Why are people ignoring the ADS-B Out NPRM?

In article ,
Newps wrote:

And for all this each GA aircraft will incur a huge cost (impossible
to accurately quanitify but possibly in the $9000 - $17000 range).

More likely a much smaller cost.

wanna bet?

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

This NPRM will mandate aircraft avionics that in my opinion offers
little to no benefit to the GA pilot, no safety improvement, may help
the airlines (not proven) and may only help the FAA save money.

Perhaps people disagree with you.

More likely people don't want to read the NPRM and are unaware of the
onerous cost for no benefit.


And for all this each GA aircraft will incur a huge cost (impossible
to accurately quantify but possibly in the $9000 - $17000 range).

More likely a much smaller cost.

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.

Personally I have no desire to pay even $1000 for something that
offers no benefit to me and for an operational concept that is flawed
and should assume Mode C transponders for GA aircraft.

Ron Lee

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.

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?

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?

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/

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 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