?
>
>Any aircraft [owners] that choose to install ADS-B-in will benefit from
>all the other aircraft having installed ADS-B-out.
>

Exactly my point. The NPRM doesn't benefit those to whom it dictates
the expenditure of larges sums of cash; it's for others.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
>> I'm not passing judgement on the ADS-B question, but relying on
>> radar around the DC area can get you in trouble (if not killed).
>> Radar plots can be as much as a mile off actual location, so I'm not
>> convinced it's a superior alternative to satellite tech (like GPS)
>> despite the occasional solar interference.
>
> Upon what do you base that allegation? Radar has been good enough to
> provide ATC positional information for decades. What has caused it to
> suddenly become anathema?

It's a repeat of what local controllers have told us in briefings and
discussions about the DC ADIZ. This is the basis for the advice to keep your
assigned transponder code for at least 3-5 miles when exiting the ADIZ
(since squawking VFR inside the ADIZ is an automatic violation). We have
been told there have been instances where pilots using GPS to identify the
ADIZ boundary and squawking VFR (even after being instructed by ATC) were
violated after "other sources" identified them as being inside the ADIZ.

> When (not if) satellite communications go down, and the only means ATC
> possesses to update aircraft positions on their scopes goes with it,
> what will you say then?

Don't misinterpret my point. I'm merely pointing out that radar is not
infallible and not necessarily more robust.

> Try to look beyond the double-speak the Bush regime is vomiting, and
> think for yourself.

Ah, yes. The inevitable argument of many leftists. Just because I disagree
with one minor point, I'm automatically in lockstep with your hated enemy,
the Bush administration. Grow up, Larry.

> ...something like draining our nation's treasure through the
> non-competitive contracts gifted to Halliburton and Blackwater.

More regurgitated left-wing propaganda. (Talk about vomit...)

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> It's happening right under our noses now. Do you think there is the
> slightest possibility, that the "Decider" used the dirty trick of
> taking our nation into an unwinnable war in Iraq under false pretences
> just so he might be reelected? Why do you think Carl Rove left
> office? Gonzales, De Lay, Rumsfeld, Libby, ...; these people
> perpetrate the same old RNC dirty Nixon tricks today. Or haven't you
> noticed.

The beauty of conspiracy theory is that anything that happens is validation
of the theory.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:49:48 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> Exactly my point. The NPRM doesn't benefit those to whom it dictates
> the expenditure of larges sums of cash; it's for others.

That's approximately correct. Since "others" can include those dictated
to spend that cash, it's not completely correct.

But where's the surprise supposed to be? I rarely need the ATC service
required by the airlines; my taxes pay for it anyway. Even at the
airports I use, think of the waste of my tax money spent on all that
extra runway I don't use (unless I desire several t-n-gs w/o bothering
with the traffic pattern {8^).

There are plenty of other examples, both government and corporate.

In fact, though, I'm not sure you're right at all. If ATC costs drop as
a result of this, then I get to see some savings in my taxes.
Admittedly, the political classes will likely find a new way to spend my
money, but they'd probably do that anyway (so I'm benefiting by having
less taken from me {8^).

Then there's the potential gain in safety in certain places. For
example, there've been a couple of mid-air collisions at my "home"
airport over the not-too-distant years. Most of the traffic pattern is
shadowed from local RADAR by geography.

But if the tower received an ADS-B-out generated "RADAR" display,
controllers might be in a better position to warn even those non-ADS-B-in
aircraft of collision threats.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:56:14 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

> Plus the cost to implement ADS-B In to include a suitable screen will be
> very expensive IF the FAA projected cost of over $17,000 just for ADS-B
> Out is even close to correct.

It's not necessary to have a "screen". Consider those little portable
traffic avoidance do-dads. Might having access to the ADS-B-out data
stream not make them either/both cheaper or more accurate?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:18:42 -0500, John T wrote:

>> Agreed. But at least the DNC, unlike the RNC, lacks the hubris to
>> burglarize the opposition's election headquarters, or worse:
>
> Not a fact in evidence. It just means they haven't been caught.

It reminds me of an old story about dolphins. The evidence that they're
intelligent isn't that they've never attacked a human; it's that they've
never been caught.

