View Single Post
  #2  
Old December 31st 07, 08:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 516
Default FAA ADS-B Propaganda Video


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