Why are people ignoring the ADS-B Out NPRM?

It's a chicken and egg argument today. The system isn't up and running
yet except for the east coast. Now that the contract is let and the
specs are known or mostly known the various manufacturers will be
getting to work. How many times do you have to see this happen before
you believe it? Starting with about OSH 09 all this stuff will be all
the rage.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:27:17 -0700, Newps wrote:


More likely a much smaller cost.


That's the second time you suggested that ADS-B equipage will be less
than stated, but failed to provide any credible argument to support
your polyandrist prediction.

WHY do you think it will be cheaper? Is there anything tangible that
leads you to that conclusion, or are you prescient, or what?

On Dec 12, 11:38 am, Newps wrote:
It's a chicken and egg argument today. The system isn't up and running
yet except for the east coast.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...s_offices/ato/
service_units/enroute/surveillance_broadcast/coverage/

Newps wrote:
Ron Lee wrote:


The current Garmin unit is in the $8000-9000 range installed and may
or may not meet the requirements of the NPRM. The FAA projected cost
is around $17,000.


When transponders were first mandated the ones then on the market were
over $10,000, which is like $25-30K today.

But how much were they when they were required in what is now A, B and C
airsapce?

"nobody" wrote:
I expect to be priced out of flying long before this happens.

Airport closings
Fuel Tax
Sales Tax
Excise Tax
Landing Fees
Fuel Transfer Fees
Parking Fees
Security Fees
Passenger Fees

Skyrocketing insurance
Unobtainable parts (carb floats)

Did I miss anything?

Use Tax
Rising maintenance costs
Hangar/tie-down costs
Increases in various FAA fees:
Registering an aircraft
Replacing an aircraft registration
Airman certificate
Replacement airman certificate
Issuance of airman medical certificate (in addition to examiner's fee)

I'm sure I missed some stuff too.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:27:17 -0700, Newps wrote:


More likely a much smaller cost.


That's the second time you suggested that ADS-B equipage will be less
than stated, but failed to provide any credible argument to support
your polyandrist prediction.

WHY do you think it will be cheaper? Is there anything tangible that
leads you to that conclusion, or are you prescient, or what?


On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:38:37 -0700, Newps wrote:

It's a chicken and egg argument today. The system isn't up and running
yet except for the east coast. Now that the contract is let and the
specs are known or mostly known the various manufacturers will be
getting to work. How many times do you have to see this happen before
you believe it? Starting with about OSH 09 all this stuff will be all
the rage.


So you're implying that once the initial purchasers of the hardware
have paid for the engineering development costs, marketplace
competition and economy of scale will result in falling equipment
prices?

Even if that were to occur, it won'd do anything to reduce the cost of
the labor to install the mandatory equipment.

Have you any idea of the period of time (from the issuance of the
regulation to the commencement of issuance of administrative action
violations) that will be allotted for mandatory compliance with the
regulation promulgated by the NPRM?

If that time period is not too long, why wouldn't it behove
manufacturers to maintain inflated equipment prices, secure in the
knowledge that buyers have no choice but to purchase and install
before the deadline?

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:10:14 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

Then the pilot would received useful information.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but there's nothing in the NPRM that
prevents ADS-B-in, right? So an owner can choose to pay more than the
minimum, get -in, and receive that benefit.

But the mandate of -out is required to achieve the full benefit of the -
in. And that's something of an economic annoyance: Anyone doing the
minimum investment is paying that investment for the benefit of others.

On the other hand, would we want to mandate that higher cost for both -in
and -out?

- Andrew

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:41:53 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

If that time period is not too long, why wouldn't it behove
manufacturers to maintain inflated equipment prices, secure in the
knowledge that buyers have no choice but to purchase and install before
the deadline?

That requires either monopoly or collusion. Otherwise, the vendors will
each undercut each other until the prices can't move any further.

Of course, that's in the ideal world. We do live there, right?

- Andrew

On Dec 12, 1:59 pm, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:41:53 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
If that time period is not too long, why wouldn't it behove
manufacturers to maintain inflated equipment prices, secure in the
knowledge that buyers have no choice but to purchase and install before
the deadline?

That requires either monopoly or collusion. Otherwise, the vendors will
each undercut each other until the prices can't move any further.

Of course, that's in the ideal world. We do live there, right?

Actually the ideal world would be for the FAA to allow the equipment
makers to self-certify that their equipment meets the TSO specs if it
passed a simple standardized pass/fail operational test to be allowed
to be installed as a minor alteration to any general aviation aircraft
flown under Part 91 and participate in the ADS-B network. Then
equipment makers like Dynon, TruTrak, Blue Mountain and a host of
others who today only make computerized avionics for experimentals
could make low-cost ADS-B equipment for the whole GA fleet.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:56:17 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:10:14 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

Then the pilot would received useful information.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but there's nothing in the NPRM that
prevents ADS-B-in, right?

I can't confirm nor deny that.

So an owner can choose to pay more than the
minimum, get -in, and receive that benefit.

I understand what you're getting at, but your conclusion rests on the
necessity of the FAA implementing ADS-B IN. I haven't seen any
authoritative information that indicates that is actually going to
occur, have you?

But the mandate of -out is required to achieve the full benefit of the -
in.

Agreed. But the FULL BENEFIT of IN won't occur until the military is
included in the ADS-B picture. And it's completely unclear how the
NPRM will afford light GA operators any benefit at all for their
multi-thousand dollar mandatory investment and reduction in useful
load. That doesn't seem very equitable and balanced to me.

And that's something of an economic annoyance: Anyone doing the
minimum investment is paying that investment for the benefit of others.

Then perhaps it would be more equitable if the "others" funded it.

On the other hand, would we want to mandate that higher cost for both -in
and -out?

Until I become aware that the FAA intends to fund implementation of
ADS-B IN in the reasonably near future, I'd say that question is moot.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:59:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:41:53 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

If that time period is not too long, why wouldn't it behove
manufacturers to maintain inflated equipment prices, secure in the
knowledge that buyers have no choice but to purchase and install before
the deadline?

That requires either monopoly or collusion.

You say that like it's an unreasonable possibility. :-(

Otherwise, the vendors will
each undercut each other until the prices can't move any further.

If the market is hot, and ADS-B equipment manufacturers are unable to
meet order demands, there won't be any reduction in pricing, IMO.
Given the aircraft operators' limited temporal window for compliance,
I can see prices remaining high until the deadline date passes.