Anyway, by your logic the DNC is either less arrogant (to burglarize) or
less foolish (to get caught). I'm not sure it matters which <laugh>.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:08:20 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> these people perpetrate the same old RNC dirty Nixon tricks today.

I don't believe that Nixon ever tried what the Bush campaign did to
McCain in 2000. Who'da'thunk that we'd view Nixon as charmingly naive
already <laugh>?

- Andrew

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:56:14 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> Plus the cost to implement ADS-B In to include a suitable screen will be
>> very expensive IF the FAA projected cost of over $17,000 just for ADS-B
>> Out is even close to correct.
>
>It's not necessary to have a "screen". Consider those little portable
>traffic avoidance do-dads. Might having access to the ADS-B-out data
>stream not make them either/both cheaper or more accurate?
>
> - Andrew

I doubt that there is a viable interface without significant mods.
Plus having a graphical display of position, direction of travel and
speed makes more sense.

Another supposed benefit of ADS-N In is having graphical weather.

You need a suitable screen

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:16:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
> wrote in >:

>I don't believe that Nixon ever tried what the Bush campaign did to
>McCain in 2000.

What was that?

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:39:12 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:


> I doubt that there is a viable interface without significant mods.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. I'm not actually thinking that
the box innards could be modified; I'd expect a new design for most of it
(perhaps all but the UI components).

> Plus
> having a graphical display of position, direction of travel and speed
> makes more sense.

I completely agree. Yet there is a market for these less capable and
less expensive devices. It's apparently a decent trade-off for some.

>
> Another supposed benefit of ADS-N In is having graphical weather.
>
> You need a suitable screen

To get maximum benefit, I agree. But since the "problem" with the screen
is cost, I'm wondering by what paths this could be reduced.

But you've given me another idea. These traffic boxes nowadays plug into
various portables, using the screen of the portables for traffic
display. Other boxes do the same to provide weather.

What about a single ADS-B-in device which plugs into portables that
provides both traffic and weather? Even with the cost of the Garmin 696
(or whatever is around at the time {8^), this would be less expensive
than a certified solution.

- Andrew

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

>What about a single ADS-B-in device which plugs into portables that
>provides both traffic and weather? Even with the cost of the Garmin 696
>(or whatever is around at the time {8^), this would be less expensive
>than a certified solution.

Andrew, I admire your thinking process. The fact remains that the
ADS-B Out NPRM only mandates the OUT potion of the entire ADS-B
possibile functionality.

The fact remains that I as a GA pilot/owner get nothing for a
potential huge cost ($17,000).

The fact remains that even if you make the IN part work with a Garmin
X96 (which I do not have), if the cost is as high as suggested then it
is not worth it to me.

This is a bad proposal by the FAA and needs to be defeated at it
applies to GA.

Of course I have no problem with anyone voluntarily equipping with
anything.

Ron Lee

[Andrew Gideon]

> Andrew, I admire your thinking process. The fact remains that the ADS-B
> Out NPRM only mandates the OUT potion of the entire ADS-B possibile
> functionality.

Right. But this seems reasonable to me, from a network effects
perspective. The population in general gets a benefit when other
aircraft are ADS-B-out-ing. There is zero (or perhaps slight) benefit to
the population in general when other aircraft are ADS-B-in-ing.

So the part being mandated is the part that provides value to the
population in general.

> The fact remains that I as a GA pilot/owner get nothing for a potential
> huge cost ($17,000).

You're still free to pay more for more value.

>
> The fact remains that even if you make the IN part work with a Garmin
> X96 (which I do not have), if the cost is as high as suggested then it
> is not worth it to me.

The same could be said for those excessively long runways or density of
ATC that I'll never use yet which are effectively billed to me.

In fact, the same could be said for mode C requirements on GA.

> This is a bad proposal by the FAA and needs to be defeated at it applies
> to GA.

I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. What if ATC can be made cheaper as a
result of this, for example? Those are my tax dollars that'll be saved
(admittedly to be used elsewhere thanks to our political class {8^).

- Andrew

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

>Right. But this seems reasonable to me, from a network effects
>perspective. The population in general gets a benefit when other
>aircraft are ADS-B-out-ing. There is zero (or perhaps slight) benefit to
>the population in general when other aircraft are ADS-B-in-ing.
>
>So the part being mandated is the part that provides value to the
>population in general.

Negative. Don't expect the general GA pilot to equip with ADS-B In.


