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