FAA ADS-B Propaganda Video

View it he http://videoontheweb.faa.gov/aviatio...stry/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 he
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...authorization/


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

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

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 he

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 he
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...uickSearch.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.

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

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!!!)

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!!!)

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.

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

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.a...4?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d?dmode=source

Brilliant Bill ordered ATC to become a PBO:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...me=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/articl...le/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...e/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 ....

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?