>> The fact remains that I as a GA pilot/owner get nothing for a potential
>> huge cost ($17,000).
>
>You're still free to pay more for more value.

You must not own an aircraft. I see ZERO benefit for ADS-B Out and at
the costs likely to get ADS-B In it is not worth it to me. I do not
need it.

>> This is a bad proposal by the FAA and needs to be defeated at it applies
>> to GA.
>
>I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. What if ATC can be made cheaper as a
>result of this, for example? Those are my tax dollars that'll be saved
>(admittedly to be used elsewhere thanks to our political class {8^).

Let's be realistic. The FAA wants to saddle me with a huge cost that
does not give me any benefit and you really think that taxes will be
lowered? Won't happen.

Ron Lee

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:40:22 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

>>Right. But this seems reasonable to me, from a network effects
>>perspective. The population in general gets a benefit when other
>>aircraft are ADS-B-out-ing. There is zero (or perhaps slight) benefit
>>to the population in general when other aircraft are ADS-B-in-ing.
>>
>>So the part being mandated is the part that provides value to the
>>population in general.
>
> Negative. Don't expect the general GA pilot to equip with ADS-B In.

At least some part will, even if with the next generation of those little
portable traffic devices that plug into portable GPSs.

But we still accrue value even if only by reducing the cost, and
increasing coverage, of ATC "RADAR".

>
>>> The fact remains that I as a GA pilot/owner get nothing for a
>>> potential huge cost ($17,000).
>>
>>You're still free to pay more for more value.
>
> You must not own an aircraft. I see ZERO benefit for ADS-B Out and at
> the costs likely to get ADS-B In it is not worth it to me. I do not
> need it.

I'm a 1/45th owner of four aircraft. This also lets me see how I am in
my "spending preferences" as compared to 44 other pilots. I do admit:
I'm typically more willing to spend than most. But traffic appears to be
a fairly high concern amongst our 45 members (though Nall would appear to
indicate it as less of a threat than most seem to perceive).

I do expect we'll do *something* for traffic. There are some members
that want us to get those portable units now, but I'm inclined to wait
since I think that we'll see ADS-B based units sooner rather than later
(and we are in an ADS-B coverage area).

>
>>> This is a bad proposal by the FAA and needs to be defeated at it
>>> applies to GA.
>>
>>I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. What if ATC can be made cheaper as a
>>result of this, for example? Those are my tax dollars that'll be saved
>>(admittedly to be used elsewhere thanks to our political class {8^).
>
> Let's be realistic. The FAA wants to saddle me with a huge cost that
> does not give me any benefit and you really think that taxes will be
> lowered? Won't happen.

As I wrote above, I don't agree that you get *no* benefit. On the other
hand, I don't expect taxes to go down; merely to rise a little slower
than they otherwise would <laugh>.

- Andrew

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>>>So the part being mandated is the part that provides value to the
>>>population in general.
>>
>> Negative. Don't expect the general GA pilot to equip with ADS-B In.
>
>At least some part will, even if with the next generation of those little
>portable traffic devices that plug into portable GPSs.

You still need the up front avionics which at this point are
expensive.

>But we still accrue value even if only by reducing the cost, and
>increasing coverage, of ATC "RADAR".

Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
money.

There is no planned improvement in coverage. I alreday asked that of
the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.

Even then I have the option to fly higher to avoid the cost of ADS-B
Out.

As much as people talk about improvements no one has shown a
substantial and quantifiable improvement for me to justify spending
the money on ADS-B Out avionics.

The only possible benefits are for the FAA and maybe to the airlines
but I doubt even that will happen.

Ron Lee

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:29:01 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

>>>>So the part being mandated is the part that provides value to the
>>>>population in general.
>>>
>>> Negative. Don't expect the general GA pilot to equip with ADS-B In.
>>
>>At least some part will, even if with the next generation of those
>>little portable traffic devices that plug into portable GPSs.
>
> You still need the up front avionics which at this point are expensive.

Which? Are you referring to the mandated ADS-B-out, or the Garmin 796
portable?

Yes, there's a cost. And - if you're referring to the portable - this is
why I'm glad that -out isn't mandated. The vast majority of the value
accrued to the population as a whole comes from the -in installation.

