Sure many do, and I have bought several new cars (kept them for many years though; 15 in the case of a Mk 2 Celica) but they are not forced to buy a new car because somebody has modified the road in a way which mandates its purchase.
Peter wrote:
You need primary radar for all sorts of reasons, starting with national securityIn theory, a “neutral” country, in an age where other peoples’ nukes prevent WW3 from starting, doesn’t need to worry, but we now have terrorism, and it isn’t going to go away.
Of course the Swedish military has had primary radar all along and lots of it, particularly on the Baltic coast. But I was talking about ATC.
Timothy wrote:
Good for you. But you must also know people who like new cars just because they like them?
Sure, many/most people in fact. My point being one can spend on a new car every 3 years and complain about avionics upgrade costs, or keep the car and spend the money on the avionics. Most of us need to decide which toys we’d rather have, although I’m sure a few on the forum can afford both …. new autos/gadgets and new avionics/gadgets.
Peter wrote:
they are not forced to buy a new car because somebody has modified the road in a way which mandates its purchase.
I was simply adding to the list of reasons people upgrade their avionics, and I say that it is a valid reason.
I am starting to see aging aircraft with wire bundles that have been installed forty years ago that are on the way to becoming fire hazards and it is becoming time to remove and replace these old cable bundles.
With the cost of renewing the cables is anyone going to re-fit a KX170 or Narco AT50 ?
Peter wrote:
Sure many do, and I have bought several new cars (kept them for many years though; 15 in the case of a Mk 2 Celica) but they are not forced to buy a new car because somebody has modified the road in a way which mandates its purchase.
But the road has been modified for aviation. And your ability to use it under IFR is getting increasingly limited without upgrades. How else can things develop?
RNP and GPS approaches are major improvements. You can’t always maintain backwards compatibility.
Of course the Swedish military has had primary radar all along and lots of it, particularly on the Baltic coast. But I was talking about ATC
In the UK, ATC have a rule that a radar service cannot be offered without a primary contact.
You can’t always maintain backwards compatibility.
What would be the specific reasons for de-publishing a non RNAV1 procedure?
Peter wrote:
What would be the specific reasons for de-publishing a non RNAV1 procedure?
Flight checking costs?
