[thorn bird]

wholeheartedly agree with Mr DeStoop's statements.

It beggars belief why?  considering the traffic volumes in Australia that we went and jumped the gun on the rest of the world, especially the one place where almost all our avionics and aircraft are derived from and also has the highest volume of GA aircraft.

Aircraft and avionics manufacturers are currently not even considering ADSB "Fixes", and why should they? Australia makes up about 0.00001 of their market, if we are that stupid we want to be the first in the world why should they expend their capital?

I'm told the cost benefit studies allegedly constructed by CAsA to justify ADSB are completely flawed, the imaginary benefits for airlines a Myth, and GA was not even considered in the equation.

So who made the decision and why?

When you tie in the Houston article one starts to smell a rat.

Quote:
Ms Staib said her bonus, for her performance in 2013-14, was "linked to delivery of industry supported outcomes" including "the successful introduction of advanced technology along with new infrastructure and services".

Yup, there it is, as my old Pappy used to say, "Want a reason? look for the money"

America which at any one time has about 6000 aircraft in the air across a country the approximate size of Australia, and that doesn't include all the VFR traffic.
ASA boast we control, hell read it somewhere, 17% or something of the worlds airspace, where we are responsible for  about 300 aircraft, on a busy day,

Couldn't it could be said "why the hell did we need ADSB?"

Exactly what are the cost benefits to the GA industry?

To me it seems all cost with no benefit.

But ASA managers reap a nice benefit.

Hefty bonuses, in Ms Staib's case a hundred grand, hell I wouldn't mind earning half that for the year.

Seems like the so called cost benefit analysis heaped all the costs on industry and all the benefits on ASA managers.

What a nice little earner.