But I don't see portables as being all that expensive. And the price is
dropping. Certainly, it's far lower than the number's you'd been citing
earlier in the thread.

>>But we still accrue value even if only by reducing the cost, and
>>increasing coverage, of ATC "RADAR".
>
> Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
> wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
> money.

That's how taxes and government fees work. But if I'm being forced to
pay K$10 to avoid paying K$15, then I mind less than usual.

> There is no planned improvement in coverage.

This would be difficult to achieve <laugh>.

> I alreday asked that of
> the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
> cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.

I think you spoke to the wrong person. In fact, the term "coverage"
isn't completely applicable anymore. Anywhere an ADS-B-out transmitting
aircraft is, there's aircraft position information.

When my airport has an ADS-B received instead of an actual RADAR-based
device, the tower will see the positional information that is now
unavailable.

Now, what that person to whom you spoke might have meant is that there
will be no new ADS-B-in receivers that aren't replacing (or being added
to) RADAR.

But you've made me curious, and I can follow up. To whom did you speak?

[...]

> As much as people talk about improvements no one has shown a substantial
> and quantifiable improvement for me to justify spending the money on
> ADS-B Out avionics.
>
> The only possible benefits are for the FAA and maybe to the airlines but
> I doubt even that will happen.

I don't see how the airlines will gain, except for what I write next.
But that applies to all taxpayers.

The FAA will save money (at least, supposedly! {8^). But that's a
possible win for us because we pay for the damned thing. I'd not mind
paying less for it.

- Andrew

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>> You still need the up front avionics which at this point are expensive.
>
>Which? Are you referring to the mandated ADS-B-out, or the Garmin 796
>portable?
>
>Yes, there's a cost. And - if you're referring to the portable - this is
>why I'm glad that -out isn't mandated. The vast majority of the value
>accrued to the population as a whole comes from the -in installation.

This NPRM only will mandate ADS-B Out. Please read it.

>But I don't see portables as being all that expensive. And the price is
>dropping. Certainly, it's far lower than the number's you'd been citing
>earlier in the thread.

There is NO guarantee that Garmin x96 will be able to display ADS-B
In info.

>>>But we still accrue value even if only by reducing the cost, and
>>>increasing coverage, of ATC "RADAR".
>>
>> Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
>> wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
>> money.
>
>That's how taxes and government fees work. But if I'm being forced to
>pay K$10 to avoid paying K$15, then I mind less than usual.

You don't know the numbers. Read the NPRM. If the majority of the
supposed benefits go to the airlines...and I question how much of that
is valid, are you still willing to pay $10,000 or more for
questionable savings?


>> There is no planned improvement in coverage.
>
>This would be difficult to achieve <laugh>.
>
>> I alreday asked that of
>> the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
>> cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.
>
>I think you spoke to the wrong person. In fact, the term "coverage"
>isn't completely applicable anymore. Anywhere an ADS-B-out transmitting
>aircraft is, there's aircraft position information.

Only if you have In capability and I meant ATC coverage. That is
relevant to me for flight following.
>
>The FAA will save money (at least, supposedly! {8^). But that's a
>possible win for us because we pay for the damned thing. I'd not mind
>paying less for it.

Andrew...have you read the NPRM and my response to it? If not, you
really need to. Otherwise you are making uninformed statements that
are no better than saying you will vote for candidate C because he has
nicer hair.

Ron Lee

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> > Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
> > wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
> > money.
>
> That's how taxes and government fees work. But if I'm being forced to
> pay K$10 to avoid paying K$15, then I mind less than usual.

Where is the evidence that paying $10,000 for an ADS-B out installation
will save me any money?



>
> > There is no planned improvement in coverage.
>
> This would be difficult to achieve <laugh>.
>
> > I alreday asked that of
> > the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
> > cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.
>
> I think you spoke to the wrong person. In fact, the term "coverage"
> isn't completely applicable anymore. Anywhere an ADS-B-out transmitting
> aircraft is, there's aircraft position information.

Only to aircraft with ADS-B In on the link (UAT or Mode-S)

>
> When my airport has an ADS-B received instead of an actual RADAR-based
> device, the tower will see the positional information that is now
> unavailable.

Why does the tower need it?

