Two weeks to comment...or lose $17,000 USD

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:09:58 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in :


Larry, that is an excellent comment.

Thank you. One of the readership of this newsgroup was kind enough to
point out a misspelling, and I'm sure there are other issues with my
comment given my limited research into the subject, but thanks for the
kind words.

That is why having many people provide their viewpoints is so imporatnt
since I do see all the problems with this NPRM.

There is only one nit with your summary:

Summary:

The sole advantage will be ATC's positional information of GA aircraft
in areas lacking radar coverage, and on the ground.

My discussions with FAA ADS folks is that the currently planned
coverage for ADS-B ground units is only to meet the same coverage
provided by radars today. Thus there will be no improvement in the
mountain areas and many places in the USA just a thousand or so feet
AGL.

That is disappointing. I was hoping there might be a chance of ADS-B
assisting in separating high-speed low-level military aircraft
operating on MTRs from GA flights, or other GA aircraft operating
below current radar coverage in remote areas.

My gut feeling is, that this NPRM is an attempt to address the runway
incursion issue, and that ADS-B information would be used to augment
or replace radar information about the location of aircraft on the
airport surface.


One concern I have is that the NPRM, if changed, may be to force
complete ADS-B (In and Out) functionality. That will make it more
expensive for thinsg that I do not need.

Can you imagine the FAA proposing a NPRM mandating ADS-B IN and OUT at
a cost that exceeds the value of 50% of the aircraft in the GA fleet?
They are going to have to find a less expensive solution, or face a
revolt, IMO.