FAA releases final ADS-B Out rule setting performance standards

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Here is my pain... I operate out of KPAO, under SFO class B (4000 ft). My plane climbs at 500ft/min if i am lucky and i just had to replace my transponder so i could fly it..... to its annual! All in all this was a 3000 exercise - the plane is only worth 6000. Why do i have to get caught up in something that really is the nail in the coffin to my piloting - it really does appear to be cheaper to simply scrap the plane and call it quits

Before writing this move off as all negative, bear in mind:-
(i) the safety enhancements to air traffic that this will provide to pilots and passengers - you can't put a bottom line $ number on that.

(ii) greater air space efficiency will benefit the economics of all operators. And, how would GA folks respond if told, no you can't go to SFO anymore - its all jammed up because SFO is still relying on 1950's radar based aircraft separation?

(iii) as this gets embodied in new Avionics and snapped up by large operators, prices will come down.

(iii) - its mandatory by 2020, i.e. people have over 9 years to get with this program, that's hardly a punitive schedule for anyone now is it?

This sounds like a government way to eliminate a large percentage of the private aircraft in the sky! If you can't afford it, get out of the sky! Also, just how many small aircraft have the space to fit this equipment.

Check out navworx.com for affordable ADS-B equipment.

Dermot, I must respectfully vigorously disagree with you on each and every point that you have tried to make, to wit:

i) You can put a $ number on any supposed safety "enhancements" and it isn't pretty. Or needed. Or true. I don't know if you are a pilot or not. But if you are, my first question would be "do you feel any safer when you call flight service and try to get local info from a briefer a thousand miles from your local situation when he only reads you reports?" No thinking pilot does!

ii)How does the so-called "air space efficiency" benefit the GA pilot in Galion OH that wants to fly to Carroll County airport for pancake breakfast fly-in? And tell me about the airspace around all the airports like Cleveland Hopkins that you had better not penetrate even the slightest no matter what time of the day or night when there isn't even a plane within 200 miles. Feel safer?

iii)Prices only come down with huge volumes of production and consumption in any kind of mfg. You must know that. OR SHOULD! I don't know off of the top of my head how many GA planes fly in the US, but it is not that many to radically affect the price of these demanded changes, I assure you. AND ANY PERSON W/ COMMON SENSE KNOWS THAT!

IIII) JUST BECAUSE IT IS 10 YEARS AWAY DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T CARE. The reason it is ten years away is because they can't do it now technologically. If they could, they would!

Older people will recall when Kennedy announced his plan to reach the moon in a decade (ten years.) And they recall the full force of the gov't and the billions and billions of dollars and man-hours to achieve it. Can anyone think that this program is worthy of such an effort and expense when the only outcome is supposed "safety enhancements?" Only a politician, bureaucrat or power hungry agenda driven person whose goal is far different than the one stated in this instance. The real results will be along the lines of reduced freedom for GA pilots - and GA in general, - more centralized control and regulations, much less business travel using GA, all with only a marginal, if any, improvement in safety.

I hope that you reflect on some of these comments and revise your beliefs and statements.

Regarding your first contention, you seem to have overlooked the fact that military operations are exempt from mandatory ADS-B compliance, so NextGen will do nothing to mitigate the threat military operations pose, like the November 16, 2000 Ninja flight of two F-16s that blasted through congested terminal airspace at 500 knots without benefit of the required ATC clearance and disintegrated an ATP rated GA pilot and his Cessna 172 in the resulting mid air collision. Only a fool would consider an ATC system that exempted 1/3rd of the aircraft operating in it as a 'safety enhancement.'

Further, satellite based ATC is subject to periods of complete failure during coronal mass ejection events by our sun, so ground-based backup systems will still necessary for any satellite based system.

Additionally, when ATC becomes dependent on positional data transmitted by each aircraft, it no longer has empirical data to verify the position of the aircraft. It's easy to see how this can lead to safety hazard issues, or worse, intentionally spoofed position reporting by rogue flights ...

The entire NextGen boondoggle needs to be reexamined. As it is, it's just a corporate mandate for corporate benefit at the expense of tax payers, pilots and the flying public.

LDighera@att.net

This new ruling effectively transfers a lot of the cost of the ATC system to the aircraft owners/users. The benefit to GA is minimal yet this ADS B system opens the possibility of collecting user fees and fines, and taxes. In addition to collection of “fees” the ability to track an aircraft anywhere there is ADS B coverage which can be a security and privacy issue especially for corporate operators as this information will be public. GPS can be shut down and has been in the past and can also be jammed or interfered with in some respect by man or natural event. This system needs amendments and has not been well thought out.

I have yet seen a credible analysis that shows any safety benefits, and "efficiency" analysis I've read have been very subjective. The fundamental flaw with ADS is that to realize the benefits all aircraft have to be equiped. There is no 'incremental gain for incremental cost'. It is not a question of "is it worth it" because at any cost there isn't any evidence the sytsem will be better. What is most outdated are FAA policies and operating methods, even more outdated than the technoloyg. Consider that FAA expansion of positive control airpsace, mandates for TCAS, etc. has not reduced the number of collisions. As to efficiency, the FAA practice of "funneling" creates choke points in the sytsem, more than outdated technology, and you don't need ADS for "free flight" to work I could do it with VORs if the FAA would let me.
By the way, checked out navworx.com and sorry, it's non-TSOed so not going to meet the FAA requirements.