Why can't the tower get a remote feed?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Andrew Gideon]

>>> You still need the up front avionics which at this point are
>>> expensive.
>>
>>Which? Are you referring to the mandated ADS-B-out, or the Garmin 796
>>portable?
>>
>>Yes, there's a cost. And - if you're referring to the portable - this
>>is why I'm glad that -out isn't mandated. The vast majority of the
>>value accrued to the population as a whole comes from the -in
>>installation.
>
> This NPRM only will mandate ADS-B Out. Please read it.

Sorry; you're right. No need to be snarky about what is obviously a
simple error considering my postings on this thread.

>
>>But I don't see portables as being all that expensive. And the price is
>>dropping. Certainly, it's far lower than the number's you'd been citing
>>earlier in the thread.
>
> There is NO guarantee that Garmin x96 will be able to display ADS-B In
> info.

True. On the other hand, I expect it'll be there. It may not be in the
Garmin itself (which is pretty feature-light), but more likely as an add-
on like the current portable traffic solutions which plug into the
Garmins (and others).

>>>>But we still accrue value even if only by reducing the cost, and
>>>>increasing coverage, of ATC "RADAR".
>>>
>>> Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
>>> wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
>>> money.
>>
>>That's how taxes and government fees work. But if I'm being forced to
>>pay K$10 to avoid paying K$15, then I mind less than usual.
>
> You don't know the numbers. Read the NPRM. If the majority of the
> supposed benefits go to the airlines...and I question how much of that
> is valid, are you still willing to pay $10,000 or more for questionable
> savings?

You're missing my point. If the government saves money, then my taxes go
down (or, more likely, up more slowly {8^). That's a benefit to me.
This is independent of any benefit to any other population (of which I
may or may not be a member).

[...]

>>> I alreday asked that of
>>> the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
>>> cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.
>>
>>I think you spoke to the wrong person. In fact, the term "coverage"
>>isn't completely applicable anymore. Anywhere an ADS-B-out transmitting
>>aircraft is, there's aircraft position information.
>
> Only if you have In capability and I meant ATC coverage. That is
> relevant to me for flight following.

It's relevant to me too, both for VFR FF and IFR.

>>
>>The FAA will save money (at least, supposedly! {8^). But that's a
>>possible win for us because we pay for the damned thing. I'd not mind
>>paying less for it.
>
> Andrew...have you read the NPRM and my response to it? If not, you
> really need to. Otherwise you are making uninformed statements that are
> no better than saying you will vote for candidate C because he has nicer
> hair.

I've read the NPRM (although admittedly back before this thread first
started {8^), but not your response. Did you make any points that you've
not made here?

But if you think I'm making statements about nice hair, feel free to
point them out. I see your point about the mandate, but I don't agree
that there's zero value accrued to GA pilots for the mandate. More, I'm
actually *pleased* that the mandate is -out only, in that this forces on
owners only that part of the cost that's necessary to accrue the full ADS-
B benefit. Mandating the -in would have increased the cost for benefit
largely accrued only by the owner or pilot. That should be left to the
owner/pilot to decide.

Perhaps an analogy would help? I view this as similar to the mode C
requirement. Had they mandated -in as well, it would be similar to
requiring not just mode C but also some form of TCAS/TCAD/etc.

I hope that this makes my perspective more clear.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:24:57 -0500, Bob Noel wrote:

>
>
>> When my airport has an ADS-B received instead of an actual RADAR-based
>> device, the tower will see the positional information that is now
>> unavailable.
>
> Why does the tower need it?
>
> Why can't the tower get a remote feed?

That's exactly what my "home" airport's tower has now. For geographic
reasons, though, this doesn't go down to TPA.

As for why the tower needs it...well, it doesn't "need" it. The airport
doesn't really "need" a tower. And I could argue that the fact that the
presence of the tower can adversely impact the traffic situation (ie.
could have contributed to the MACs in the area over the past few years),
in that I know at least some PPLs that defer to the tower for separation
despite regulation, history, and technology.

However, having a view of traffic better than eyeballs from the tower can
contribute to safety.

This idea of pilots deferring is "funny" (in a dark sort of fashion). I
know several pilots that have complained about the "barely controlled"
nature of the traffic here, having spent years flying out of a far more
tightly controlled and busy (albeit also class D) airport. Whine whine
whine <laugh>.

Yet these same pilots have no problem at nearby untowered fields that are
almost as busy. It's kind of weird.

- Andrew